Warfare BE

[HighwayStar 1]

And another issue is that there is no more reason to remove grass layer exept for beeing to lazy to seek for a good firing position. The excuse "performance" is better without grass cant count if theres 6000m view distance option.

Actually the main reason for removing grass is because it helps the enemy more than it helps you. Grass only renders within ~100m or so. If you go prone in grass and an enemy is 200m away - he'll see you because there's no grass on his screen beyond 100m. However, on your screen you've got a face full of grass and are blinded by it. In an ideal world grass should render at infinite ranges but it doesn't. As a result it's just a good way of blinding yourself and turning it off is common sense.

[Beagle 684]

Actually the main reason for removing grass is because it helps the enemy more than it helps you. Grass only renders within ~100m or so. If you go prone in grass and an enemy is 200m away - he'll see you because there's no grass on his screen beyond 100m. However, on your screen you've got a face full of grass and are blinded by it. In an ideal world grass should render at infinite ranges but it doesn't. As a result it's just a good way of blinding yourself and turning it off is common sense.

that's what I mean by lazyness to seek a right position to just drop onto the belly. There is a reason why you have to plan your routes through higher ground than the target. I've been in that situation often enough in manouvers and that's why you simply should avoid tall grass, it does not help you when you habe to go prone. Now try to turn it off in reality...you can't, its a factor you have to deal with. Edited August 20, 2013 by Beagle

[HighwayStar 1]

that's what I mean by lazyness to seek a right position to just drop onto the belly. There is a reason why you have to plan your routes through higher ground than the target. I've been in that situation often enough in manouvers and that's why you simply should avoid tall grass, it does not help you when you habe to go prone. Now try to turn it off in reality...you can't, its a factor you have to deal with.

Eugh you're not trying to make a critical bug of the game into a tactical feature are you? Jog on pal.

Anyway on topic.

Benny, can you change the HQ from an APC to an unarmed truck? I've lost 3 games in a row because some idiot takes the commander role and decides to go Rambo with the HQ.

[On_Sabbatical 11]

@Beagle

I agree with you that the main problem of warfare BE that benny can fix is the respawn system ... but,most of what you said above is related to the major problems of arma in general,the gameplay mechanism are very poor and allow lone wolfing in most of the cases !

[Whispy 10]

Is it possible to take money from AI Squad Leaders? They save up tons of money during the game, but when they buy things, it doesn't take away money from them. This leads me to believe that they have unlimited funds. However, the're sitting there with lots of real money also that we (players) can't access...

[BL1P 35]

#3 is a tad harder since you have to balance out everything but i've planned something for later versions :)

If you are interested I have been doing some work on this Class based system myself and would love to share Ideas on what I think might work.

And what I have got working and tested for myself :)

I know which TS you use Ill try and chat with you sometime if that's ok ?

Ps. I love the spawn only at base/mhq system I hope that remains, as I was not a fan of the spawn at tents, ambulances or camps system.

---------- Post added at 07:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:42 AM ----------

Is it possible to take money from AI Squad Leaders? They save up tons of money during the game, but when they buy things, it doesn't take away money from them. This leads me to believe that they have unlimited funds. However, the're sitting there with lots of real money also that we (players) can't access...

Afaik. You cant take from them but... you can reduce the amount they get from the pool of cash or tell them to buy more expensive shit.

Edited August 21, 2013 by BL1P

[Benny. 15]

Hi Benny

This is another old CTI fart speaking.

The main issue I have with Warfare BE this days is the fact that it moved from a tactical warfare Simulation to soem kind of Sports game that rewards the most untactical procedures. in Short...the later version featured too much spawn possibilities and too much repair options to boost one man army behaviour. and simply too much bases. I've seen servees ruining the game wth nera unlimited base areas...such games rather bore the heck out of the player after 17 hours. Also it seem that A.I. is overused. 5 T-90s spawning to defend "Guglovo" seems totally overdone. I was always thinking that A.I: is just a placeholder and that attack and defense is a task that human lead squads must perform.

Currently Warfare BE is played as a spawn everywhere high income airquake shoot em up deatmatch and thats taking away all thet Warfare BE could be.

the point is...the more "freedom" and arcade option you give, the more wil be used and leading to server performance that is onöy playable for the elitist 8h a day hardcore gamers that spend the equivalent value of a small car into hardware every year. How can it be called a fair match with 6000m vied distance when supposedly only a very few players are able to run it above 25fps at this VD. And another issue is that there is no more reason to remove grass layer exept for beeing to lazy to seek for a good firing position. The excuse "performance" is better without grass cant count if theres 6000m view distance option.

I agree with the 'too much AI' and the respawn.

I'll be introducing constructible FOBs from repair truck (limited, with commander ack) to create some forward outpost on the frontline.

Regarding the AI in the current A3 version I think and I feel that it's currently correct (a small village has 1 squad, a medium one ~2 and a large one ~3 with different unit kinds based on their value).

Occupation is now something that has to be upgraded over 3 levels. About the grass, it seems to lag less than it use to in arma 2 (oh chernarus!).

Any suggestions for improvement are welcome :)

@Beagle

I agree with you that the main problem of warfare BE that benny can fix is the respawn system ... but,most of what you said above is related to the major problems of arma in general,the gameplay mechanism are very poor and allow lone wolfing in most of the cases !

Well we can always improve what's broken as usual :)

Is it possible to take money from AI Squad Leaders? They save up tons of money during the game, but when they buy things, it doesn't take away money from them. This leads me to believe that they have unlimited funds. However, the're sitting there with lots of real money also that we (players) can't access...

I'll add that option soon along with AI keep funds.

If you are interested I have been doing some work on this Class based system myself and would love to share Ideas on what I think might work.

And what I have got working and tested for myself :)

I know which TS you use Ill try and chat with you sometime if that's ok ?

Ps. I love the spawn only at base/mhq system I hope that remains, as I was not a fan of the spawn at tents, ambulances or camps system.

---------- Post added at 07:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:42 AM ----------

Afaik. You cant take from them but... you can reduce the amount they get from the pool of cash or tell them to buy more expensive shit.

Sure i'll try to hang around ts later on.

The only thing i'm going to add to help the limited range respawn is the FOB (aka ~2-3 buildings max).

[Whispy 10]

I have "Towns Amount" set to "Medium" on my server. I've noticed that this makes it so the only towns we can capture are the ones on the western half of the map every time. Would it be possible to have it be random whether it's the eastern towns or western towns?

[spanishsurfer 58]

I already mentioned it but including a "revive" system similar to what Teetimes is using would solve the multiple bases problem. The revive system is EXTREMELY useful at getting players to work together in squads, it's a huge incentive. Mix the base, with FOB, and with players reviving each other and you've got a very player-centric game mode. No AI reviving players, only players reviving players.

As for the base destruction that many often seek for, why not make the focus on town capturing? This was done on Rubber Edition (BE) and it created an atmosphere of intense battles outside of the base. It was simple but effective, first team to capture X amount of towns won. The first bit was mostly player VS ai, then after that it was mostly PVP. The trick was to get the towns to win right. If there were 12 towns, you would set towns to win at 8 or 7, this way both teams were forced to battle it out on the front lines. There was also an order in which towns could be capped, this further enhanced the friction between two teams..Otherwise on big maps you could bounce around the map and only fight against AI, lets try and turn away from this...Arma has better netcode now and its time that we push harder and harder to get players against each other. The AI should just be a filler. The other component that's flawed with "Base seeking and destroying" is that this can result in a game lasting in hours and hours, often with one team being dominate and the other barely surviving. With a "Towns to win" concept the mission is simple (and can be easily displayed on the map) and every player knows what his/her role is in the game.

Other techniques to increase the emphasis on town capping where making the reward for capturing towns significant. You could get up to $10,000 if it was a large town, which in Arma 2 BE was enough to buy a T72 (to put it into perspective). There was also a supply system but that seems to have gone away. The other thing I can think of was making bases VERY tough to destroy. Buildings took a massive amount of firepower to bring down. You couldn't just drive up in a tank and completely take out a base, this sort of lonewolfing needs to be discouraged through creative ideas.

[Whispy 10]

I already mentioned it but including a "revive" system similar to what Teetimes is using would solve the multiple bases problem. The revive system is EXTREMELY useful at getting players to work together in squads, it's a huge incentive. Mix the base, with FOB, and with players reviving each other and you've got a very player-centric game mode. No AI reviving players, only players reviving players.

As for the base destruction that many often seek for, why not make the focus on town capturing? This was done on Rubber Edition (BE) and it created an atmosphere of intense battles outside of the base. It was simple but effective, first team to capture X amount of towns won. The first bit was mostly player VS ai, then after that it was mostly PVP. The trick was to get the towns to win right. If there were 12 towns, you would set towns to win at 8 or 7, this way both teams were forced to battle it out on the front lines. There was also an order in which towns could be capped, this further enhanced the friction between two teams..Otherwise on big maps you could bounce around the map and only fight against AI, lets try and turn away from this...Arma has better netcode now and its time that we push harder and harder to get players against each other. The AI should just be a filler. The other component that's flawed with "Base seeking and destroying" is that this can result in a game lasting in hours and hours, often with one team being dominate and the other barely surviving. With a "Towns to win" concept the mission is simple (and can be easily displayed on the map) and every player knows what his/her role is in the game.

Other techniques to increase the emphasis on town capping where making the reward for capturing towns significant. You could get up to $10,000 if it was a large town, which in Arma 2 BE was enough to buy a T72 (to put it into perspective). There was also a supply system but that seems to have gone away. The other thing I can think of was making bases VERY tough to destroy. Buildings took a massive amount of firepower to bring down. You couldn't just drive up in a tank and completely take out a base, this sort of lonewolfing needs to be discouraged through creative ideas.

I agree. I don't like the emphasis that currently exists on attacking the base. I'd rather have capturing towns be the main objective.

[Beagle 684]

I already mentioned it but including a "revive" system similar to what Teetimes is using would solve the multiple bases problem. The revive system is EXTREMELY useful at getting players to work together in squads, it's a huge incentive. Mix the base, with FOB, and with players reviving each other and you've got a very player-centric game mode. No AI reviving players, only players reviving players.

As for the base destruction that many often seek for, why not make the focus on town capturing? This was done on Rubber Edition (BE) and it created an atmosphere of intense battles outside of the base. It was simple but effective, first team to capture X amount of towns won. The first bit was mostly player VS ai, then after that it was mostly PVP. The trick was to get the towns to win right. If there were 12 towns, you would set towns to win at 8 or 7, this way both teams were forced to battle it out on the front lines. There was also an order in which towns could be capped, this further enhanced the friction between two teams..Otherwise on big maps you could bounce around the map and only fight against AI, lets try and turn away from this...Arma has better netcode now and its time that we push harder and harder to get players against each other. The AI should just be a filler. The other component that's flawed with "Base seeking and destroying" is that this can result in a game lasting in hours and hours, often with one team being dominate and the other barely surviving. With a "Towns to win" concept the mission is simple (and can be easily displayed on the map) and every player knows what his/her role is in the game.

Other techniques to increase the emphasis on town capping where making the reward for capturing towns significant. You could get up to $10,000 if it was a large town, which in Arma 2 BE was enough to buy a T72 (to put it into perspective). There was also a supply system but that seems to have gone away. The other thing I can think of was making bases VERY tough to destroy. Buildings took a massive amount of firepower to bring down. You couldn't just drive up in a tank and completely take out a base, this sort of lonewolfing needs to be discouraged through creative ideas.

I totally agree. A very good conclusion. BE needs the players to fight in larger settlements and strategic points not roaming DayZ like around the countryside looking for a quick rape. A ArmA II version would be welcome since not everyone falls in love with the future warfare setting and even more magic weapons of A3.

[spanishsurfer 58]

A ArmA II version would be welcome since not everyone falls in love with the future warfare setting and even more magic weapons of A3.

I would have def preferred BIS stay with current weapon systems but if you really look at all the tech they made...None of it is really "revolutionary." It all looks different but it all behaves exactly like today's tech. Honestly, I think they (BIS) wanted the future tech just so they could be free to create behaviors, models, etc of all weapons/vehicles without getting critiqued by the community on specifics.

[Benny. 15]

At least you can justify the laser vision of the AI now... :)

I'm still patching/fixing the last few core elements and then i'll roll on A2's. It's not like A3 is that revolutionary after all :)

[BL1P 35]

@Benny is there a reason why in the Gear_West.sqf in the A3 BECTI you list weapons like this

_i = _i		+ ["arifle_MX_F"];
_u = _u		+ [0];
_p = _p		+ [30];

_i = _i		+ [["arifle_MX_pointer_F"]];
_u = _u		+ [0];
_p = _p		+ [30];

_i = _i		+ [["arifle_MX_Holo_pointer_F"]];
_u = _u		+ [0];
_p = _p		+ [30];

_i = _i		+ [["arifle_MX_Hamr_pointer_F"]];
_u = _u		+ [0];
_p = _p		+ [30];

_i = _i		+ [["arifle_MX_ACO_pointer_F"]];
_u = _u		+ [0];
_p = _p		+ [30];

_i = _i		+ [["arifle_MX_ACO_pointer_snds_F"]];
_u = _u		+ [0];
_p = _p		+ [30];

_i = _i		+ [["arifle_MX_RCO_pointer_snds_F"]];
_u = _u		+ [0];
_p = _p		+ [30];

_i = _i		+ [["arifle_MX_ACO_F"]];
_u = _u		+ [0];
_p = _p		+ [30];

I don't understand why the extra weapons are in the list when you can only buy the first one

_i = _i + ["arifle_MX_F"];

_u = _u + [0];

_p = _p + [30];

Confused bl1p :)

[Benny. 15]

@Benny is there a reason why in the Gear_West.sqf in the A3 BECTI you list weapons like this

_i = _i		+ ["arifle_MX_F"];
_u = _u		+ [0];
_p = _p		+ [30];

_i = _i		+ [["arifle_MX_pointer_F"]];
_u = _u		+ [0];
_p = _p		+ [30];

_i = _i		+ [["arifle_MX_Holo_pointer_F"]];
_u = _u		+ [0];
_p = _p		+ [30];

_i = _i		+ [["arifle_MX_Hamr_pointer_F"]];
_u = _u		+ [0];
_p = _p		+ [30];

_i = _i		+ [["arifle_MX_ACO_pointer_F"]];
_u = _u		+ [0];
_p = _p		+ [30];

_i = _i		+ [["arifle_MX_ACO_pointer_snds_F"]];
_u = _u		+ [0];
_p = _p		+ [30];

_i = _i		+ [["arifle_MX_RCO_pointer_snds_F"]];
_u = _u		+ [0];
_p = _p		+ [30];

_i = _i		+ [["arifle_MX_ACO_F"]];
_u = _u		+ [0];
_p = _p		+ [30];

I don't understand why the extra weapons are in the list when you can only buy the first one

_i = _i + ["arifle_MX_F"];

_u = _u + [0];

_p = _p + [30];

Confused bl1p :)

Ola,

As you can see you have weapons defined like

_i = _i		+ ["arifle_MX_F"];

And others like:

_i = _i		+ [["arifle_MX_ACO_F"]];

The first one mean that the classname will be defined AND available in the gear menu while the second one mean that the classname will be defined (not available).

Why that? well to put it simply it's kind of a lazy way to add weapons to AI:

- "arifle_MX_F" is the stock classname which it the weapon itself.

- "arifle_MX_ACO_F" is an inherited class of "arifle_MX_F" which only add an ACOG scope to the base weapon.

- "arifle_MX_ACO_pointer_F" is an inherited class of "arifle_MX_F" which add an ACOG scope and a Laser Pointer to the base weapon.

Roughly you can do:

entity addWeapon "arifle_MX_ACO_pointer_F";

Which will "save" you the trouble of adding the accessories manually.

In the end we define them so that we have an idea of the value they may have but we don't want to bother adding them in the gear menu to prevent a massive flood of "identical" weapons.

[BL1P 35]

Ah Very smart

[HighwayStar 1]

Why is the arma3 BECTI so dead? There's only 6 servers running it, one has 2500 ping (based in Australia I think) and 3 of them are password protected. It's hard for me to promote this in forums if there aren't any servers even running it.

Edited August 24, 2013 by HighwayStar

[Whispy 10]

Why is this so dead? There's only 6 servers running it, one has 2500 ping (based in Australia I think) and 3 of them are password protected. It's hard for me to promote this in forums if there aren't any servers even running it.

http://www.gametracker.com/server_info/69.162.119.250:2307/

My server runs it. We're always looking for new people to come play with us! If you decide to join, we also have a Teamspeak for better communication: ts3.codefourgaming.com:10003

[HighwayStar 1]

Sorry, we're now talking about the Arma3 version, ill edit it.

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

I totally agree. A very good conclusion. BE needs the players to fight in larger settlements and strategic points not roaming DayZ like around the countryside looking for a quick rape. A ArmA II version would be welcome since not everyone falls in love with the future warfare setting and even more magic weapons of A3.

One of the ways I've prevented this in Arma 2 BE games is by setting the respawn on camps to 4000m distance. So instead of players constantly wondering between towns, they're respawning into towns to attack or defend. Then the only ones moving are the players moving in to cut off advances at other towns to isolate and take over the towns where the firefights get most intense.

I think one of the keys here is to make respawning somewhere important much more accessible.

[HighwayStar 1]

warfare is all about logistics. If you take that away by allowing people to magically teleport around then we might as well play Planetside2.

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

warfare is all about logistics. If you take that away by allowing people to magically teleport around then we might as well play Planetside2.

Logistics definitely plays a major role in Warfare, and I won't argue against it either. It most certainly should. But allowing people to spawn where the action is doesn't diminish the logistic role. A player by themselves, minus ai or vehicles, is theoretically no different or more dangerous than the AI town defense that is already spawning in towns.

On the other hand, it bridges the gap between strategy and action, opening up more gameplay options for some, while not disrupting any of the others. It also leads to a faster paced game, but not to an extreme. Which is exactly the kind of balance warfare has needed to cope with the stress of 4-6 hour mission up-time.

[BL1P 35]

Logistics definitely plays a major role in Warfare, and I won't argue against it either. It most certainly should. But allowing people to spawn where the action is doesn't diminish the logistic role. A player by themselves, minus ai or vehicles, is theoretically no different or more dangerous than the AI town defense that is already spawning in towns.

On the other hand, it bridges the gap between strategy and action, opening up more gameplay options for some, while not disrupting any of the others. It also leads to a faster paced game, but not to an extreme. Which is exactly the kind of balance warfare has needed to cope with the stress of 4-6 hour mission up-time.

He has said the ability to create an FOB will be added, this will be the way to be where the action is without risking the MHQ.

And if its limited to one FOB at a time then it wont be as ridiculous as the camps and ambulances.

IMHO.

[kavoriken 1]

What about giving you the possibility to take over AI's in your team as soon as you die? Could be limited to X Meters. That would make dieing instantly when you just took a 15 minutes truck drive not suck so much.

[HighwayStar 1]

He has said the ability to create an FOB will be added, this will be the way to be where the action is without risking the MHQ.

And if its limited to one FOB at a time then it wont be as ridiculous as the camps and ambulances.

IMHO.

That is good but I feel 2 FOBs would be better. As you should always be fighting in 2 towns at all times if you want win.