Why warfare fails as a game mode

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

Ironically, it's not, because the majority of gamers agree. Games like Counter Strike and BF2 and whatever else have had such successful multiplayer communities because they are PVP focused.

Well, if thats your argument, then please have all the other games make theirs SP compatible, I hate wasting money on games that are only good for a 1 time only SP play!

[rubberkite 19]

After 4 years of development I am close to reach the goal, and have the Warfare RE as I always dreamed.

The title of this topic, like some one already reported should be changed in Why I don't like Warfare,

Warfare gamemode is played with is variants in many server by many players since many years

User made content created by talented dev and with lot of passion simply are the reason why me (maybe we) still playing arma.

ABOUT REALISM:

Many of you doesn't like MANDO suite, when for my point of view is mandatory, using this in warfare means bring realism to ALL guided missiles

starting from the NLAW METIS JAVELIN to the Maverick - kh-29 Kedge - AIM9 Sidewinders etc. ( ... SAM ... TorM1 ... Rapier ... etc. )

I really don't understand how is possible to use a FULL ARCADE weapons system in a game that is defined as military simulator

That's the ArmA fail for me! and the reason why I am worried about ArmA3, (Mandoble is not working on arma anymore)

ABOUT ECONOMY:

Prices are the easiest thing that can be changed in warfare, and set them high give more value to vehicles and also make the game runs smooth limiting the number of unit during the play time

( if it's expensive u have to take care of it )

ABOUT SIZE of MAP:

In my edition there are several layout options starting from a 4 town mode that I called it BERSERK where u fight only on the middle of the map 4 towns close to each others like 1 big town with 4 sectors.

One that is a mix between AAS and Warfare with 8 town in a ROW linked each other with territorial system that's mean u have to take one by one.

there is a bigger mix with a 16 town layout that we used for last edition of WFTournament, and there is a new one that is more strategical with 17 towns that take place in all map but still linked by TERRITORIAL option this force the side to create a FRONTLINE of war, not just attack random town... and also town need to be maxed up with supply truck route.

Also in BE there are many layout with different amount of town and also in BE is possible to play with TERRITORIAL link this is another really important setting for my point of view.

ABOUT BASE HUNTING:

The idea that I had and now is 100% working:

The reason u are fighting is to conquest and hold the territory (Towns) the base is a tool, so now is possible to repair MHQ with a Tech vehicle that u can buy in all city depot, is possible to build a lot of base fortifications

and building are 12x more strong than default (1AT shot to destroy a building looks unreal to me)

This means that to destroy a well defended base u need to spend a lot of time and if meanwhile you are loosing territory enemy will have enough money and supply to repair and build more bases, this make base hunting a loosing strategy and, you attack the base only if is close to towns or only if you spot during your advance. ( This is also linked to the ECONOMY cause u need money to buy stuff this mean territory)

next build 016 with new gameplay features will complete the idea.

ABOUT BALANCING

balancing the mission 1 to 1 would means use the same units/weapons/vehicles with different colors that is not nice for my point of view

I prefer and I worked a lot on cross balancing the sides using upgrade tree, economy and unit features

Changing side means changing strategy to take advantage of your side units and vehicles.

@ICEMAN77 I would like if u join us next sunday during our friendly match against UX, the mission does it's best when is played with two well coordinated team

I don't want and I don't need to promote my edition, I described how it works as example of what is possible to do with warfare.

This post is for remark that Warfare is a gamemode that can be really different from server to server, according to the parameters and the players

and (of course) the Base Mission used, and lot of players are enjoying them.

I don't play what I don't like but I never feel to have the right to say that is a fail or shit etc.

cheers!

[On_Sabbatical 11]

Basehunting is a part of the game that you should deal with ! trying to eliminate it is like killing 50 % of a warfare mission !

Your idea is cool,but with the easiness of respawning it makes no sense too ... people spawning inside a fortress and raping people right outside of it :S

Mando missile is an excellent mod,i hope that engine will be improved to avoid scripts degradation when lag starts !

[iceman77 18]

@ICEMAN77 I would like if u join us next sunday during our friendly match against UX, the mission does it's best when is played with two well coordinated team

...

cheers!

Hey. Yeah I may do that. I youst to play your RE on UX server pretty often. My ping was always a little high ~200. As I'm in the US, and my connection is so so. RE is without a doubt the most fun:)

---------- Post added at 02:42 ---------- Previous post was at 02:40 ----------

Basehunting is a part of the game that you should deal with ! trying to eliminate it is like killing 50 % of a warfare mission !

Your idea is cool,but with the easiness of respawning it makes no sense too ... people spawning inside a fortress and raping people right outside of it :S

Mando missile is an excellent mod,i hope that engine will be improved to avoid scripts degradation when lag starts !

okay, bugs and exploits are part of the game (Arma2). Does that mean we shouldn't do away with those aswell? It really sucks to have an entire team basehunting. Everytime. Games are short, then. Why not request a game mode, where you just take the towns out and hunt each other bases? Also, he didn't take it completely out. It's just harder to kill bases. So games last... which is actually more realistic, than 1 or two rpgs to destroy an entire structure.

And if I spawn at my base/fortress, and an enemy is "right outside of it" then .. uhh.. yeah, they'll get raped? What else would you expect?

Edited February 4, 2013 by Iceman77

[rubberkite 19]

Hey. Yeah I may do that. I youst to play your RE on UX server pretty often. My ping was always a little high ~200. As I'm in the US, and my connection is so so. RE is without a doubt the most fun:)

---------- Post added at 02:42 ---------- Previous post was at 02:40 ----------

I will send the password to join - spanishsurfer (despite is nick) is also playing from US I guess ;)

Basehunting is a part of the game that you should deal with ! trying to eliminate it is like killing 50 % of a warfare mission !

Your idea is cool,but with the easiness of respawning it makes no sense too ... people spawning inside a fortress and raping people right outside of it :S

Mando missile is an excellent mod,i hope that engine will be improved to avoid scripts degradation when lag starts !

Basehunting is still a part of the game that you should deal with but is more real, and is not the goal to win the mission, the goal is territory conquest, the reason why we are fighting on the map

I can have great teamplay capture 9 town u have 1 and destroy the base and u win, this is still possible cause I keep the other gamemode victory condition, all of them (annithilation supremacy etc.)

but I prefer my own for sure we are different :) In my mission u can loose the base and win the game, u can have more base and loose the game, but u can't win the game if u have less territory.

In my mission there is no easy respawn, u have to build Mash tent(12minute) or use ambulance, enemy can destroy the respawn, if the ambush come from the forest u don't have to risk all unit u can use mortars or elicopters rockets...

About script degrade lag etc.

There is a big compromise between the number of AI/Players/VEHICLES if you count 32 players with 10 ai each + x town active at same time and patrol, and base patrol, etc. all the system will collapse.

I play with -showscripterrors all the time and also after 5 hours of play there is nothing, MMA is working fine, and is working only (ON CLIENT) when he use a weapon/vehicle that uses MMA, this u know cause u did good tutorials.

I always check client rpt and server rpt periodically

With territorial link u can't just attack a town that is not linked to your owned town, this is also real u can do ambush to enemy supply truck route u can slow down enemy capture but u can't own the town if is not linked to your front line of war. With expensive vehicles u can't spawn hundred, I've also limited the AI that players can recuit linked to the class type of your soldiers, medic enginer sniper less, commander,team leaders more... When u respawn u pay your loadout, loadout is expensive. I u waste your money then u can't buy Vehicles..

That's my Idea, i prefer less things on map that works smooth instead of a lot with lag and super slow server FPS script faults and degrade over time...

I am not responsible (like BENNY or GossamerSolid) if server admin set the parameters as he like, and the game will run in completely different way...

In my mission, with default parameters u need a TEAM, a strategy, and u need to fight hard PvP if u want to win, there is no workaround...

Mission is stable played and tested for a lot of months and doesn't need too much Server power. (for sure more u have better it runs)

More ai, more money, more things u add by parameters more resource you will use, and if server goes too low on FPS the game doesn't run smooth anymore.

and this rule is the same for all missions/gamemode.... in warfare it's just really easy to REACH OVERLOAD LIMIT due to his potential :)

[kotov12345 10]

the main problem that currently not warfare at all.There are medicware spawnware tabware idiotsware guirillaware etc.Mission simply boring and unplayble.Most Servers lagging and admin, game developers and map coders refuse accept problem and blame someone else all the time.

[On_Sabbatical 11]

Sure,Mando Missile is a clientsided mod but as soon as you shoot the missile ,it becomes somehow a server object to which you need to apply very fast loops ! and since server is lagging/struggling with FSM scripts and other calculations a sleep 0.01; becomes longer ! and missile will most likely miss the target :D

The engine is just not made for huge MP battle involving huge amounts of AIs (without AI,warfare, as it is now, is senseless) ! this said ,my scripting skills don't allow me to suggest solutions to make warfare run smoothly for hours !

[rubberkite 19]

the main problem that currently not warfare at all.There are medicware spawnware tabware idiotsware guirillaware etc.Mission simply boring and unplayble.Most Servers lagging and admin, game developers and map coders refuse accept problem and blame someone else all the time.

ArmA is Like it is

Comunity is like it is

like it, play it, find your server, find the compromise

dislike it don't play it, don't blame the others categories all together in a row

I hope that Addons will be integrated on ArmA3 this will help fragmentation of comunity, just click on server, this mission need that, click for download and play.

But your post is not completely wrong :cool:

[iceman77 18]

the main problem that currently not warfare at all.There are medicware spawnware tabware idiotsware guirillaware etc.Mission simply boring and unplayble.Most Servers lagging and admin, game developers and map coders refuse accept problem and blame someone else all the time.

So server problems are more to do with the game mode than server config/files etc? I don't think so. With a well tweaked configuration file, and an admin that's on top of things, and playing RE, I fail to see the problem.

[rubberkite 19]

Sure,Mando Missile is a clientsided mod but as soon as you shoot the missile ,it becomes somehow a server object to which you need to apply very fast loops ! and since server is lagging/struggling with FSM scripts and other calculations a sleep 0.01; becomes longer ! and missile will most likely miss the target :D

The engine is just not made for huge MP battle involving huge amounts of AIs (without AI,warfare, as it is now, is senseless) ! this said ,my scripting skills don't allow me to suggest solutions to make warfare run smoothly for hours !

u wrote: Mando missile is an excellent mod,i hope that engine will be improved to avoid scripts degradation when lag starts !

if lag start u will not able to hit tanks also with your arma2 vanilla at launcher

if lag start u will not able to hit soldier from distance or u will see them die with delay

if lag start game becomes unplayable

put a number of AI that generate a big lag makes the game uplayable that is "senseless"

we don't need 4000 AI with the mapsize that we have to have fun and immersion.

I want that is clear for all that MANDO is not affecting the server lag

that MANDO only starts when u use a guided missile system

or u board a vehicle that use mando suite

Benny FSM are great they allow the use of lot of AI before reaching the "LIMIT" but there is still need to find the compromise TO KEEP THE GAME Playable

every server should find its best settings.

I never said without AI, I talk about compromise between playable and uplayable, smooth or laggy

if u notice that mission becomes uplayable u need to remove something, I guess HC / delegation will helps a bit but will be not a MIRACLE.

If people prefer to play with lag but with more AI up to them we are free

I prefer to limit the AI to keep the gameplay smooth.

does it make sense for you?

[On_Sabbatical 11]

I didn't say that MMA is causing lag ! but is the victim of lag created by huge amounts of server sided AIs and FSM threads !

But in the other hand,AI is very important to the mod and at an acceptable number (if you want to make it look like a warfare) ... unless you want to create a mission with 500 slots and no AIs which will not most likely fill up since the warfare community is a tiny one ;)

The ideal would be a warfare mission with no AIs and only human players everywhere !

[rubberkite 19]

Hey,

Camps can be blasted to smithereens as they can be rebuilt with a repair truck :)

Later on they will cost supply (commander ack system).

On another note, I'm currently testing an Headless Client version on our server and it really help with alot of AI (reactivity is awesome)!

That will improve the things...

[kotov12345 10]

From another side I understand that you can not blame 1 person as currently many version of warfare exist - but most of them copy each other without any attempts to fix exploits.

100 times said - war is casualties.It should be somehow connected with amount of loses.if you spawn 100 times you lost 100 man.But in map opposite spawn promote as hit to win game.

New exploit with camp - logically if camp destroyed it need to be excluded not only from spawn and source of weapons -but also from condition to take nearest town.Camp dead = not camps.

If you want to have option to rebuild it - go on.

Another issue with spawn it self.It needed to special place to spawn,out of sight.In forest in basement or in special buildings.It simply out of normal game standards to spawn on open space.After spawn player will need prepare from one side for attack and do some efford to finish some job from another side to control territory or hold town.

Not because game lagging and ai stupid and slow to kill someone who run really fast and play with ping 200.

Also drawing distance.This is complete from another planet.ON earth due to many factors acceptable view distance to do war is around 2000m.That is why many weapons designed to be effective on that range.Not because fuel in missile only for 2km.Because visually is maximum 2km here.Because earth if round.Because air give you dispersion - because because because......

Unfortunately game engine does not draw object by view distance.When 4km view distance tanks visible with 2km.Ai react mostly with 1km.Personal/static AA missiles fly 1km.We lucky got missile range option in map.But I never saw it set even for 3km.Always 4km.

Even hard to understand bis accepted this as bug.If you can not to see target you can not recognize and can not fire and kill.

So as result what I wanted to say basically if current AA missiles fly only for 1km missile range needed to limited in 1km.if you want to comply with 4km view distance you can set missile range is 2km.all the rest is exploit and bug.

I got hundreds ideas to easy fix problems but unfortunately never meet interest from developers who plays his own game in way he saw it.

[gossamersolid 155]

While I think MMA is a great thing, it just doesn't work well for Warfare.

Due to the fact that it's a scripted system (and mostly on SQS for that matter), it will degrade as the client FPS degrades to the point where it is not usable anymore.

We need BIS to implement better missile systems at the engine level (and seeing as how this game is a military simulator, I'm don't see this as asking something crazy).

[iceman77 18]

While I think MMA is a great thing, it just doesn't work well for Warfare.

Due to the fact that it's a scripted system (and mostly on SQS for that matter), it will degrade as the client FPS degrades to the point where it is not usable anymore.

We need BIS to implement better missile systems at the engine level (and seeing as how this game is a military simulator, I'm don't see this as asking something crazy).

Yeah something like mm should be standard.

[Nathan1506 1]

IMO Warfare was beaten by Wastelands. I know its a more "apocalypse" type of game but the foundations are the same. Form a team, build a base, stock supplies, get better weapons, take out the enemy base.

Other than that slightly off topic opinion, i agree with everything you said OP.

[ZeFranko 1]

Wasteland is ok but rather play some domination :P

[iceman77 18]

Why are we talking about Wasteland in this thread? The topic is why Warfare fails as a game mode. Not what game mode do you like better than Warfare.

[radar_owns 1]

I think it fails due to the AI limits. Personally fighting over that large of a map with in many cases 12 people per human player can become annoying. When you are facing 30 or more independent troops it becomes boring after a while. If there was say 25 to 30 per player with a enhanced ability to control them then the game would be less restrictive. This would of course make people think more and bring in the real RTS strategies the game was designed for rather then lets take a whole town with light vehicles against anti tank troops which always ends up happening.

[^Th0mas^ 10]

I was new to this mode, so had to try it. AI is horrible, and can not be used as a commander. AI just take the same path over and over, usally the main road (dooh).. just rushes and rushes.

[PFC Magician 10]

I think the opposite, usually number of players is so small they get lost on the big map. We need smaller maps with just couple of towns ;)

big map is ok, for more towns and vehicles spreading, problem is server capacity, it should working with 200vs200 for a great gameplay...so warfare gameplay(arma style) fail by low performance in actual hardware technology

Edited April 2, 2013 by PFC Magician

[Jex 1]

Will I believe it fails because of the complexity and the fact its a time consuming game mode. Also when servers reset when players leave does not help the game mode.

Arma was NEVER meant to be balanced. So your point about balancing patches is quite stupid to be honest. Besides it would seem stupid if the Ak-47 had the same exact properties of the M16/M4... Arma is about two things. Gameplay and realism. When it comes to balancing its not there. Why? Because that falls under the realism category. And we all know in real life war is not fair.

Balancing should NEVER EVER be mentioned when it comes to any serious FPS. What we should be asking for is accurate weapon modelling. The weapon in my hands should fire in game as close as it is in RL.

This is the only metric they should be going for.

[Sneakson 1]

Balancing should NEVER EVER be mentioned when it comes to any serious FPS. What we should be asking for is accurate weapon modelling. The weapon in my hands should fire in game as close as it is in RL.

This is the only metric they should be going for.

I agree and disagree. Arma is a game and should be enjoyable.

I remember in Battlefield 3 when there was this automatic shotgun firing with the accuracy and speed of a rifle but with the deadliness of a point blank shotgun blast and penetrated thick building walls.

Somewhere I remember hearing that automatic shotguns will be the unrivaled weapons of the future but I wasn't applauding because it was ruining the game.

A bad balance in Arma could do the same thing and since people are douchebags there will always be someone everywhere using the really effective weapon and prevent players from playing the game the way they want.

It would be bad even if we were seeing an outphasing of all other weaponry other than automatic shotguns in reality. Basically they would remove the shotties and say they weren't invented in this timeline or something.

Anyways I agree in that in reality there is no clear advantage with nearly any weapon and in final Arma should have a basically Counter-Strike like balance where any weapon is very deadly in the hands of a pro.

I think Counter-Strike really hits the spot because on a pro level all that really matters is hitting your enemy's head and most weapons are pretty accurate with single shots so there are few clearly disadvantegous weapons and even they have their situations.

[whisper 0]

Balancing should NEVER EVER be mentioned when it comes to any serious FPS. What we should be asking for is accurate weapon modelling. The weapon in my hands should fire in game as close as it is in RL.

This is the only metric they should be going for.

Quake is a serious FPS, FYI.

[Sneakson 1]

Quake is a serious FPS, FYI.

He probably means serious = realistic.

All serious fps multiplayer games benefit from changing the rules of the game to be balanced -- but realistic games benefit from making them realistic rather since reality is balanced most of the time. And if something doesn't seem balanced people probably just haven't figure out the proper counter yet.