Why warfare fails as a game mode

[5LEvEN 11]

I agree with most if not all the things said. But don't complain about the lack of team work from players. It's not the games fault, it's the players fault (just as others have said). 90% of the time in the F2F server we work as a TEAM. And that's on domination, insurgency, and yes CTI. Trust me when you get a good group of players, even a mode like CTI is VERY fun.

[[asa]oden 0]

..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.

Amen.

:)

[Beagle 684]

ODEN;2025011']Amen.

:)

I participated in a few good set up warfare matches...without camp spawn and without buying weapons at camp...al base only...the gamestyle and player behaviour changed dramatically after a while.

Unfortunatly the mission did not last long because a majority was missiing the FUN in it a.k.a spawnmissileraping at town with 20 respawns per town to simulate an one man army.

[dragon01 902]

For me, the main problem with Warfare was always the lack of realism. I would like, for instance, get some assets assigned (on board a a carrier), and be given a mission to accomplish. Then, I'd plan how to deploy and command them, either from the field (taking care not to get shot) or from the carrier (taking care not to lose a comm unit). For instance, I'd like to be able to order a squad of AI soldiers to deploy from carrier be a boat, take down enemy AA batteries (previously found by UAV) and then send in more troops via air. After that, order troops to flank and destroy OPFOR in the village I was to capture. It shouldn't count as "secured" until enemy is driven out of it and stays out for some time (no silly "control bunkers").

"Buying" units with cash from captured cities is unrealistic (though if you do well, high command could allocate a few more soldiers to you). I'd also like to be able to allocate support (ammo drops, arty, CAS), either to a unit (they could call it when they see fit) or independently. What support I can allocate should depend on ships in the battlegroup (of course, provided command agreed to give me Tomahawks), planes I have on my disposal and arty I deployed previously. All that in an intuitive, user friendly and realistic (as in, based on how a real CIC looks) interface. And of course, AI should actually follow orders, move where it's supposed to and overall, act less retarded.

Setting up field bases should also be modified, with more detailed animations and without disregarding logistics needed for such task (for example, to set up a medical tent, you'd need some soldiers to do it, a truck with necessary materials and some medics to man it).

Of course, that sort of simulation would be very complex, but also very realistic, with logistics making up a major part of the Warfare (in AII version, there aren't any logistics, which is, IMHO, really bad).

[VampyricTyrant 10]

The game-play is fine, the island is just too big, vanilla Warfare on South Sahrani was the best version, small island with many tactics available, turtle, rush, micro etc

[InCreator 10]

I've always played Warfare BE and have no clue how different it is from vanilla. Anyway, I'd say map size is unbalanced. Played alot, but I know I really suck at this game... this is what I feel (and it does relate to warfare):

* AI is either considerably better or considerably worse than human player. I usually drive a tank and let AI man the guns. Why? Because AI spots enemies at ranges I never could and also through foliage and so. While it sometimes fails miserably, more often it's way, way better than me. Also, going against AI is usually hopeless. I get shot and have no clue where from.

...and then, sometimes all my 3 gunners fail to see enemy standing in front of the tank. Come on? It's AI. LET THEM CHEAT FOR REALISM SAKE if you cannot implement LOS correctly. AI knows where everyone is anyway so let them just cheat and shoot the enemy. Being "honest" and relying on broken vision is dumb and looks very buggy and unprofessional.

* Maps are way too big and way too tiny... Let's take Chernarus. Playing warfare on it with anything but planes makes this game ARMA2: The country driving simulator. You take good 15 minutes to get somewhere and catch a bullet out of nowhere in 30 seconds. Repeat ad nauseaum. This is absolutely not fun, and all of your team is scattered around the map so there's not even a smell of teamplay. In that regards, MAPS ARE WAY TOO BIG.

But - if you're in a plane... well, I have no idea how to even use a plane in this game. At 1000km/h I can barely pilot and shooting just anything is crazy idea better not to try. So MAPS ARE WAY TOO SMALL FOR PLANES.

I'd either make planes slower and really easily usable, something Battlefield 2 does right, or remove them at all. I know that there's some plane enthusiasts and pros out there, but if casual gamer cannot pick flying up after 100 hours of gameplay, scrap or fix the damn thing. It's very unfair.

Also, It's not very fun to trip few dozen km just to try to shoot something. I'd make maps alot smaller or adjust warfare so there's owned territory, a front line and you cannot go capturing a town at the other end of the map, just 1-3 villages on the front line, and when they're capped, then game opens up next ones. This would concentrate players on same point and have - you know - actual fighting instead of ninjas in every woods in every village.

Something like Bad Company 2's rush game mode, but both sides can capture and advance. Simulator okay, but there's no point in making a simulator that isn't very fun.

* AI control in all games so far is absurd. "Salute"? "Sit down"? the idiotic way picking up gear works? Few menus of radio commands nobody never, ever uses? All this horror has to go, no game in 2011 would ever develop so user-unfriendly interface. Also, if I point at tank and press a key, AI better understand what the hell I want. And to switch seats, I DO NOT need to order them out. Let me press ONE key and sucker make room automatically, occupying NEXT MOST IMPORTANT position in machine (hint: back seat is not it). AI failing to do simplest of things drags down warfare too. BI should employ a person who has any actual clue what user interface is and how it should serve user, not other way around. I understand OPF and so on, but after so many games in series, bashing in every review ever written and still that monstrosity making players wrestle with it - is simply an insult. If ARMA 3 hasn't improved... or let's say, completely removed and totally rewritten the way you give commands and manage inventory, I will not buy it.

* I love warfare, but it really, really should get more enjoyable, team-oriented and feel like a war with plan and goal, not random town capping and general chaos around enormous map.

* More visible distance and lose LOD's from units! All heavy weapons shoot large distances, but it's quite dumb if visibility is capped to say, 4km and enemy is reduced to 6-side box.

Edited September 21, 2011 by InCreator

[hellfire257 3]

Most of what you've suggested can be tweaked via the lobby parameters.

[dragon01 902]

If your computer can handle 10Km view distance with further LOD switching distance, go ahead. Mine can. ArmAII is very demanding on your hardware, so the way to limit visibility is there for a reason.

[gossamersolid 155]

If your computer can handle 10Km view distance with further LOD switching distance, go ahead. Mine can. ArmAII is very demanding on your hardware, so the way to limit visibility is there for a reason.

Yeah it's there to promote a sense of fairness. People with mid/low range systems shouldn't be punished.

[AstroMan 10]

Have a starting base area for both teams at each end of the map. The enemy can't shoot into or enter this area but the friendlies can shoot out. So theirs no point in attack the other teams base. The aim is like it is now, capture the island, by capturing the towns. You can still upgrade and build LF, HF, AF, barracks and all that stuff, but only in this area.

Because towards the end or after a good amount of playing time both teams just go base hunting, instead of just taking the town. I think their might of been an option in BE to make the victory conditions by owning all the towns, but i cant remember if it also end when all base building and the mhq are destroyed.

And to stop every one getting helicopters and planes you get allocated the amount of aircrafts the team can build at the start of the game, and once the commander finally builds the AF and upgrades it only he can choose when to build them. and he can choose who to give the 'keys' too.

[gossamersolid 155]

I'd either make planes slower and really easily usable, something Battlefield 2 does right, or remove them at all. I know that there's some plane enthusiasts and pros out there, but if casual gamer cannot pick flying up after 100 hours of gameplay, scrap or fix the damn thing. It's very unfair.

I just noticed that you had this in your post.

Planes aren't going to made baby mode or removed. If you cannot fly a plane in ArmA 2 after 100 hours of gameplay, there's something severely wrong with yourself.

Also not sure if you noticed, but the game isn't made for casual gamers. It's marketed as a milsim.

[AstroMan 10]

^You serious?!?!?!?!?

[dmarkwick 261]

I just noticed that you had this in your post.

Planes aren't going to made baby mode or removed. If you cannot fly a plane in ArmA 2 after 100 hours of gameplay, there's something severely wrong with yourself.

Also not sure if you noticed, but the game isn't made for casual gamers. It's marketed as a milsim.

As big as ArmA maps are, they're not big enough for decent plane use. Like it or not, some amount of realism nerfing is required, simply because of this limit. Helos are another matter IMO, the maps seem to be OK for realistic helos.

[gossamersolid 155]

As big as ArmA maps are, they're not big enough for decent plane use. Like it or not, some amount of realism nerfing is required, simply because of this limit. Helos are another matter IMO, the maps seem to be OK for realistic helos.

Many of us can still fly them fairly effectively.

[dmarkwick 261]

Many of us can still fly them fairly effectively.

In a gaming sort of way though, right? ;)

[Don Camillo 10]

In our Version, we had prices of about 70.000$ for fixedwing Aircraft and

something like 45.000 for a Kamov .... by the way: we played on half Income ^^

If Airvehicles are something special, to us it is somehow more Fun. :)

[Star Four One 10]

As big as ArmA maps are, they're not big enough for decent plane use. Like it or not, some amount of realism nerfing is required, simply because of this limit. Helos are another matter IMO, the maps seem to be OK for realistic helos.

Sure they are.. missions can be very dynamic (In Real life) and with the size and scale of ArmA2 I think they have a very real place without scaling them back.

Do you think every flight is over a hour to ingress into target?

[5LEvEN 11]

I just noticed that you had this in your post.

Planes aren't going to made baby mode or removed.

Also not sure if you noticed, but the game isn't made for casual gamers. It's marketed as a milsim.

*cough* Are you serious? Planes in arma ARE already in baby mode... And the simulation for ALL aircraft is pure garbage... So what are you smoking? :j:

[BLSmith2112 0]

I wish BI just stuck to the smaller maps. RTS never crashed as much on Everon/Malden/Kogujev on OFP. Sure the servers crashed once and a while, but it (from my experience) was much more stable. Now with Arma3 simply increasing the map size (while its a technical accomplishment) simply provides more load on dedicated servers during late warfare stages... and even now servers hardly survive..

I fail to see how Arma3's going to make this game mode any better. Plus the games are simply going to take longer to complete. In OFP I remember a typical RTS lasting ~2 hours. Every night me and the same 15-23 others would hop on at 9pm and finish our game before midnight. Now it takes upwards of 4-5 hours depending on the game. Sure there are some that will say, "Just make the Warfare missions smaller" but I can pretty much guarantee that wont happen.

If Arma3 consisted of identical gameplay quality but doubled it's optimization, I would be much happier.

Edited September 23, 2011 by Victor

[Beagle 684]

It is not map size that matter here, it's the amount of capturable and by that populated towns. A well set up BE mission won't crash, just keep capturable town number and A.I. rather small. And why the hell would any force consider a dwelling with 10 houses (Bor, Guglovo, Petrovka, etc.) a target for a occupaton force at all?

Such stuff you see only in ArmA warfare.

The problem is not that you have to drive 5km to the next mission target...the problem is more that onmost servers the towns are so close that you can walk there in 5 minutes and often have two towns active (Vyshnoye-Moglievka or Stary Sobor-Novy Sobor, Vybor-Lopatino at once in your OA making for bad performance.

[BLSmith2112 0]

Right, so with Arma3's 50 towns/cities - it's not going to get any better. Sure parameters can be set to make for a better game but 9 out of every 10 warfare's I play all across the server spectrum don't take this stuff into account. People just want to get into a game so they pick the map and simply hit enter to start it, not scan through 50+ parameters. [imo theres such a thing as too many choices].

A smaller map (imo) forces people to consolidate their efforts into a select few towns, thus increasing PVP playability/reducing server lag & crashes along the way. As of right now it feels like coop for 2 hours before you even realize you have a human enemy... and personally I cannot stand the trend over these past few years in favor of less PVP and more PVE.

Edited September 24, 2011 by Victor

[icebreakr 3159]

I'm making a side-project, a smaller island map focused on custom warfare. So even smaller groups will enjoy this mode.

[Pummel 10]

Map size is not an issue imo. They are as big as they can be without losing quality. And if you want smaller, then you can make games that work within a specific area. I rarely see this admittedly, but I remember it happening all the time when I used to play the demo.

I find flying planes in this game to be easy and fun and I am effective with them. If there was anything I wanted tweaked, it would be the "cross country driving simulation" aspect that was mentioned 2 pages back.

[mrcash2009 0]

I'm making a side-project, a smaller island map focused on custom warfare. So even smaller groups will enjoy this mode.

That sounds great.

I actually like to use warfare module and have just a few towns, its enjoyable, you have more of a quick running skirmish feel to it, plus the obvious performance benefits with less going on.

Back in Arma1 I used to spend way too long scripting inits for COC/CEX and placing AI and group linking .. etc etc etc just to setup what Warfare does in a drop of a few modules, simply a large scale assault mission taking towns all over the map, so it doesn't fail in that way.

Cutting it down to some running battles in small towns is very enjoyable, so I welcome any smaller custom maps for that.

[Corvinus 35]

Ignore

Edited September 25, 2011 by Corvinus