Warfare BE

[Markuz 1]

once you done with 74,can you consider doing takistan ? it's better than chernarus for me because it's less laggy plus something new :>

Edited April 25, 2013 by Markuz

[j4ck3ss 10]

i wait you on Arma 3 :-)

[kyfohatl 10]

Me and a clan mate had a good time playing some Warfare missions on the CiA server a few weeks back. At his suggestion we left the AI as commander. While that worked pretty good, it also seemed kinda inefficient as the AI is not that clever with assaults.

Past couple days I've been fiddling a bit with playing some solo. It doesn't really seem to be that fun or easy to play with this solo and I'm guessing these Warfare missions are really intended to be coop?

Would love to hook up with a group who focus on Warfare coop, just to see how it works.

While you wait for the AI revamp, play 0.71 and NOT 0.73 if you play solo/coop with lots of AI (like me), because the AI in 0.73 is bugged. I've done lots of testing/fiddling, and I think it makes a big difference; if you leave the 0.73 AI running for two hours on it's own, it'll maybe capture one town at best and then freeze for some reason, while in the same time the 0.71 AI has captured half the map and is still going strong.

AI will be pimped big time soon.

[kavoriken 1]

I never had problems THAT bad with 073. I think some of the freezing problems can easily be fixed by enabling UPSMON.

The thing with AI barely being able to capture towns in mid- to late game is a combination of several problems:

First of all the AI commander builds bases pretty much next to each other instead of evenly placing them on the map to ensure easy access to all parts of the map.

Secondly they just lack transportation most of the time... infantry groups should automatically build trucks or other transport vehicles as soon as the distance to their target town is greater than a specific value. The problem of them not using transportation at all even after having built such has been discussed before and needs to be fixed as well.

Thirdly they just spread out too much as the towns they get assigned to are determined by minimum distance only. That can easily mean spreading 15 AI squads in 4 directions if the town theyre capturing that very moment has 4 towns that are equally close to it.

Additionally the waypoints being created for the AI sometimes are not helpful at all when you keep in mind that Arma 2's pathfinding is not the best. I love the way 073 handles multiple paths into cpaturable towns for the AI, but that also means that a lot of waypoints for the AI will be in Forests. And forests + AI's in vehicles is something that doesnt work together all that well...

Edited April 29, 2013 by Kavoriken

[kyfohatl 10]

I never had problems THAT bad with 073. I think some of the freezing problems can easily be fixed by enabling UPSMON.

I always enable UPSMON... ok so I guess they don't really "freeze", they just become painfully slow. I mean, they move a couple of hundred meters, then they stop in one spot for something like 5 to 10 minutes, then move forward another couple of hundred meters. I'm sure you can imagine how long it takes the AI to reach an objective at this pace, especially when the next town is 3k away. It's like the AI is constantly moving in combat mode. In 0.73 - after about 2 hours in - I just get this feeling that everything is inactive and nothing is happening.

The thing with AI barely being able to capture towns in mid- to late game is a combination of several problems:

First of all the AI commander builds bases pretty much next to each other instead of evenly placing them on the map to ensure easy access to all parts of the map.

Secondly they just lack transportation most of the time... infantry groups should automatically build trucks or other transport vehicles as soon as the distance to their target town is greater than a specific value. The problem of them not using transportation at all even after having built such has been discussed before and needs to be fixed as well.

Thirdly they just spread out too much as the towns they get assigned to are determined by minimum distance only. That can easily mean spreading 15 AI squads in 4 directions if the town theyre capturing that very moment has 4 towns that are equally close to it.

And I'd also say fast travel. I always set it to free to encourage AI to use it, but fast travel is I think the last upgrade the commander does, so I have never seen the AI use it. However I agree; waiting for AI to do a 10k run up from base so that it can help me capture a town really slows progress. I was thinking maybe aside from transportation, the AI could set up FOBs closer to objectives so they could respawn there? And maybe purchase some basic units at FOBs as well? Rather than being forced to respawn at base every time.

[Lukas 1]

question: is it true, some parts of warfare simulation are computed on client side?

I heard, my AIs are computed on my PC. How does it work for commander slot? Are all base defence units computed on client side too?

Or just ordered AI units are computed local and sent to server, but base defence is always server computed?

Thanks

Luk

[dnk 13]

First, awesome mod. Been playing it since A1. Thought it had been discontinued a long time back, but I guess not :) been getting back into it lately.

- Weapons are used for gear and infantry (Soldier (base) > 20 Weapons. Javelin Gear > 50 Weapons)

- Fuel is used for vehicles along with Weapons

- Supply is used for building and upgrades as usual

- Supply is capped by default, building some kind of Service Point in the base allow the supply/fuel/weapons limit to be increased

- Each bases has it's own set of resources. A supply chain can be built between them at the cost of an upkeep

- Commander can elect some Field commanders which are allowed to build FOB

- Commander can restrict access to factories/gear (to be worked~)

So, a CoH approach to supply, which worked well.

Right now, I think the biggest issues in my play are revolving around the commander role, and I think you're moving in the right direction with your changes there. Making it less important is key, because I've seen lots of issues over the years because it makes a huge difference, and yet very few players are willing to take on the role, especially for more than 1 round. Adding field commanders and making an "auto-commander" slot are great.

That said, the commander also needs less power. Allowing him to restrict access to things seems counter-productive. Also, as currently implemented, allowing him to set everyone's income to $0 is going overboard. That should be capped at like 60% or something (which is a ton of $/min (or weapons/min, etc) for 1 person anyway), no less. I don't want to have to beg to play a game. Limiting that also limits the commander's influence in the game, which means things stay more balanced, which means longer and more challenging matches when one team pulls a "bad/no/selfish commander" card and the other gets a good one.

On that note, in long games with a lot going on, commander votes can take 5-10min to resolve due to the timer ticking down at super-slow speed. That needs fixing.

If I was killed by friendly player I want to see a menu: Punish or Forgive. If player receives 3 punishments within 5 mins then he will be auto kicked from the server for 15 mins.

I'd be even stricter. I hope this can be configured to admin taste... But, yeah, it's about time this got included. Base structure kills should be like a permaban. The community is healthier with none of those jackasses around.

[kavoriken 1]

question: is it true, some parts of warfare simulation are computed on client side?

I heard, my AIs are computed on my PC. How does it work for commander slot? Are all base defence units computed on client side too?

Or just ordered AI units are computed local and sent to server, but base defence is always server computed?

Thanks

Luk

It depends on the settings of the server youre playing on.

- If both headless client and client-side-delegation are turned off then ALL AI is being calculated by the server.

- If client-side-delegation is turned on it depends on the settings. The number of AI groups calculated by every client can be set, as well as the minimum framerate required by the client before it's even considered for client-side-delegation.

- If headless client is turned on and the HC propperly configured, ALL AI is being calculated by the headless client.

I dont exactly know what you mean by "commander slot", but if youre talking about AI being elected as the commander it is just a game script that will be handled by the server, its not considered to be an AI in terms of AI calculations such as movement/shooting etc.

[Lukas 1]

Thanks for response Kavoriken.

Commander slot - I ment human commander.

I had suspiction, my laptop can slow down base defence reaction. I played few times as a commander. I had smooth experience sometimes.

But last time I had to build massive air defence around our base. I had 10 FPS and AI reactions were very slow.

[kavoriken 1]

Well, bad FPS on your side doesnt necessarily mean that your PC is the problem. Clients do suffer from bad server FPS as well. For example if the server is running at 20FPS or lower noone on the server will be able to play at 100FPS, not with the best PC money can buy. That is the reason why client-side-delegation sometimes makes sense. If a client handles some of the AI calculations and its theoretical FPS goes down from 100 to 80 and the servers FPS goes up from 20 to 30 everyone wins.

These are things that have to be considered by the server admin when setting up a game. Knowing the limits of your hardware is the key here. The problem with WFBE is that the strain put on the server can jump from 30 to 200 AI's within a couple of seconds, finding a proper balance is not easy.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Kavoriken

[dnk 13]

Another thing, team balancing. I think it's a good idea, but then the team that gets swapped to immediately knows the location of the enemy base. Locating an enemy base is usually a struggle in itself, and the fact it can take so long on Taki/Chern (usually requires air) is one of the reason games on those maps can be as long and epic as they are. If you institute auto-swaps to balance things, it takes all of that away. In games I play, things can get very unbalanced, not because one team all quits, but because new players all stack up on one side. So my suggestion is to prevent new players (who haven't played the round yet) to be forced onto any team that is behind the other in player count. Even severely unbalanced games (12v3) can become severely unbalanced in the other direction soon enough, and so on. There's regular see-sawing I've seen, and there's no reason to auto-swap. Just auto-start on one side.

One other suggestion: make artillery only buildable at the MHQ. It can be a game killer too often, and it's a bit OP for any single player being able to build it and shell an enemy base from 3+ km away with it and effectively ruin their game, if not end it all within a few minutes. It's hard to really counter, especially if the base limit is set low (1-2). Keep vehicle arty, yeah, but letting arty be repair truck buildable is OP. Basically, if you want to shell the enemy base, you need to have your "base" within its range also - some risk needs to be present for all that reward. Currently, there's little risk, just the time in getting it set up once you've located the enemy base. Strategically, it's a no-brainer decision, and the way I think almost every game I've seen ends. It leaves the end-game feeling shallow and anticlimactic.

Take it away, and gameplay can last much longer and make for more interesting late games where you actually would have to use overwhelming force to defeat an enemy, rather than just having 1 guy take an MTR out to some hill, rapidly set up a large arty FOB, and shell them into oblivion.

[Beagle 684]

Well, bad FPS on your side doesnt necessarily mean that your PC is the problem. Clients do suffer from bad server FPS as well. For example if the server is running at 20FPS or lower noone on the server will be able to play at 100FPS, not with the best PC money can buy. That is the reason why client-side-delegation sometimes makes sense. If a client handles some of the AI calculations and its theoretical FPS goes down from 100 to 80 and the servers FPS goes up from 20 to 30 everyone wins.

These are things that have to be considered by the server admin when setting up a game. Knowing the limits of your hardware is the key here. The problem with WFBE is that the strain put on the server can jump from 30 to 200 AI's within a couple of seconds, finding a proper balance is not easy.

But is is well know for ages now than low town defense makes the game fluid...town defense in that case falls into player duty...real warfare not just grinding A.I.

[kavoriken 1]

But is is well know for ages now than low town defense makes the game fluid...town defense in that case falls into player duty...real warfare not just grinding A.I.

I was just answering questions of Lukas. I kind of agree with you, but its a fact that there are people out there who like to play SP against AI only or play coop with only a few players on the same team, so that information is not just important for PVP server admins only.

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

Another thing, team balancing. I think it's a good idea, but then the team that gets swapped to immediately knows the location of the enemy base. Locating an enemy base is usually a struggle in itself, and the fact it can take so long on Taki/Chern (usually requires air) is one of the reason games on those maps can be as long and epic as they are. If you institute auto-swaps to balance things, it takes all of that away. In games I play, things can get very unbalanced, not because one team all quits, but because new players all stack up on one side. So my suggestion is to prevent new players (who haven't played the round yet) to be forced onto any team that is behind the other in player count. Even severely unbalanced games (12v3) can become severely unbalanced in the other direction soon enough, and so on. There's regular see-sawing I've seen, and there's no reason to auto-swap. Just auto-start on one side.

What if there was like an In-Game lobby kind of thing? When you spawned in initially from the slot selection menu, you weren't transported to your teams HQ, but instead moved to a staging area outside of the map. Here, you wouldn't have any view of your initially chosen team, and you'd have no map. A place where you might even be able to select your initial weapons based on the team you choose or the server chooses for you. Where you'd be able to select your specialization. And most importantly, a where the server can decide what to do with you without you seeing anything you shouldn't.

---------- Post added at 03:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:08 PM ----------

These are things that have to be considered by the server admin when setting up a game. Knowing the limits of your hardware is the key here. The problem with WFBE is that the strain put on the server can jump from 30 to 200 AI's within a couple of seconds, finding a proper balance is not easy.

Headless client solves this problem entirely.

[dnk 13]

@ TheCapulet

Might work.

[On_Sabbatical 11]

Headless client solves this problem entirely.

Too much confident ! HC has solved just a part of the problem !

[gossamersolid 155]

Too much confident ! HC has solved just a part of the problem !

HC doesn't solve anything, it's merely a workaround.

Nobody else here has a basic understanding of ITIL? :)

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

HC doesn't solve anything, it's merely a workaround.

Nobody else here has a basic understanding of ITIL? :)

Ok, maybe not a solution, but a fix. If it means the difference between 50 server fps and 20 fps during town activation, I'd say its the best solution we could hope for given the mission type and the engine.

[On_Sabbatical 11]

HC doesn't solve anything, it's merely a workaround.

Nobody else here has a basic understanding of ITIL? :)

The only plus with HC is the 'reactive' AI for most of the game ! other than this, it's the same situation like before ... ServerFPS-wise !

[Jingle 0]

Played a modified version of 2.073 yesterday with 24 ai each side ran it for 12 hours no problems, no slowdowns and no issues, thumbs up for hc, and omg I gotta admit the ai are awesome. Btw played it on my own machine single player running dedicated server from same machine.

[Nicolai 10]

Hi all,

I'm not sure if this has been brought up before, but has anyone ever experienced trouble with the unit bounties?

I have the option enabled, but at times I won't receive a reward for killing a confirmed enemy unit.

Rewards for city capture do work at those occasions.

Thanks in advance,

Nicolai

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

Hi all,

I'm not sure if this has been brought up before, but has anyone ever experienced trouble with the unit bounties?

I have the option enabled, but at times I won't receive a reward for killing a confirmed enemy unit.

Rewards for city capture do work at those occasions.

Thanks in advance,

Nicolai

I've only seen this problem when the server has a Headless Client running that crashes. Then AI that belonged to the HC don't give bounties when they die.

[kavoriken 1]

Yep, i also have this from time to time. I am unable to reproduce it though, seems totally random to me. Not using HC btw.

[jt445 10]

What is the difference between the separate 073-2 PBOs with HC in the name? The non HC PBO (such as 48_warfarev2_073-2liteco.chernarus.pbo) seems to have the same Headless client files in it as the HC one?

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

What is the difference between the separate 073-2 PBOs with HC in the name? The non HC PBO (such as 48_warfarev2_073-2liteco.chernarus.pbo) seems to have the same Headless client files in it as the HC one?

Non HC maps don't have the open civillian slot for the HC to drop into.