Nutz

Wow! That gives me some hope that all weapons will be available to mods too, so we don't have to rely on the MTA team's judgment of what weapons are "too dangerous". Maybe they'll even leave weapon.dat alone. It will be refreshing to have guns that actually kill players instead of the sanitized cartoon damage of 0.5. That's the most encouraging thing I have heard from MTA since 0.3 came out.

It's great to see that swift progress, and even better to see the Hydra missles synced! But don't get your hopes up for that being in the released version. After all they took the spaz out of VC because it was too big bad and scary. We can't have any weapons that actually inflict damage Actually it's really hard to hit something moving in 3d space. Even if heat seeking is somehow synced it should be fairly hard to get a hit with someone who is trying to evade/fight.

The Andromeda is the large four engine jet modeled after the Lockheed C-5. It is the plane you jump out of in one of the missions. It isn't flyable in game normally but you can spawn one with cheat devices or pc mods. The vehicle model is oddly 1:2 scale so it appears roughly the same width and length as the AT-400. Unlike the AT-400 you can enter it from ground level. As for flying the hydra, I strongly recommend a gamepad with analog sticks. Your laptop probably has numpad keys overlaying regular keys accessible with function+numlock.

I've been playing SA on pc for a few days now and I am in love with the Hydra. Not only does it go fast and have weapons but it is incredibly fun to fly. I would like to see a game mode like this: Spawn 30 Hydras (15 at Las Venturas airport and 15 at Los Santos Airport) Spawn 2 Andromedas (one at each airport) Spawn some choppers and cars at a central "spectators" spawn. The Hydras would have a fuel meter and when the fuel runs out the engines cut out (just like when you reach maximum altitude). You can refuel them by flying close to an andromeda. It should take 15 seconds or so to fully fuel a Hydra. The Andromedas would not have a fuel meter. There would be refueling areas in each airport for ground refueling. An area one mile north and south of the landmass would be a "safe" area where anyone who shoots down an Andromeda dies or gets kicked. You could still shoot down hydras anywhere without penalty. The gameplay could be either team objective or deathmatch. try to shoot down as many opponent Hydras as possible without dying yourself. No parachutes! An alternate team objective mode would be escorting one of the Andromedas (or an AT-400) from a safe zone out in the ocean to a safe landing (or vice versa) Another twist would be to substitute Rustlers and Nevadas for the Hydras and Andromedas. Can you imagine a 30 player dogfight? That would be crazy fun!

Please don't limit the play area. Leave it up to server admins to set any limits (or none). One of the unique thins about gtasa is the huge map and immersive environment. Please don't ruin that with artificial limitations. If you want to put all the cars/weapons/spawns in one area fine but don't limit movement. Especially now that we have vast skies and oceans to work with. In particular, anything involving airplanes will greatly suffer from limited play areas.

I've played it on pc and the controls are different than previous versions. It diddn't take long to find a controller set up that works well though. Actually now that I have the controls sorted out it I like it much better than the previous versions.

I noticed the altimiter is still reading in tenths of a meter without a decimal point. Not a big deal (it's great to have it regardless of the units) but it should be easy to fix. Same with feet.

Ok, I think we misunderstood each other. I am not proposing disabling crc checks. That would be very bad. I'm proposing having the client decide wether "mta" cooked weapon.dat or the Rockstar weapon.dat based upon a server configuration option. I think versions 0.3 and before used the Rockstar version and only in version 0.4 did mta start using their own. Any modifications to either of those files would not be permitted.

That comment is totally out of line. I assume you would not want classic game mode on your server but don't try to equate an UNmodified weapon.dat with cheating. If it were possible for an official release to be considered cheating it would be by using weapon.mta (which turns down damage!) not the other way around!

But that is a slippery slope. We've been through this many times before. Fix one glitch and you make one group happy and another pissed off. MrBump's reference to massive warping makes me wonder if this is being optimized for dialup. When we play in 0.3, people are switch glitching, jumping and probably crouching all over the place and I don't see any significant warping. I never have to guess where they are unless they are on dialup and/or have a high ping. The exception is when they get knocked down and keep running until they snap back to the position they fell at. We are all used to dealing with that. If you're going to make a classic game mode, make it just like 0.3, don't try to fix any glitches or one group or another will complain.

Just to be clear, I'm NOT advocating making it like Single Player, as in the way the weapons affect npc's. All I am asking for is an option to have the same gameplay (damage and glitches) as 0.3, but with the improved stability, aiming and other features of 0.5.x. I'm not surprised that there are different opions amongst the team, as there certainly are among the players. While you were out there were some very heated debates about which glitches to fix/not fix and what the damage should be for various weapons. Even discussion about what weapons to include (spaz). I would like to see a "classic deathmatch" game mode that is like 0.3 (but with the improvements in stability and aiming) and a new deathmatch game mode using the gta3 style weapon spawn/purchase system and any balancing/glitch fixes that work. That way everyone could be happy and no more arguments over glitches and damage.

The single player game yes. If people want everything as close to single player as possible then we would of course have to give you, the player, similar hitpoints to an NPC to reflect this, meaning 2 colt 45 shots would kill you. MTA Instagib anyone? What some of us would like is weapon.dat to remain unchanged, just like in 0.3. How hard would it be to have a server side option to choose between original and balanced?

The problem is that there will never be an agreement on what to do with weapon.dat. Not even close. That's why I am suggesting a server side option for two possibilities: "original" and "balanced". "Original" is an obvious choice as it is the way the game was meant to be played. "Balanced" could be some attempt at balancing and or deglitching weapons for those who want that.

Which do you prefer, original or modified weapon.dat? If you want to see a survey, go look at ASE throughout the day. There has been a dramatic drop in players on US servers while 0.4-0.5 has been out, and much less of a drop in Europe (maybe even a slight increase). Obviously a generalization that doesn't apply to everyone but that doesn't mean we should ignore the obvious reigonal differences in what players want.

Ok, first you say take the stubby out, then you say make it like 0.3. There is no question that the most powerful weapon in 0.3 is the stubby, and without it there wouldn't be much point in going back to 0.3. My point is I like weapon.dat the way it is in single player, where you shoot someone once or twice and they DIE. Maybe this is a cultural difference. Many European players seem to prefer their weapon.dat wattered down or "balanced" while many American players prefer it at full power the way R* intended it to be (and without any other tinkering to "fix" glitches). Could we have a server side option for original, completely unmodified weapon.dat and "balanced, deglitched" weapon.dat to better serve the reigonal needs of our players? That would be the simplest solution to the endless bickering over weapon strength and glitches. The server admin sets the weapon.dat mode (or maybe even pushes it to clients!) so those who want purity (0.3) can have it on the newest engine and those who want the tinkered version can have that.

While I look forward to see what the next release will be like, a growing number of us are playing 0.3 again. It is amazing how much better the gameplay is with the unmolested weapon.dat. It's easier to kill, easier to be killed and the fight dynamics are much more intense. Best of all, it's just like GTA but with multi player. I don't know what game mta 0.5 is trying to be but it sure as hell isn't GTA multiplayer. If only we had the action of 0.3 with the stability of 0.5.

It's never too early to start coding with IPv6 in mind and it usually involves minor changes. I realize that right now it's not a priority but eventually it will be (and maybe sooner than you think) The earlier you make it compatible the less retrofit you will have to do later on.

It doesn't have to. Notation standard is to collapse a long string of zeroes into just :: A server would typically be on a subnet like 2001:db8:1234:5678::/64 It is perfectly acceptable to manually assign the host id instead of using automatically generated EIU-64 numbers (based on mac address). In fact in the real world server addresses are almost always manually assigned. So a typical address might be 2001:db8:1234:5678::12 where 2001:db8:1234 is the global portion of the address, 5678 is the site subnet and 12 is the host id. the :: replaces a long string of zeroes that fill out the address. If the site/host uses zero instead of 5678 for the site subnet id it would be even more compact: 2001:db8:1234::12 This is the typical length of address you see for servers in the real world and is not much longer than a typical ipv4 address. In addition for now most addresses will have 2001 as the first 16 bits which is easy to remember. Finally, even if the addresses were cumbersome, aids like ASE mean you don't have to work directly with addresses. For blacklisting, you would only ever worry about the first 64 bits so wors case would be 2001:0db8:1234:5678::/64 However, since most client pc's will have eiu-64 host id's you could block based on the last 64 bits and even if they get a new isp/subnet you still know who they are.

My initial testing with udp6 is that it is always slightly faster (lower latency) than udp4, even over tunneled connections. It would be great to see mta support it. All of my servers are IPv6 connected now. The best mode of operation would be dual stack, where the server process accepted connections simultaneously on ipv4 and ipv6 for the same game instance.

http://www.3l33t.org/mta/watchdog.sh set the correct paths and run in the background.

This poll is an attempt to summarize where the community is on the whole stubby/nade/molly animation glitch problem. If we assume that fixing one glitch and leaving another is unacceptable, we are left with three solutions: - All animation glitches are fixed (this will force you to stand still after firing subby and prevent molly/nade spamming) - No animation glitches are fixed (0.3 gameplay) - Stubby, mollys and nades are removed from game Please don't turn this into a heated rehash of your positions, let your vote do the talking. If this thread gets out of hand I will ask that it be locked so let's get as much good data in the poll as possible before that happens.

Option 'c' which is easiest to implement would not make random locations but add it to crusader. Can you agree with that? One motivation for this thread is to have a set of agreeable improvements that will help regardless of what they do with the animation glitches. There was only one objection to spaz, and that ammounted to "everyone will use it all the time" which I don't think is a widespread occurrance and would be mitigated by a difficult pickup location.

That is for the other threads. Actually I'm going to start a poll to try to get a feel for where the community is on that.

Except you went on to basically agree with most of the first post (except you want stubby power reduced from default), right? This thread is not about weapon switching, only the specific suggestions in the first post.

Those are good ideas but in this thread I'm trying to get a rough consensus on the specific suggestions in the first post. It sounds like it's actually a strong consensus on most points. One of the problems related in the respect thread was that they have a hard time determining exactly what we want because there isn't one voice summarizing the opinions. Since I realize we cannot come to an agreement on all of the animation glitch problems, I decided to gather a consensus on some ideas we do mostly agree on. These are suggestions that would be easy to implement in the forthcoming client patch. That's not to say these are the only things that need to be fixed or that they are the best way to fix them, but if we can agree that these easy fixes would be good for all then maybe, just maybe they will happen and we will be better off than without them.