Striker has been fixed.

I am not sure what you are trying to say, what your point is or what you are trying to argue.

Yes, I can compare the accuracies of two lock-on weapons, that are nearly identical in function. In fact, if the accuracies between these two nearly identical weapons, was significantly different, then I would be very interested to know why, but the accuracies are pretty much identical and that is exactly what I would expect and they are absolutely comparable.

As for different strategies using the Striker vs the Annihilator, there are no different strategies they are both lock-on weapons that target both air and ground vehicles. The strategies you would use for one are almost exactly the same you would use for the other. If I am wrong please describe a strategy that works for one and not the other.

To reiterate my point. The Annihilator and Striker are nearly identical in function and use, and in my experience with both of the weapons I am garnering approx. 70% accuracy, That 70% accuracy in both weapon systems is making me 200% more effective with the striker in terms of raw damage then the Annihilator and that is an issue that needs balanced.

all of the ArmA games do it...
i think my record kill was ~12 km in Arma 2.

(Long range MLRS volley; Distance- 11 km.)

Mine was a multi-player match base build game... 32-96 player maps with each player capable of spawning a squad of 12 AI. We plotted out the enemy base and just bombarded it to oblivion from long range before a guy flew an osprey with a squad in it for clean up. And this was on an older computer utilizing medium grade hardware from 2008-09.

The technology is there as is the hardware... so that isn't the problem...
the problem is the choices the programmers made when they started this game.

ArmA is capable of doing it because it takes a large scale engine used for simulations and downsizes it (It is literally a Vehicle Simulator Engine modified to handle infantry combat), While Planetside 2 takes a smaller scale engine used to render individual map cells of MMO's that measure of medium size then up-scaled the thing to render huge maps.

ultimately, it was the decisions of people which caused these limitations, not the lack of technology.

about time.....

Striker hasn't been fixed. It sometimes doesn't show lockon warning and continues to ignore flares...

PS: why you think most of the games have 64 players to maps where it could have alot more ppl? because the devs just want more servers running?

Funny people keep using "only 64 players" as the reason battlefield performs better when it can handle 256.

I've seen Strikers explode on terrain after being locked on before the fix. It was a sporadic bug. And I believe this bug also occurs with the Annihilator as well, so hopefully that was fixed as well.

Yeah...I've seen BF3 servers that were hacked to host 256 players and they were complete crap.

erm... not trying to defend SOE but how much servers of 256 players of BF3 have in comparasion with 64.... It have so few because need to be a freaking bulky server, or it will run like crap. Now imagine what NASA servers would be needed to handle 2000 players.

Yes.
In fact, I know that is the reason they do that.

These games do not have inherent restrictions to the maximum amount of players allowed to be in the game, and the procedural load generated for the game is housed on the Server, not on the client. But because running one of these games on an MMO dedicated server for long periods of time costs an arm and a leg, and because they are firm in the belief that 'if we force you to pay to play online, you wouldn't do either'

So they Opted to go the other way, Slicing their servers up to host Small 16-64 sized games on them for Free, then Renting Out these 'dedicated servers' to people willing to pay...

This proved so profitable that eventually this practice has evolved into its very own business model and there are now companies which hold dedicated servers farms with slots rent and use to host what ever game you want.

ArmA itself is built from the VBS Engine (virtual battle simulator) which is used by NATO and the US Army for war simulations and training exercises, rendering maps in excess of 10,000 km and capable of hosting thousands of players as well as manage OpFors, Weather Conditions, and NonComs. It is also ~$1000 for one copy of the game and it is ran on the private Server Clusters of the US Army (or their respective NATO equivalent)



PS: What happens when you take Battlefield 1942 and shove it on a dedicated Server designed to handle MMO sized loads, then like an MMO start charging subscriptions to those that want to play?

You get Planetside.

ITT: People thinking that a bug fix for the striker actually "fixes" it.
People not understanding that strikers actively navigate terrain when they lose LoS of you.

i get the feeling you don't fully understand the loads and limitations of servers, the smallest of server farms are actually very powerful.
any one of the Planetside 2 servers can manage a 2000 player BF3 match.

it is an MMO Dedicated Server cluster, it is designed specifically to handle large amounts of incoming and outgoing.

the only reason PS2 handles like crap is because the game engine is built to handle MMO's, not FPS. The Forgelight engine is ment to be the basis of Everquest next... Imagine taking World of Warcraft and converting That engine into an FPS game, exactly how well do you think That would come out?

well, Planetside 2 did just that with the Forgelight engine.

Again, that's why the technology need to improve. Better technology means cheaper technology/better used. I've even posted that is "impossible because no one have done it before"

I take one step back on that. It was done.


And even with the game being WAY simplier that's what happened.



Unstable as hell.

So you/we need to calm down and wait improvements in the server/computer techonology so we can have a STABLE 2000 players experience.

PS: And this still the "world record" so you, sir, apparently have no idea of what you are talking about.

PS2: If was "so easy" ARMA III would break this record to promote the game. And i don't see this happening.

So what you're saying is that you will finally now see your rocket flying through terrain?

Well hey, at least you won't waste peoples times with anecdotal rebuttals of widely observed and tested phenomenon... Half way to a solution, eh.

Oh then you wouldnt mind the phoenix being one hit kill again? The cooldown is stupid that you can leave the turret, repair, shoot, then come back to the turret and fire; rinse and repeat. As a heavy I cannot do anything while reloading.

If you havent noticed, this is 2013 there are alot of people who can shoot little pixels with ease.

At least we can use cover now to actually avoid the missiles but it's still OPed and completely unfair. Until they can extended the range on the Phoenix the fair and reasonable thing to do would be to decrease the range on the Striker to be more in line with what other factions capabilities are.

It never ends...the madness. SOE fixed it, but still they whine.

the Game had enough lock-on launchers before the striker was introduced, and the annihilator had been balanced around the other two lock on launchers before the introduction of the striker

i don't understand who thought that introducing a new and better lock-on launcher to the annihilator to only one faction was a good idea after the annihilator had already been nerfed

SOE's policy on weapons in similar categories stated that weapons would be "different" from each other not better... the striker is obviously better than the annihilator and this is totally messed up. I really don't understand why this has been left like this for as long as it has.

The striker should have been introduced as a type of skillshot weapon and not another lock-on. SOE for the sake of balance, should go back to the drawing board and rework the striker instead of "fixing" the bugs and continuing the pursuit of "trying to balance the striker". This weapon should have in the first place been made to be something fun that takes skill to use, not a better copy and paste of the Annihilator and they should take the time to rework it now instead of gimmicky "fixes".

It is sad that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about because it makes any sort of argument impossible to keep.

Technology isn't a Limitation any more, It is the choices the developers Make.

the Only reason, literally the Only reason, Planetside 2 Sucks at CPU management is because it is programmed utilizing Single Thread optimization. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...ross-platform-play-teases-character-transfers

The programmers utilized basic programming capabilities instead of being properly managed and directed into producing code that could be more easily multi-threaded. Because the code can not be broken down easily, your CPU has to go through every line of it before it can find the parts that are important to a specific action or event.

In Essence, the Game has to read the entire book to quote a passage on page 3.

So, This has absolutely nothing to do with the tech, and Everything to do with the Dev's.

PS- That 'World Record' is taken horribly out of context.
It is the record for basically the biggest online head to head conflict... not for the number of players on at any given moment, or the number of players in a single server.

Almost every single MOG, including Planetside 2, breaks that 'record' every single day. Waterson Alone houses ~1800 players during its peek times currently.

the 'Most Player online in a single server' belongs to World of Tanks sporting 190,541 Players on a single RU server and i believe that WoW still has the highest on average player/server. But because the worlds in these games are massive, not every player is shuffled into a 5x5 square.

PS2- Planetside 2 Breaks it every day... like i said, context.
With games like Planetside 2, and the upcoming WH40k Eternal Crusade MOGs, the sizes of the maps limit the player density. While each instance exceeds the number of players in that 'world record' all of the individuals are scattered and cluster about an entire land-mass miles apart from one another in some instances.

So, to answer your question... why doesn't Arma 3 do it?
They don't make maps that measure 1,500 meters squared....