Warlords

[oukej 2911]

Just now, 19th Hippie said:

Player count: A 90 man game is simply too much for this game mode. Average FPS was around 15-30 and the game was essentially a giant "blob-fest": Two large groups of people cutting their way to each other through the map

The biggest @Jezuro's Warlords scenario we've got in the RC is 32 players (same layout, whole Altis). One of the goals of the session was also to test if the 64 player version (which was also in the original mod) would be viable. It was cranked up to 80 just for the event and the demand :). Performance definitely was an issue, especially after voting for a new sector (and new greenfor AI spawns). Plus your feedback about gameplay issues with such numbers is very valuable!

 

Just now, 19th Hippie said:

Spectator mode: Apparently the spectator mode did not work for some people. I believe that in-game it was admitted that this is a known issue.

Spectator slots were a last second quick addition for the event, plugged in as-is...and just like that it didn't work. Mah fault, very sorry about that :(

[HazJ 1289]

@Jezuro - Sector scan terminated!

Quote

Sector scan terminated! Sector scan terminated! Sector scan terminated! Sector scan terminated! Sector scan terminated! Sector scan terminated! Sector scan terminated! Sector scan terminated! Sector scan terminated! Sector scan terminated! Sector scan terminated! Sector scan terminated! Sector scan terminated! Sector scan terminated! Sector scan terminated! Sector scan terminated! Sector scan terminated! Sector scan terminated! Sector scan terminated! Sector scan terminated! Sector scan terminated! Sector scan terminated!

May want to get this one fixed...

Official BI US server.

[CertainDeath7 11]

Feedback from Playtest:

- Great Lack of Earplugs. It was f.e. not possible to understand anything what a mate said in TS while driving BTR-K

- Group Menue/Squad System would be appreciated. Hard to find your handfull mates, if there are a dozen or more other markers in the same city.

- my ai refused to fill an armoured vehicle, only one entered.

- would be much appreciated, if i could lock my vehicle, or kick players out. bought a quilin at start for my guys, but i ended with 2 other OPT-C Members and some randoms in the car.

- You can abuse Gear. I buy my stuff from arsenal (1000cr) give someone my stuff, and buy last gear and new ammo. Not done that, just thought its viable, actually did not check, what the price of ammo is.

- I would like to get my last loadout filled, inclusive the ammo, mines, explosive, rockets etc, if i want to... of course for more then 50cr. i did not get the need to rearm my stuff, so i cant tell how usable the rearm is with existing features.

- Big Mission: Way too much stuff around. Way too many flags. For bigger missions, it could be possible to attack 2 targets (32 players) or maybe 3 (64 players)?

- The more players are there, the less AI should be spawnable for performance reasons. 32x8 or 64x8 is madness (? THIS IS WAAARLOOORDS!!!), from a gameplay and performance aspect, especially with one target each. I feel it should be possible to set possible AI Deployment in an Easy Accessible Server Setting, even down to 0-1, if you wish to play full pvp. I personally never play against ai, 99% of my 1500hours gameplay are pure PvP. humans are way better challenge. and i feel 64 players or even more would be viable with less ai. i personally would not play a gamemode centered about interaction with stupid and tidious to controll ai allies and enemies.

- 3rd person... is kind a necessary, when you have an AI driver... cause you cant fix your turret position to hull, so its very hard to drive from first person as gunner or commander. But still... me personally i dont like 3rd person servers... it rewards camping behind objects and slows down the pace of a game. So if there would be an option to lock turret to hull, it would be apreciated to add possibility for hardcore settings.

- thermals: we have banned them from our TvT for reasons... i dont tell you you have to... i would just have wished, that i could equip a ghillie or viper stealth uniform to stealth myself better... i mean people can equip evng and viper helmet... you can even use thermals in 3rd person, which is kind a ridicolous. when i play infantry, i am the sneaky flanker guy... cant do that when everybody runs around with thermals, and spots from behind cover. so either remove at least viper helmet and evng or add thermal coating uniforms.

- vehicles: the dlc jets eat performance like the fat guy in monthy phytons meaning of life. And if there is a good csat pilot, the shikra wont loose. When i saw that we have it, i was pretty sure, that we are going to win the game. it is superior to every other aircraft. the amount of vehicles felt a bit ridicolous too. I prefere quality over quantity, especially with an engine like arma3...

 

While i write, i realise, that maybe all of this is wanted. the gamemode wants to feel like a big war over an island. and it has done this job pretty good. so maybe some of my thoughts are not really needed. I did not went into faction and armed service branch balancing, cause there are a lot of issues in the game, and it would be a long discussion.

Furthermore i still want to remind about the engine. near all pvp players which play somewhat decent care for framerate, and wont play this much. For me personally framerates under 60 are really really bad. Good is 120+. 40 would be the lowest acceptable for combined arms missions. It went down to 22-26 today. (i3 8350k OC 4,8ghz; 16gb ddr4 3ghz; gtx1060; 4,5km object and terrain). So there just has to be some tweaks to the mission to make it perform better. Less AI, more expensive vehicles (the attack chopper is to cheap btw, its hard to counter it with something else then jets, when pilot knows what he is doing) idk

that artillery is out is a good thing. not only performance wise, also gameplay is better. same goes for mortars. performance impact might be less, but you can stealth it much much better. and from experience i can tell that a good organized mortar with infantry that works with the mortar guy can be a big big pain in the ass for the enemy in pvp. In our last campaign the enemy mortar made the most kills amongst our team, and we had to nerf it, cause it robbs the fun out of the PvP.

 

Also for me personally i did not expect AI in the mission, when i signed up. I did not know the mission, i thought it would be pure PvP. I think, when i would have known about that earlier, i would not even have shown up. But luckily i did.

 

 

edit: ah, and can someone make the ai shut up? i dont need the driver to tell me every move button i press^^

[target_practice 163]

Nevermind

[iMiksu 2]

Hi, I participated yesterday in the event with 90(?) players.

 

This game mode was interesting and I really liked the concept, but the implementation had couple issues that took our experience down a bit. The biggest con of the game session was low FPS, my lowest FPS was 7 which is the lowest FPS in my entire over 3000h Arma gaming history, I don't know what was the specs of the server, but it's obvious that it wasn't handling smoothly this game mode with this amount of players. This is likely because there's so much AI in same game area with players?

 

About the game mod nodes, it was nice to have lots of nodes in the map, but using only one node per side was a little con. We would've been maybe more happy with using multiple potential/connected nodes instead of voting and then rushing to one node only. This would've brought some strategical depth, instead of the feeling of "piperunning through the nodes". Not sure what would be the impact on server performance in this case?

 

During the game session, I couldn't gather enough experience to evaluate how the game-economy works, but I doubt that maybe heavy arms were too cheap. We would've wished also to use mortars/artillery, but I think I read they were maybe too unfair from previous testing sessions?

 

Also, I was wondering if there would be an option to configure, that how many heavy arms from each category could be purchased (as an example maximum of , 1 aircraft, 2 heavy armor vehicles, 4 light armor vehicles, 6 MRAPS, 8 trucks - per side, and of course this would be relative to player count of the side).

 

I've played lot of EUTW (https://www.eutw.net), and I would say that this game mode is pretty much close to EUTW, but I would say that due to big FPS issues, I would rather play EUTW this this game mode. But I'm hopeful that this issue gets fixed as highest priority.

 

I've published a video of the game session (2:20h long):

(we talk in finnish, but you'll get the point)

 

EDIT: Oh, and I really liked the announcer's voice :)

[target_practice 163]

Isn't there any footage from the NATO side?

[19th Hippie 4]

Just now, target_practice said:

Isn't there any footage from the NATO side?

 

Unfortunately my footage from when I was on Blufor was ruined by the flickering-screen Shadowplay bug. I'm sure someone else must have recorded some stuff though

[GEORGE FLOROS GR 4207]

7 hours ago, CertainDeath7 said:

edit: ah, and can someone make the ai shut up? i dont need the driver to tell me every move button i press^^

 

Hahaha !

 

If i remember ( I 'm not that sure ! ) this might help !

 

 

[HazJ 1289]

Or simply...

https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/enableRadio

https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/enableSentences

[Jezuro 452]

Thanks to all who participated in the event, it's really appreciated :) I'd like to reply to some of the topics that have been brought up the most. One think I'd like to ask of you: Please, don't consider this massive scenario to be some sort of standard for Warlords. Most of the scenarios currently in the game is just 8v8, with maximum 16v16 on the whole Altis. You will find out that on smaller scale, the gameplay is quite different.

 

1. Player count

The 40v40 scenario was basically a very intense stress test to see what the Warlords system is capable of handling. We've decided not to release the 32v32 scenario in RC branch even though it is included in the Workshop version because we were not sure the performance would hold up. Seeing the poor framerate under this massive player count shows us that it's not a good idea to ramp up the playable slots this high. Simultaneously though I was glad to see that the scripts have not fallen apart and the mode worked as it should.

 

2. Single objective progress

This was implemented mainly due to performance reasons as it's easy to control the amount of AI units spawned at any given time. While it is true it would be nice to be able to open multiple fronts, I believe that with more reasonable player count this approach makes the most sense (you always know what the objective is, where to go and fight). Also, to avoid any confusion, nothing is stopping you from backtracking and defending a previously seized sector, or even reclaim lost sectors that the enemy has taken from you. You don't have to vote for the sector you want to defend in order to be able to enter it.

 

3. Not being able to change currently targeted sector

I'm not saying I will never implement sector reset, currently I feel it's not required. When an enemy cuts you off your selected sector, all this causes is the inability to use fast travel. You can still use vehicles or retake the lost sector that will re-enable fast travel, or, ideally, try to do the same thing to the enemy so the odds are even.

 

4. Comeback mechanics

None are implemented. 2 reasons: 1. Once a faction really has the upper hand, it deserves to win I think. 2. It's never too late to seriously slow down the enemy progress by defending your own sectors.

 

5. The bugs

Notes have been taken, we will try to fix as many as possible before the full release.

 

As a final note, please keep in mind that when creating your custom Warlords scenario, you can set up your own set of rules, customizing the experience to your liking.

[Asmodeuz 54]

Great to see such official game mode becoming available soon! With the modules of Warlord it would seem to be somewhat easy to create whole map missions and such opportunity I at least will welcome with open arms!

Few questions if I may:

Currently it is only possible to pit BLUFOR and OPFOR against each other and INDEP will always be in there between (unless the scenario designer designates capturable sectors to either BLUFOR or OPFOR side)
 - can we expect to be able to have INDEP as a playable side fighting against either BLUFOR or OPFOR?
 - or, is there already a way to somehow make a INDEP faction (be it an official A3 INDEP faction or from a modification) playable?

Could there be a way to disable the Command Point system and Request menu possibly from one of the Warlords modules?
 - with this the scenario designer could have the Warlords core mechanics and implement a "reward and shop" mechanics of their own

 

Greetings

Asmodeuz

[Jezuro 452]

Currently I have no plans to make the independent faction playable.

 

I suppose you could set the starting CP to 0 and make all the sectors generate 0 CP, that way the CP received would be limited to kill rewards.

[Asmodeuz 54]

On 21/04/2018 at 12:36 AM, houndo said:

can anybody fill me in on what this is about?

 

I am seeing a similar error (see the RPT output at the end of this post).
The error appears during the mission starting phase (around the same time when the next objective vote commences) and only happens when using a custom asset list.

For testing this I created a short custom asset list in description.ext:

class CfgWLRequisitionPresets
{
    class TestAssets
    {
        class WEST
        {
            class Infantry
            {
                class B_Soldier_F
                {
                    cost = 100;
                    requirements[]={};
                };
            };
        };
        class EAST
        {
            class Infantry
            {
                class O_Soldier_F
                {
                    cost = 100;
                    requirements[]={};
                };
            };
        };
    };
};

And already with that short custom list the error @houndo was asking about manifests itself.
This was tested on A3 Development build 1.87.145170


Just a quick edit to add a short RPT output of the error:

22:43:42 Error in expression <(_this getVariable "BIS_WL_funds") >= ((_cheapest # 1) + _dropCost)  && count _g>
22:43:42   Error position: <_cheapest # 1) + _dropCost)  && count _g>
22:43:42   Error Undefined variable in expression: _cheapest

 

[Jezuro 452]

The error is caused by missing classes in the requisition list (vehicles, aircraft etc.), but it should still work.

[Halcyon_Arma3 9]

would we be able to add another side's vehicle and unit classnames to one side's asset list, for a custom scenario? for example, having AAF soldiers and vehicles recruitable while playing as BLUFOR

 

[Jezuro 452]

Technically, nothing prevents you from adding any faction's classnames to a different side in the requisition config.

[Asmodeuz 54]

2 hours ago, Jezuro said:

The error is caused by missing classes in the requisition list (vehicles, aircraft etc.), but it should still work.

I filled out rest of the custom requisition list for both the BLUFOR and OPFOR side according to the example on the Warlords Wikipage and the error still appears during the mission starting phase. Make no mistake the assets declared in the custom list indeed appear in-game for both sides so in that sense the list works as intended.

Might this list still be missing some class or is that all there is? Why the error then(?)

Spoiler

class CfgWLRequisitionPresets
{
    class TestAssets // --- class name used in the Init module
    {
        class WEST // --- assets available for BLUFOR
        {
            class Infantry
            {
                class B_Soldier_F // --- must be asset class name
                {
                    cost = 100; // --- Command Points required
                    requirements[]={}; // --- dispositions required ("A" = airstrip, "H" = helipad, "W" = water (harbour))
                };
            };
            class Vehicles
            {
                class B_Quadbike_01_F
                {
                    cost = 50;
                    requirements[]={};
                };
            };
            class Aircraft
            {
                class B_Plane_CAS_01_F
                {
                    cost = 7500;
                    requirements[]={"A"};
                };
            };
            class Naval
            {
                class O_Boat_Armed_01_hmg_F
                {
                    cost = 500;
                    requirements[]={"W"};
                };
            };
            class Gear
            {
                class Box_NATO_Ammo_F
                {
                    cost = 200;
                    requirements[]={};
                };
            };
            class Defences
            {
                class B_HMG_01_F
                {
                    cost = 250;
                    requirements[]={};
                };
            };
        };
        class EAST // --- assets available for OPFOR
        {
            class Infantry
            {
                class O_Soldier_F // --- must be asset class name
                {
                    cost = 100; // --- Command Points required
                    requirements[]={}; // --- dispositions required ("A" = airstrip, "H" = helipad, "W" = water (harbour))
                };
            };
            class Vehicles
            {
                class O_Quadbike_01_F
                {
                    cost = 50;
                    requirements[]={};
                };
            };
            class Aircraft
            {
                class O_Plane_Fighter_02_F
                {
                    cost = 7500;
                    requirements[]={"A"};
                };
            };
            class Naval
            {
                class O_Boat_Armed_01_hmg_F
                {
                    cost = 500;
                    requirements[]={"W"};
                };
            };
            class Gear
            {
                class Box_East_Ammo_F
                {
                    cost = 200;
                    requirements[]={};
                };
            };
            class Defences
            {
                class O_HMG_01_F
                {
                    cost = 250;
                    requirements[]={};
                };
            };
        };
    };
};

 

EDIT:
If I set the (Starting) Command Points to 0, 100 or 250 the error doesn't appear
If I set the (Starting) Command Points to 500, 1000, 2500 or 5000 the error does appear

How are the (Starting) Command Points connected to the custom asset list that selecting a certain amount results in the aforementioned error?

ADDITIONAL EDIT:
Whenever the player's CP amount reaches 400 the error is displayed
When this error appears it fills the RPT file with thousands of lines: one occasion I have here just now is 7864 lines of that error message in just 28 seconds

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

4 hours ago, Jezuro said:

Thanks to all who participated in the event, it's really appreciated :) I'd like to reply to some of the topics that have been brought up the most. One think I'd like to ask of you: Please, don't consider this massive scenario to be some sort of standard for Warlords. Most of the scenarios currently in the game is just 8v8, with maximum 16v16 on the whole Altis. You will find out that on smaller scale, the gameplay is quite different.

 

1. Player count

The 40v40 scenario was basically a very intense stress test to see what the Warlords system is capable of handling. We've decided not to release the 32v32 scenario in RC branch even though it is included in the Workshop version because we were not sure the performance would hold up. Seeing the poor framerate under this massive player count shows us that it's not a good idea to ramp up the playable slots this high. Simultaneously though I was glad to see that the scripts have not fallen apart and the mode worked as it should.

 

2. Single objective progress

This was implemented mainly due to performance reasons as it's easy to control the amount of AI units spawned at any given time. While it is true it would be nice to be able to open multiple fronts, I believe that with more reasonable player count this approach makes the most sense (you always know what the objective is, where to go and fight). Also, to avoid any confusion, nothing is stopping you from backtracking and defending a previously seized sector, or even reclaim lost sectors that the enemy has taken from you. You don't have to vote for the sector you want to defend in order to be able to enter it.

 

3. Not being able to change currently targeted sector

I'm not saying I will never implement sector reset, currently I feel it's not required. When an enemy cuts you off your selected sector, all this causes is the inability to use fast travel. You can still use vehicles or retake the lost sector that will re-enable fast travel, or, ideally, try to do the same thing to the enemy so the odds are even.

 

4. Comeback mechanics

None are implemented. 2 reasons: 1. Once a faction really has the upper hand, it deserves to win I think. 2. It's never too late to seriously slow down the enemy progress by defending your own sectors.

 

5. The bugs

Notes have been taken, we will try to fix as many as possible before the full release.

 

As a final note, please keep in mind that when creating your custom Warlords scenario, you can set up your own set of rules, customizing the experience to your liking.

 

"Once a faction really has the upper hand, it deserves to win I think" 

 

this doesnt sound like a game designer talking! on the ground, once players are aware they are losing, they will leave the server. once the losing team leaves the server, the winning team will follow them and then nobody wins... giving a last stand "dice roll" challenge (where the losing team gets a chance to turn things around) would probably increase player retention at least until the round is over.

[HazJ 1289]

Also know as ragequit...

Gotta agree with @fn_Quiksilver though - The dice roll doesn't have to be OP, just a little incentive to play on...

[CertainDeath7 11]

maybe base income that increases over time...

actually, if the enemy has captured all your fob, you are pretty much done, primarly because the enemy can afford everything, and you as looser can basically not afford to replace any losses.

So at a point in the game the enemy is going to just steamroll with the better economy, and this is the point where it gets boring for both sides.

[Jezuro 452]

I have to stress out the second part of my answer: you always have the tools to fight back. Cut the enemy off of their base. Disable their fast travel. Deploy static defences. You can always fight back, just don't give up.

Again, it's extreme to have 30 secotrs in a mission. Usually it's under 10. The issue is not that pressing there 

[target_practice 163]

I think people must keep in mind that once a sector has been targeted by a side, it is permanently accessible and thus capturable by said side.

As Jezuro says above, it is possible to delay the enemy by cutting them off and disabling their fast travel, therefore giving your team time to persue their own objectives.

[Asmodeuz 54]

Warlords seems to incorporate a functionality that forces a player to use a uniform. Could it considered to make this functionality optional? If making this functionality optional is out of the question then might there be somekind of way to circumvent the behaviour?

[target_practice 163]

I haven't noticed anything like this, nothing stopped me from removing my uniform.

 

EDIT: I spoke too soon :/

[Halcyon_Arma3 9]

just played some more of it, in depth, here's some suggestions and ideas I had, that might make things easier for developing custom missions and balancing current ones!:

• Airdrops for heavier vehicles should be restricted to sectors you control, you shouldn't be able to airdrop them on your position. Things like Hunters, Quadbikes and Qilins work fine and make sense, but it doesn't make sense to be able to airdrop a Slammer or an Angara on your position, because you can just bypass any AT defense the enemy has, or you can bypass the entire enemy line and flank them with a tank.
• Additionally, another really unbalanced thing is being able to airdrop utility trucks, especially on your position as well. Because if your tank is damaged, you can just airdrop a repair truck nearby, repair your vehicle, and just forget about the repair truck, if it's just two players in a tank doing whatever. You can really easily just call in an airdrop for utility trucks, and then use them once and leave them behind, if you have the funds for it.
• Alternatively, there could be a "Vehicle Depot" type of disposition, for heavier vehicles like tanks. That way, for landlocked scenarios and terrains without runways or harbors, you can still work towards capturing a specific area, with an additional benefit being the ability to call in heavy firepower.
• Also on the topic of dispositions, it would be cool if developers could create custom disposition types in general. It'd allow developers to create custom strategic points with a custom disposition in their mission, that allow their side to call in artillery or airstrikes or whatever. For example, a developer could create a custom "Radio Station" disposition type, and if it's controlled by a side, then it allows them to use supports. 
• As far as calling in airdrops goes, in general, there should be an option to specifically select where something is airdropped. A lot of the time, something gets airdropped on a building, the airdropped vehicle explodes, or it gets airdropped behind enemy lines since the game selects the airdrop area in the sector for you and doesn't take everything into account that a human would. Essentially, it would be nice if we can select airdrop positions in a similar fashion to calling AI supports like artillery or heli transport in other gamemodes. You could make it so you can select any spot within the bounds of a sector, and your airdrop will land close to that spot, instead of its location being selected by the game.
• also kind of a nitpicky suggestion but, for the official gamemodes, there should be stationary repair depots, ammo dumps and fuel depots at the main base for a side. Definitely it can be done in the editor, but it would make life easier for everyone lmao

In general, I think airdropping on a player's position should be restricted to infantry and lighter vehicles, or there at least should be an option for it in the mission settings. That way, there's more of a penalty than a higher CP price. Heavy armor and utility trucks should only be airdroppable within the confines of a sector. Also, players should be able to specifically select where they'd like something to be airdropped in a sector, instead of the game selecting and potentially destroying or making the airdropped vehicle inaccessible.

Also, disposition types could be moddable in the sense that you could create your own disposition type in a description.ext file, and use it to limit anything of your choosing for custom missions. There could be a command to check if a side has a certain disposition type captured, and if so, it could return "true" and be used in triggers.