Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
nkenny

Why warfare fails as a game mode

Recommended Posts

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

This sounds very promising. Will you do, as you did on Isla Duala, provide local armed forces?

For Warfare style missions I believe a lot could be accomplished if each unit was custom fitted to account for in game (ugh ugly word) balance.

-k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've really enjoyed playing the Zargabad Warfare mission. I just wish the enemies used vehicles when playing SP or COOP. Perhaps they shouldn't use them as much as in normal Warfare but not just shooting infantry in a barrel would be nice. That being said I ported that mission over to Shapur and for some reason BMP3s showed up once or twice. The only thing I did was copy and paste everything from Zargabad over to Shapur and changed the Supply Depot names. I never figured out why the BMP3s spawned though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

I couldn't agree more.

I am currently making a montage about this gamemode with a friend of mine.

Round of applause to Joehunk. Thank you for making this gamemode!

Its amazing!

Sincerely,

bakos133

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ArmA without warfare would be like Total War without the campaign map.

Anyways I find Warfare to be very enjoyable when the AI is not being a complete dumbass. I think the best way to improve warfare would be to improve the AI.

I also find that Funds are too Plentiful, and vehicles too cheap, income rates should be severely limited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I couldn't agree more.

I am currently making a montage about this gamemode with a friend of mine.

Round of applause to Joehunk. Thank you for making this gamemode!

Its amazing!

Sincerely,

bakos133

oh nice could you send me a PM when youre ready? I want to spread this among my gamer community if you allow it!

thx in Advance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warfare in singleplayer was fun for smaller maps in ArmA 2 e.g. Utes. The combat was intense right from the start and you did not notice the inadequecies of the AI in a non combat cycle.

Warfare online however I found to be either very fun or bloody painful. This was not due to any of the game mechanics but more to do with :

  • Players and their experience, maturity and communication abilities
  • Servers; having the resources to process the overload as a warfare game progressed
  • Management; admins, preventing disruptions

If any of these three things failed then your Warfare game was doomed.

The AI in the game would only aggravate any of those problems if they occurred.

My 2 cents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love CTI/Warfare, it was a dynamic gameplay mode that allowed the player to assume responsibility on a sliding scale, be it commander to grunt.

The choice was up to you, and of course the level of cooperation of your team as well.

Don't blame the game, blame the players. :P

Edited by Pd3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that one of the balance issue of warfares comes from having 2 sides with equal numbers, this is very unlikely. In Arma 2 for example are they fighting in a country close to russia, rusia would quite certainly get more troops in that country then the US, the US would compensate this with more money/technology for each troop. In warfare terms would this mean:

The non western forces get more squads but far less money from cities and bounties. This would create a more realistic conflict. Limos would also be next to iranian influenced turkey, the same would apply here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is AI not seeing targets. Its like, there is a tank that I see but why can't the AI that isn't affected by screen resolution see the same tank? its stupidity. then you tell them to engage and it doesn't do anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's because the server admin clearly set AI skill too low.

When it's at 0.7 or higher seeing tanks for AI is not a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i say no matter what, warfare shows what arma is about. You can use actually whole content arma has to offer, guns, tanks, planes, vehicles. Command bots, cooperate with other players, or be a commander and build bases, i love CTI (capture the island) from OFP times, this is my most favorite mission in arma, and i see absolutely no way, why it fails, maybe only if you are a RTS hater or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a.Yeah, the AI aren't just a problem for WF. They act stupid in other game modes too. b.Game patches aren't exclusive to WF(ie; fixing the weapons). c.That leaves the only valid complaint: The economic system of WF. Which isn't even that valid since its very moddable. There are several versions of WF with different economies / gameplay. :rolleyes:

So why is it that WF (exclusively) fails?

Edited by Iceman77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just dont like the warfare gamemode and I really hate it on SP, it just ruins everything.

I didn't enjoy ArmA 2 campaign because it was more sandbox than anything else, and I hatred it when warfare missions began.

It just screwed the campaign, and I hope in ArmA 3 de wont have warfare in SP (camp. or SP scenario)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've played warfare for thousand of hours on MP ,and my conclusion is:

Warfare fails,because the game is not realistic enough ! Warfare is about strategy ,tactics and teamwork ... and many aspects in the game (at least in previous titles) don't really help the cause !

In general,i would say,it's easy to get kills in this game,TAB lock,Epic AT launchers ... AI reporting ,click and build construction menu,the ease of lone wolfing ... respawning ... Warfare is too much organized in arma, and victory scenarios are very limited and related to unrealistic goals.Maps are still too small.

Warfare is meant to be played on a long duration,for now it jsut looks like an operation part of a warfare scenario !

Edited by On_Sabbatical
Just noticed that some words lost their positions while writing :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I understand what he tried to say. Hes saying its too gamey, and is not really "forcing" players to team up and work together, but doing quite the opposite.

Maps not big enough, yeah I know. Even Chernarus is small when you have 40+ people playing. If you get more skilled players on one side, other side will get butt raped very fast. There is no place to hide the base, it will be found its just matter of time, and skill. Basically I hate when game comes donw to base hunting and spawnraping.

Ive played on large PR organized tournaments ( yes its BF2 ), but we played it as a team, 4 hours round ( max in BF2 ), and imagine determination to win, to be able 4 hours to sit on mortars, or just build FOBs...I dont see that in Arma2, not even in PR Arma2 mod. Differs...

Id like to see WF with AAS system and no economy, but instead of it ticket system, and points of interest, fixed main bases with predefined assets, where you will have to think before you use any of the vehicle, because if you loose it it wont respawn back, or will, but after very long time. Ive seen project like this, but sadly none is completed, and wouild really like to see new type of WF working like this, but before that, Arma itself must be adapted and fixed so it can support this type of play. I mean squads, kit system, commander ( which will actually have command )...etc..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only problem i have with WF are the base hunters. Before anyone yells "it's part of the game!!", yes I realize. I've hunted and killed bases (hq etc etc). You've hunted and killed bases. He's hunted and killed bases etc etc. YAY!! Here's the thing. Like massive said there's hardly any viable place to place the HQ. So, instead of everyone playing the game mode for longevity, you get 15 players on one side base hunting. Not playing the game for any strategic purpose. Said side barely has to capture a couple of towns (depending on lobby parameters && version) to win the game. The other side can own the majority of the map and it doesn't matter when the entire opposition is base hunting. It really takes the fun out of the game after you play 8173118 WFs in a row, all ending prematurely within a matter of minutes.

@ _massive - Play Rubber Edition. It's got a killer AAS system. The economy also forces players to work together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only problem i have with WF are the base hunters. Before anyone yells "it's part of the game!!", yes I realize. I've hunted and killed bases (hq etc etc). You've hunted and killed bases.

Short of removing buildings and making WF more of a call in system (WiC, European Escalation, MoW, etc) what would you say would fix this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I would use a handleDammage EH on the HQ building, so it's invincible. The only way to kill an HQ is when it's mobile, is how it should be.Sounds shitty, but it's better than loading into a WF, and the WF ending 20 - 30 minutes later LOL...almost everytime. Sure, you may get a good game every now and again. But it's rolling the dice. People leave the server and you have to build back up etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or play on russian servers, arma2.ru warfare co, even arma 2 free warfare. Usualy games span over 2-3 hours, with lots of strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I sadly can't play on the ru servers, I get kicked because my ping is barely over 200 on any ru server I go to. Russian servers are the best, the times when I haven't gotten kicked has always been awesome. Especially, the heavy armor with low gear for climbing hills!! Too sick!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×