https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Mission_Presentation

Selected a different role slot and got this:

_leader = _possibleLeaders select 0;
_leader setvariable ["BIS_HC_scope",_log>
20:54:49   Error position: <_leader setvariable ["BIS_HC_scope",_log>
20:54:49   Error Undefined variable in expression: _leader

In as_traidor.sqf the penalty for ignoring the mission is losing 1/3 of your HR and money.

  if (dateToNumber date > _fechalimnum) then
    {
    _hrT = server getVariable "hr";
    _resourcesFIAT = server getVariable "resourcesFIA";
    [-1*(round(_hrT/3)),-1*(round(_resourcesFIAT/3))] remoteExec ["resourcesFIA",2];
    }

See https://github.com/acemod/arma-project-template

One of the core mechanics that goes on in the background is the AAF resource pool - destroying tanks, APCS, roadblocks, outposts, factories etc means the AAF spends resources to replace them. This is not obvious on first playthroughs so you don't even realize that just blowing up AAF stuff is a decent strategy.

The only feedback right now that tells you "blowing up AAF is gud b/c they're spending money just like you to replace it" is the "intel found" random event at flags.

Culprits include

• PKM Mags
• SVD Mags
  (and others)

PDU is a AFRF binocular. XLA Fixed Arsenal appears to have an issue with it.

Since you can't control AI with ACE anymore, this is a problem.

23:45:08 "primary: ; items: ["""","""","""",""""]; secondary: "
23:45:08 "lost cover: B Alpha 1-2:4"
23:45:08 Inventory item with given name: [] not found
23:45:11 "unit undercover: B Alpha 1-2:3"
23:45:11 "primary: ; items: ["""","""","""",""""]; secondary: "
23:45:11 "lost cover: B Alpha 1-2:3"
23:45:11 Trying to add inventory item with empty name to object [Rifleman]
23:45:11 Inventory item with given name: [] not found```


```23:45:28 "unit undercover: B Alpha 1-2:2"
23:45:28 "primary: rhs_weap_svds; items: ["""","""",""rhs_acc_pso1m2"",""""]; secondary: rhs_weap_rpg26"
23:45:28 "lost cover: B Alpha 1-2:2"
23:45:28 Inventory item with given name: [] not found```

Pain, etc

Player Capabilities

• Short range small arms - AK74U, Makarov, etc (Tier 1)
• Medium range automatic small arms - AK74M (Tier 2)
• Long range small arms - SVD (Tier 3)
• Long range optics for small arms - (Tier 4)
• Squad automatic weapons - (Tier 3)
• Grenades - (Tier 2)
• Low-tier AT/AA launchers - (AV Tier 2)
• Guided AT launchers - (AV Tier 3)
• Guided AA launchers - (AV Tier 3)
• AT mines/static explosives - (AV Tier 1)
• NVGs - (Nightfighting capability)
• Silencers (?) - (Unsure, tier depends on how much this affects AI)
• Rangefinder (?) - (AV Tier 3)
• UAV - (Tier 4)
• Grenade launcher - (Tier 3)
• Personal armor (chest/head) - (Tier 4)
• 50 caliber - mounted or static - (Tier 4, AV Tier 2)
• Heavily armed technicals - AA, AT - (AV Tier 3)
• Unarmed helicopters - (High squad mobility capability)
• Light artillery (mortar) - (Tier 4)
• Heavy artillery (howitzer, 100mm+) (Too powerful? Is the current system (NATO-only) balanced?)

Tier 1 - Can only take down isolated patrols at short range
Tier 2 - Can only take down patrols at long range - roadblocks become viable but difficult targets
Tier 3 - Larger firefights become viable. Now have decent long range (400-800m) capability.
Tier 4 - Can take down most unarmored targets with efficiency.

AV Tier 1 - Can take down armored targets, but only statically. Ambush only.
AV Tier 2 - Can take down most vehicle targets, but with difficulty. Low anti-armor capability. Mostly ambushes.
AV Tier 3 - Can take down most armored targets with efficiency.

Stealable/non-purchasable capabilities

(Maybe have stuff spawn at bases like tanks, w/e as a reward for capture?)

Could provide a better sense of progress by increasing capturable zones/towns, with the additional areas being far easier to capture

http://www.a3antistasi.com/forum/m/38173738/viewthread/29059386-garrison-units-at-hq-cause-player-to-lose-undercover-mode-in-vehicle-spotted-far-from-roads/page/1/post/last

Need to https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/joinSilent to Petros when spawning FIA units.

It's completely cosmetic right now, which is not a problem. However, it's also very boring and opaque.

Options:

• Add more ranks
• Use a non-linear curve to determine points-to-next-rank
• Make the level values and means of leveling up transparent
• Tie secondary cosmetic options to player rank (#38)
• Couple player rank to gameplay mechanics
• Give the player freebies for having high ranks
• Add a ladder and make it a side-competition
• Modify mission rewards via player rank
• Modify AAF or FIA capability by player rank

Caveats:

• Any alteration to the Rank system that affects the gameplay systems (i.e. if rank becomes mechanically significant) should be implemented carefully and will have secondary effects that may not be obvious until hours into a game.

You get this if you load a save from pre-arsenal overhaul.

arma3_2016-12-01_20-52-0.txt

(Error is super long and makes this input field lag)

Maybe minor but save-breaking is something to be watchful of.

Example - like 23 different as val mag sizes

The current distance requirement for no enemy units to take actions (garrison, fast travel, undercover) feels too large in some cases.

It makes sense for Fast Travel, (does it?) since it's kind of a "cheaty" way to get around from place to place and currently only allows you to move between places already completely under FIA control.

Not being able to add garrisoned units when there are enemies nearby feels oddly restrictive and may only be because the garrison would likely get killed before making it there. (??)

Missions are firefight generators - so they should gen different kinds of firefights.

Example: varying distances, terrain, supporting units.

Seems to happen when some status changes?

"MIDI controller for Antistasi"

There's difference in opinions on whether gameplay variables should be centralized, or exposed and local. Centralizing everything can become confusing when the variables are out of context. Local can be tedious when you want to make changes.

This would also make having multiple game modes easy to implement. It makes testing way easier, more importantly.

https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Side_relations

It's ugly AF

• RHS GREF (required)
• Incognito Alpha 7 (inlined)
• Liability Insurance (inlined)
• ASR AI or similar
• HETMAN or ALIVE
• CUP Weapons (too much?)
• Rank patches http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=26316
• R3F Logistics
• Incon Airpower

http://killzonekid.com/arma-scripting-tutorials-locality/

In line with principles for the Space Hunnies rework of Antistasi, a lot of the negative feedback to player choices should be either removed/reduced or heavily counterbalanced by much stronger rewards.

In general the balance of Vanilla Antistasi punishes you heavily for any poor choice by requiring to schlepp around the island for an additional 30-60 minutes, or lose resources equivalent to that amount of time.

The idea is to encourage the player to do well and make doing well feel rewarding, but make the punishment for failure obvious in itself without needing to slap the player with -10 HR -$1000 penalties (as an example).

Hype the cool shit.

• Any mission type which requires an external circumstance cannot be requested (e.g. Convoy, Supply Recovery, Traitor). Failure consequences are high.
• Mission types which require external circumstances spawn randomly and often - perhaps 3-4 active at one time, and consequences for not attempting the mission should be low but painful (think of how XCOM implements this - not doing missions increases a disorder resource).

Possible leftover from persistent save?

Give the players more time to set up an ambush

Choosing to do/not to do a mission is meaningless if you don't know the consequences.

Driver just drives in circles. Should get out and fight.

Sometimes AI get back in the truck, even when driver is ded.