Why warfare fails as a game mode

[pogoman979 10]

I thoroughly enjoyed warfare in arma1 but in arma2 it was awful by comparison. Never really figured out why

[katipo66 94]

Why is this an A3 topic?

As the OP says, he believes it relates to A3

All improvements are welcome, including Warfare...

[EricM 0]

I love warfare... (Though admittedly the custom versions like benny's)

It's a great game mode for you to get in and get out. Not he most teamplay inducing (though it can be, and for the best). But I love the base building and strategy elements added to the FPS.

Sorry to be in the minority...

[CameronMcDonald 146]

I was talkign about the fact that most RGP and CG type weapos dont have a range of 1500m like in ArmA...but more off 300-500 with massive drop.

In reality (lol wuz dat) the lighter RPG rounds turn into the wind so much it can be hard to hit anything less than barn-sized. Currently you can drop them on a dime.

[rye1 21]

Especially if someone whistles or sneezes.

[Pyronick 21]

What I find annoying about Warfare is that the interface is awkward to use. I like the APP-6 symbols for military units though, but it is hard to steer both a normal team and then a few groups seperately.

Also, when static defenses are placed and their AI gunners are KIA it seems as if the gun is rendered useless. There should be an option that repairs the static defenses and occupies the gun with personnel.

And what I have noticed is that if I change an AI team from infantry to mechanized infantry and give them an APC/IFV that the infantry does not load up the APC/IFV.

I still think it has potential but it currently feels as if it just came with the game and did not get any attention afterwards.

[Haystack15 10]

Well For the Warfare game mode, I did what most soldiers will sometimes say.

"It's all for the money!"

[joehunk 10]

I actually love warfare. I think most of the complaints in the OP can distill down to "the AI in Arma 2 is pretty bad", and in free-form formats like Warfare, that's true. As far as the byzantine economy or not feeling the effects of a town cap quickly enough, those either never bothered me or were addressed in some of the many user-made variants of Warfare that were available in Arma 2.

And as far as it not feeling like a "sim"...that I *really* didn't care about. There were "realistic" scenarios and scenarios that were less realistic but more gameplay oriented. And a nice spectrum in between. This to me was fine. I actually liked the accurately simulated gameplay layered on top of an FPS/RTS-style scenario.

[hellfire257 3]

If you're looking for balance then you're just doing it wrong IMO. Balance the costs, yes, but not the units themselves.

[wipman 1]

Hi, in my opinion the Warfare MP missions are a fail because:

- It's (IMO) a bad try to bring the RTS to a FPS.

- The AI is the A Not I.

- The system/menus are as complex as basic and comfuse.

- It's one of the most boring MP missions/modes that i've ever seen.

Those are the main reasons why i think and see Warfare as a failure and a boring and pointless thing that i've always try to avoid as ArmA and ArmA2 player. Let's C ya

[mrcash2009 0]

Note, all information is being collated from this thread with login information and I.P trace data by Mike Melvin, he's coming to hunt you down.

:butbut:--

[hellfire257 3]

I do prefer Cleanrock's CTI from what I've played since the AI are (strategically) better, however I do feel that Warfare, since it is so dynamic, is and will only be whatever you make of it yourself.

[nkenny 1057]

If you're looking for balance then you're just doing it wrong IMO. Balance the costs, yes, but not the units themselves.

We're back to economics.

How does the price difference of +/-$25 AKS-74 vs a AKS-74 Kobra make any meaningful difference? Or if a crewman costs $75 but a soldier $125 (both have similar capabilities)

Aside from AI improvements, I think the background economics need a thorough shakdown. Not unlike a RTS games economics need to be fairly straightforward and transparent.

-k

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Haven't checked the mission, but setSkill array could be used by the mission to make a crewman different from a rifleman.

[nkenny 1057]

Does a skill difference of +25% contribute any measurable consequential improvement to soldier performance? Enough to put a 1-100$ price tag on. I doubt it.

In many of the Warfare edits I've played, some of which take on nearly frankensteinian aspects in an effort to include every weapon/unit/animal included in arma2, besides hurting immersion this also means that 'Tier3' typically include Special Forces type AI. Hello? Once the game has reached Tier3 how will a dude with satchel charges and an assault rifle going to make an impact (beyond immense ai micro-management)-- all available at inflated prices.

Increased price mean nothing unless players make consequential, tactical, and INFORMED choices.

-k

[hellfire257 3]

The way I see it is that Warfare takes on the sandbox approach so really anything is plausible. I agree that it needs some tweaks, but I think we're looking too deep into it to be honest. I'm sure this subject was debated by BIS when making Warfare back in Armed Assault and I think what we have now serves as a fairly good compromise onto which people have built their own Warfare edits to cater to their individual tastes.

[Don Camillo 10]

ImO, Warfare itself isn't a real Fail. Though i invested lots of time into

editing and playing it i found out following:

Played on public, it's inflatonary. after 90 Minutes only Choppers are in the Air.

From this point, everything is chaotic - no longer plannable. The Gameplay is

somehow running away from the Player, wich than is just REacting instead of

acting. US are going for TUSKS, OPFOR for Kamov/Tunguska.

Booooooooring ;P

The Reasons in my Opinion for that are:

The economics are somehow inverted: The more Towns you have seized,

the Income raises. Thats wrong. More towns should mean a Higher consumption

of Supplies. Therefore a Commander should be able to decide, how much supply

is stored in Town, and the loss of Town must result in loosing the Supply.

Only the holding of Keytowns with Harbours and Airfields should increase the

Rate of (Supply) Income. The Base should have a Basic Supplyvalue, wich

can be distributed to Towns. Adding 100 Supplypoints to a Town,

should decrease the Bases Value by 1000.

Means you got to bring in 1000 Supplypoints from a keytown again,

to be able to distribute it further on. Keyword: supplyroutes.

Also magically producing a Tank or a Chopper from supply is stupid.

The comm should have to order specific weaponary to a specific Point.

For example an Airfield allows you to bring in 3 HeavyTanks/Hour, while a Harbour can do 30 HeavyTanks/Hour.

That makes it impossible to magically save tons of supply, wich is not attackable. Try to Hide 30 Tanks .... ;)

Money is useless. Give the Comm the ability to assign the available

Vehicleamount to the Players. So nobody is able to "waste" his ressources.

A second Keypoint would be the ability to have persistent Games, that can last

much longer. That longer the Game, that higher is the Strategic Component.

Planning an Assault to an enemy Town, will need some preperations like Troop

and Supplymovement to strategic Towns.

Hugh. :)

[hellfire257 3]

Well put. I agree with that.

[kotov12345 10]

Booooooooring ;P

Hugh. :)

+1 but problem that who will make new map balanced and logical ?

Most playble map now looks like official arma2 sp map as base added many many many features and keep idea same.

Imho to connect money and weapons in one map is bad idea.You can play C&C or warcarft with this idea but when you got such complex game as arma things became different.

The 2 big problems why we have only air attack vehicles: Models and AIs.

Game have very big advantage with attack air vehicles to compare with ground and due to complexity of islands AI are unreliable.

[tsb247 0]

I have always been under the impression that the warfare game modes needed to be bigger. Rather than havingthe player manage everything themselves as a commander, often thought it would be better to have them simply be a cog in the machine.

I had some nice ideas for warfare a while back in another thread.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=119359

It has been my opinion for quite a while that the idea behind the warfare scenarios should be to simulate and entire battlefield - not necessarily create a, "Team vs. team," scenario.

[Pummel 10]

Here is my opinion.

Firstly, Warfare does not fail. It is one of my favourite game modes, and I would not still be playing this game without it. I only play BE and Gossamer's, and whether I buy Arma 3 is entirely dependent on whether I will be able to get a similar kind of experience.

It is not perfect though. I find that it has become very boring early on, when you have no money. I jump on my motorcycle and spend 5 minutes driving. There is no autorun/autodrive and the AI is too slow to rely on. It's a lot of slow tedious travel and then the firefights in towns have started to lose their attraction to me. Shooting people at very range is silly, often having to aim my rifle so high, it's like I'm aiming it at the moon. It still has it's moments though, but overall it's a bit boring. This could be tweaked by the modders though. I think transport choppers should be a far bigger part of the game. Flying a small squad of guys in, and landing just behind a mountain near a town, I find really exciting and far more fun than driving there in a crappy little car or bike.

When you can afford tanks, they offer some fun, but they are painfully slow too. Driving along roads is just suicide for the most part. To be a good player with a tank, you should really spend most of your time in the mountains. That way you are harder to spot and shoot at, and you are looking down on all your enemies which is the only way to shoot stuff from range. Sadly, driving up mountains is painfully boring and slow. Again though, this could easily be tweaked. Make transport choppers cheaper and bring them in to the game easier, and maybe give people cash incentives for transporting team mates around.

It seems to me that the only real payoff for all your hard work, is buying a chopper or jet. They are a LOT of fun, and it makes playing for many hours of hard work, worthwhile.

Some of what the OP says I think is true, and there are things I would like to see improved too, like the way gunships choppers can't really kill men and sometimes the missiles are so unreliable etc. But we should be trying to improve it not just calling it a failure and picking apart all the things that aren't so great. With a bit of tweaking it could be amazing, and it's also totally unique to Arma. There are no other FPS's that even come close to this kind of scale and depth - in map size, variety of gear, and controlling squads.

I have BF3 on pre-order, because I think it will be more fun if I only have an hour or two to spend. But if I want to spend a whole afternoon, nothing really beats a good CTI game, when I start as a grunt and end up blowing up tanks with my KA50 or whatever.

Warfare fails simply because it isn't a team game.

It is a team game, and sometimes people play well as a team and it makes it great. If that does not happen, it's more of a fault of the people playing and not the game itself.

you respawn all the time without any penalties.

There is a cash penalty on most servers. When you die you have to re-buy all your gear again, so dying is expensive, and it also usually means you have to travel all the way back to the front line again. So I don't see a problem with any of this. Again, I think the modders could do stuff to help the situation though. But on one hand people are complaining that the AI sucks, and at the same time complaining that people don't team up. That makes no sense. People should drive a tank and have a team mate as the gunner, problem solved. If that doesn't happen enough, then we should find a way to fix that.

And of course everyone just runs around randomly doing whatever they want.

That's freedom. Again if you want that to change, then make a clan or something. It's not the game's fault. If you want people to be forced to do specific stuff and not be able to run around and fight where they want, then you may as well play BF3 or CoD or something.

Even grindy MMOs have more balance and teamwork.

As others have said, it's not meant to be balanced, it's meant to be a wargame. I don't see balance as a big problem. Both teams have their pros and cons, and balance between gear is not an issue. An Apache is always going to wup you in a tank, and that's just like real life.

Edited September 19, 2011 by Pummel

[nkenny 1057]

@Pommel:

So what you are saying is that you do not bother purchasing AI because the effort of micromanaging them fails to produce effective battlefield results. Though you recognize the expensive $ cost of dying, the main incentive to avoid death is to avoid is the long ride back to the combat zone. Finally to get rid of the unit inconsistencies you acknowledge the necessecity for conflig level updates to unit/weapon/vehicle profiles.

I'm glad that we are in such agreement. Where we differ is our opinions on what sharing tanks with fellow players or features like cash rewards for transport pilots relate to the Warfare gametype. I respectfully submit that if you wish to ninja around in a cash based gamemode without the burden of AI command; play DAO Valhalla*.

Warfare should be about looking further than setting up your own gear. Warfare is about commanding a squad in action as its performance relates to the general strategy set by your commander.

-k

[Pummel 10]

Yes. I agree with most of what you say. My only concern is that I want more people to play CTI. I would like for us to help it improve, not just talk about all the bad bits.

you do not bother purchasing AI because the effort of micromanaging them fails to produce effective battlefield results.

In CTI yes, I don't use them very much, and definitely not after I can buy my own tank. My main issue with the AI, is that there are so many commands (using the number keys) that it can be tricky to get them to do complex things like "find cover" and "scan the horizon" etc.. if you can't remember exactly where that command was. It would be nice if the AI took care of itself a bit better. For example, when under fire, I shouldn't have to tell them to go prone, they should just do that by themselves. And then if I want to force them to do something, I would like all those commands in one menu, or on a "radial menu" or something. (hold a key and all the commands appear and I can just click one)

For general usage though I think they are fine. They get in and out of vehicles ok and they follow me around just fine. I would rather have them with me than not, when I am assaulting a town on foot etc.

Though you recognize the expensive $ cost of dying, the main incentive to avoid death is to avoid is the long ride back to the combat zone.

Yes death is painful on some servers. On some servers it is not. But that is just a server rule thing, not really something we should be bothering BIS with.

get rid of the unit inconsistencies you acknowledge the necessecity for conflig level updates to unit/weapon/vehicle profiles.

I am not sure what you mean by unit inconsistencies? I find it all very consistent already and very well balanced.

The only thing I would change is the 'pacing' of the game. I would actually prefer to spend longer with AI soldiers, but that generally is not worthwhile. Not only do they take a lot of micromanagement, but by the time you have a few thousand dollars to spend, it's generally better to just buy a tank and start capturing towns with relative ease. And then once you have spent a while doing that, you can soon buy a gunship and then it goes in to the late stages of the game.

I personally would prefer tanks and gunships to be far more expensive. And transport choppers to be cheaper and able to be brought in to the game earlier - so that the first hour or so of CTI is a bit more action packed and fluid and better paced. There would be more people filling a blackhawk with troops and flying to a town to capture it, and more people transporting ambulances etc. Then have tanks come later, and then gunships and jets later.

That's just my opinion though.

Where we differ is our opinions on what sharing tanks with fellow players or features like cash rewards for transport pilots relate to the Warfare gametype. I respectfully submit that if you wish to ninja around in a cash based gamemode without the burden of AI command; play DAO Valhalla*.

Thanks I will try it. I do already like CTI a lot though. To me it is a great game mode because it lets you use everything. I start with rifles, I then have to use anti-tank weapons, I then use light vehicles, then heavy vehicles, then aircraft. It is all the best of Arma. I just think that it is not the most elegant and refined approach. It works ok! But I hope in the future it could become a bit more refined. I just hope the game and the game mode is successful enough that more effort will be put in to it.

Warfare should be about looking further than setting up your own gear. Warfare is about commanding a squad in action as its performance relates to the general strategy set by your commander.

-k

Yep. I find that the commander generally is just busy making the base. It would be nice if they could do a bit more. Things like the "assist 10 minutes" etc.. is nice. I never see it work though. It would be nice if warfare was a bit more team based and a bit more organised.

It could have a LOT of improvement. But still, like I said, I think it is already very good and I just wish more people would play it. The more popular it becomes, the more effort there can be to make it better. I don't know vanilla Arma very well. I am assuming that a lot of what I enjoy is thanks to Benny and Gossamer Solid. I just want more people to play so that they feel inspired to keep working, and maybe more people with talent can help them. And hopefully in Arma3, BIS will give them even better tools to work with, and less work to do to make Warfare amazing.

Edited September 20, 2011 by Pummel

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

IMO, we have enough Warfare's with plenty of options to go around.

I prefer stock mostly tho.

To a Dev..is Mr. Melvin working on any thing for A3?

[Baff1 0]

Warfare is a boring game that doesn't play to the strengths of the game engine in my opinion.

Battlezone 2 is the title you want.