Ebden~SPARTA~ Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 To be honest, from my experience with ArmA and ArmA II, it's hard enough just getting people to be arsed to help you with testing a mission, let alone taking on that kind of stress. We might be best suited to take the packaged AII campaign and play that coop. It'll give us a decent storyline, tested missions, and a chance to see if we can organize well enough for mission time. It's by far the easiest option to implement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Visavant Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 (edited) Here's a quick question for you, what's the hardware and connection running the Arma II server? I've got a Dell R610 with 42GB of ram running in it, dual Xeon 5570 procs, connected to a full 1gbit burst network spanning 11 ISPs that is running underutilized. Is there something I can do to help? I suppose I should chime in that I'm willing to host one of the Sparta Arma II Domi public servers (such as public east?) freely just so that I don't have to watch black hawks do mid-air cartwheels when the server is filled up. If you need to know the network, goto http://www.speedtest.net and run a test to Columbus, Ohio (Datacenter.bz) is the actual datacenter I'm in. Edited October 29, 2009 by Visavant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_1 Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 The only problem with this is it puts a HUGE (and I mean ENORMOUS) responibility on the mission makers to get the 'Next Episode' completed, tested and ready for play. I agree with Dai on this point. What we did is have three mission scripters who would alternate missions. One way to do it is to have a number, say the three we had at GR.NET and each would take it in turn to do a mission, with the first three being ready at the same time, then the next mission would have a three week lead time. There are pros and cons with this. The cons with that is that if the mission is completed quicker than expected then there would be no more missions to run that week. The pro is that people who don't have the chance to make a certain time slot can play the mission throughout the week. We might be best suited to take the packaged AII campaign and play that coop. It'll give us a decent storyline, tested missions, and a chance to see if we can organize well enough for mission time. It's by far the easiest option to implement. I thought there was a problem with the campaign missions in MP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ebden~SPARTA~ Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 I thought there was a problem with the campaign missions in MP? I haven't looked into it, but I'll take some time to check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Durka-Durka~SPARTA~ Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 The only problem with this is it puts a HUGE (and I mean ENORMOUS) responibility on the mission makers to get the 'Next Episode' completed, tested and ready for play. Yeah, totally agree. When I made that Pathfinder mission a while back ago, I was fully intent on getting at least 3 more missions finished as a part of that "storyline." You can see how far I got on that, lol. And, by the time enough people tested the mission, they had already seen how to play it and were on to something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kavlarakos~SPARTA~ Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 MP Campaign. I think that the only way to get the whole thing realized is to edit a completely new campaign. We see everyday the result what happens after finishing 8 or more towns. The whole game starts to be laggy due to too much information the server has to get along with. Deleting some dead bodies is not enough for keeping the game steady. The other thing is that I don´t know anybody who tried to save a multiplayer game with this amount of players. I mean there is a big difference in saving a coop mission with 4 players and a domination map with over lets say 15 players. I think it will cause problems of which we are even not aware that they exist. So my opinion for the whole problem is, to make a completely new campaign for multiplayer based on Domination but with smaller mission goals. So that one mission for example takes about 3-4 hours to achieve in tactical domination style, and once completed the next session will start. In this case saving the mission is not needed, but there is something like an on going storyline. It would also be possible like said before to combine several maps like Utes, Panthera and Namalsk. But as I said before the mission goals have to be reduced to lets say 2 or 3 town per mission. But in this way the mission design can be much more detailed and harder to compete. This is another point I wanted to mention. Why not make a mission that hard that there could be a possibility of being defeated in coop. The enemy wipes us out. Game over man, Game over. So that we have to play the mission again from the very beginning. I think that could bring some motivation into the gameplay. But such a thing has to be edited completely new by people from here. Nobody else will write a campaign that would fit into the style of playing played on the tac dom servers here. So now there are mission editors asked to step forward who have the experience, the time and the courage for such a project. I think it could be worth it....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halli~SPARTA~ Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 It's simple ... Drive to Ao. Get rid of Airtrans and flags then the maps will take longer the guys will need to work as a team because now we need repair, refuel and ect trucks we will need to cordinate a mob in and out , no more Bubba Joe para jumped in to next Ao and drop tower before we got there the convoy will need forward scouts it will need Anti air support and ect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ebden~SPARTA~ Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 MP Campaign. I think that the only way to get the whole thing realized is to edit a completely new campaign. We see everyday the result what happens after finishing 8 or more towns. The whole game starts to be laggy due to too much information the server has to get along with. Deleting some dead bodies is not enough for keeping the game steady. I think it could be worth it....... It's such a huge task though, echoing the points about testing the mission and getting things sorted for a mission night. Also, anything based on Domination I would avoid. Most of the Sparta servers run it and we already play dom pub, tacdom pub, tacdom private, air dom, tac-airdom (sort of), rambo-airdom, sheesh! Any campaign is only worth its salt if the accompanying story is good and if there's something more interesting for us to do than assault town after town. What about using VTS3? It's another realtime editor. I'm fading from the persistent world idea, but the practical options are to try the provided campaign in MP, or to string other pre-made missions together (lame solution), or find a mission maker working on an independent mission series, like ICON. Nobody's asked, it may be obvious, but what happens if we put a SP campaign in the MP folder, like Chesty Puller? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts