Warlords

[Dwarden 1125]

this took longer explain https://forums.bohemia.net/forums/topic/160288-arma-3-stable-server-192-performance-binary-feedback/?do=findComment&comment=3355535

[Nic1 12]

@Jezuro @Dwarden Just wanted to let you know that the servers are still freezing and crashing even after the patch. In fact US01E is crashed/frozen at the moment of this post. Several people on side/global chat have said it is because of the static AA/radar/SAM so you should look into those and possibly remove them until the performance issues are resolved. 

[Anthony Mackiw 0]

@Dwarden again and always hacker on the server !!!

 

 

[Beagle 684]

Whats up with GlobMob content in warlords?

I deactivated GlobMob recently after the campaign because it's of no real MP value.

Now whenever I join a Warlords server I get GlobMob missing objects and texture popups... and... quite a few players players running around in underwear and invisible gear and weapons unsing rifle grenades from invisible rifles and invisible LATGMs from invisible lauchers.

 

Why is GlobMob content available in Warlords?

[Jezuro 452]

It was an oversight on my part. I will need to filter out any CDLC assets for Arsenal in the next update.

[pierremgi 4853]

7 hours ago, Jezuro said:

It was an oversight on my part. I will need to filter out any CDLC assets for Arsenal in the next update.

 

That's the big problem of these DLCs. I did that for Kart, just to avoid spawning racing helmets and suits in Takistan. But at least, when you don't own this DLC and you do nothing (no filter), the objects spawn and you can play.

Here Global Mobilization fails to be loaded/unloaded. So, that can be messy, not only for Warlord and also plenty of scenarios and I think the solution is to be found on GM side.

[Kailux 2]

When designing a Warlords mission, is it possible to disable "fast travel to contested sector" at all so one can only travel to seized ones (im looking to only allow a few of sectors to be fast travelled to and only when they are seized already).

[Jezuro 452]

@Kailux I think that is not possible now.

[Jezuro 452]

The 64p Altis scenario on the official servers is currently using an experimental cost increase for SAM sites (30k).

[Dwarden 1125]

alongside with new 1.92.145681 profiling branch binary build 

https://forums.bohemia.net/forums/topic/160288-arma-3-stable-server-192-performance-binary-feedback/?do=findComment&comment=3356367

[CaptainDawson 93]

On 5/15/2019 at 11:10 AM, Jezuro said:

The 64p Altis scenario on the official servers is currently using an experimental cost increase for SAM sites (30k).

 

My experience is that more than 90% of the players I've played with already have no clue how the SAM systems work, and have no desire whatsoever to set them up or even learn from the more experienced players how they work. The SAMs are not OP unless you have knowledgeable players utilizing them. They can be countered and evaded by a coordinated team, just like the Rhino. Having to stay connected with a terminal for the Radar to work is a HUGE balancing factor just for the fact that many players don't even know this! My opinion is that rather than increasing the cost of each item that's considered "Overpowered", perhaps a change to the current meta would be more beneficial in the long run.

 

30K? At this point, the only players who are going to be able to set up SAMs are people who have hours upon hours of time to spend in Warlords. Correct me if I'm wrong, but those players are the ones more likely to be the experienced ones. The kinds of players who know how to TAKE ADVANTAGE of unbalanced aspects of the game. IMHO this would only further help those types of players.

 

Case in point: The cost of the Rhino+Ammo Truck was greatly increased recently. Did this prevent me from "spamming" the Rhino ATGMs? No. It just made me take longer to buy it. What did it change? The likelihood that NEW players will try out the Rhino and learn some new tactics. After all, the Rhino is the least armored tank, yet costs the MOST. Why would anyone ever buy a Rhino, unless they know how to utilize the laser-guided ATGM system? It's a niche weapons system which takes knowledge and practice to learn. They won't use it at all. Leading to an ever increasing gap between the noobs and the experienced spammers. For the SAM system, this could be even worse, because SAMs can be quite literally REQUIRED to prevent your team getting jet spammed!

[Beagle 684]

6 hours ago, CaptainDawson said:

 

My experience is that more than 90% of the players I've played with already have no clue how the SAM systems work, and have no desire whatsoever to set them up or even learn from the more experienced players how they work. The SAMs are not OP unless you have knowledgeable players utilizing them. They can be countered and evaded by a coordinated team, just like the Rhino. Having to stay connected with a terminal for the Radar to work is a HUGE balancing factor just for the fact that many players don't even know this! My opinion is that rather than increasing the cost of each item that's considered "Overpowered", perhaps a change to the current meta would be more beneficial in the long run.

 

30K? At this point, the only players who are going to be able to set up SAMs are people who have hours upon hours of time to spend in Warlords. Correct me if I'm wrong, but those players are the ones more likely to be the experienced ones. The kinds of players who know how to TAKE ADVANTAGE of unbalanced aspects of the game. IMHO this would only further help those types of players.

 

Case in point: The cost of the Rhino+Ammo Truck was greatly increased recently. Did this prevent me from "spamming" the Rhino ATGMs? No. It just made me take longer to buy it. What did it change? The likelihood that NEW players will try out the Rhino and learn some new tactics. After all, the Rhino is the least armored tank, yet costs the MOST. Why would anyone ever buy a Rhino, unless they know how to utilize the laser-guided ATGM system? It's a niche weapons system which takes knowledge and practice to learn. They won't use it at all. Leading to an ever increasing gap between the noobs and the experienced spammers. For the SAM system, this could be even worse, because SAMs can be quite literally REQUIRED to prevent your team getting jet spammed!

Well the biggest issue so far is: when you have enough CP for a radar, the server frames are already so low that the mission is unberable anywaywhen the server is full. Thats just another sing that 64 players is too much for the server.

[Jezuro 452]

@CaptainDawson From what I've seen SAMs are no longer used as an everpresent deterrent for jets. Funds transfer was used multiple times to counter immediate aircraft threats which is IMO a better situation than having the whole map covered with SAMs.

[CaptainDawson 93]

8 hours ago, Jezuro said:

@CaptainDawson From what I've seen SAMs are no longer used as an everpresent deterrent for jets. Funds transfer was used multiple times to counter immediate aircraft threats which is IMO a better situation than having the whole map covered with SAMs.

 

Ok, seems like the matches you saw were a bit different from the last few I've played. Still, having the map covered with SAMs is IMO still better than having the map covered with jets. Jet spam can deny the use of ground units, SAMs can't.

 

I think part of the reason SAMs aren't being used as an ever-present deterrent is because a lot of players STILL think the SAMs are directly responsible for the game crashing and strongly tell their fellow players to not use them!

 

 

[Jezuro 452]

We have still not ruled out the connection between the crashes and too many SAMs operating at the same time though.

[CaptainDawson 93]

13 minutes ago, Jezuro said:

We have still not ruled out the connection between the crashes and too many SAMs operating at the same time though.

 

I agree with that. Too many at once is a problem. It is not the sole problem though, that I know.

[Beagle 684]

Observation from Saturday 18th May.

 

Server EU#01 58 Players Altis regular setting; Game starts with good performance, is fluid but gets significantly slower after just 2 hours, all client report fps aroudn 18-20. no LR radras used

Server EU#11 42 Players Altis regular setting; Game already running for a while, at join is a bit choppy but playable (fps around 30) starts to degrade after another 1 hour. One LR radras used

Server EU#03 21 Players Altis veteran setting; Game is running smooth with fps in the range above 36, 2 Hours played, groudn and air units used, left server still runnign good frames. Two LR radars used lots of SAM missile spam.

Server US#01e 42 Players, Altis recruit setting: Game is lagging at join, fps already down to 26, Mission is already runnign for 8 hours. No LR radars used

 

Conclusion

 

The high player count on official servers is the main reason for low sever and client fps.

With low sever ans client fps bad things begin to happen

MIssiles dont track right or are rubberbanding, Automatic weapons get "Hickups" and have low fire rates.

Rubberbanding collisions resulting in exploding vehicles. Somethimes tanks just blow up when you drive a Car into them, whiel the car takes no damage.

Helicopters tend to roll over or explode on landings, particularly with AFM.

I also noticed that shutting down arma after playing Warlords on a sever with low fps takes a lot of time, PC is reacting very slow until arma is finaly shut down. The process often takes 2 minutes.

 

I think returning to 16 vs.16 Player on Altis or something like would resolve the performance problems.

 

Adendum: spend the rest of the night on US#01e, it was still the same mission, we saw the sun set again. Player count was down to 20-30.  a lot of towns competely detroyed and in rubbles, but performance was good again.

 

 

.

 

[pr9inichek 133]

@Jezuro what's about add another victory condition:

 

How many towns be captured for 4, 6 or 8 hours

 

Wins the team that captures as many cities as possible?

 

In my opinion it's optimized time of game round.

 

 

May be decreased cost IFV-6c Panther for increase popularity this vehicle?

 

May be add Carrier for NATO, if they captured some important or too many towns?

 

Fix Garbage Collector, please for optimization.

 

May be spawn vehicles with empty inventory?

 

May be leave unchanged stamina after fast travel in Regular servers?

 

 

@Dwarden may be decrease slots from 64 to 40 or 32 in some servers for Experiments?

[Beagle 684]

Warlords tends to come to a stall more and more often. More and more often it becomes "whack a mole" around the center towns. Yesterday the mission on US#01e went on for 18 hours, without any progress on both sides until server restart. it was the first time I saw the sun go down and set again, when im rejoined hours later, in warlords. Which brings up a problem....the whack a mole recapturing gameplay.... it's not original nor very interesting.

 

Sector scan, look for the one player and its automated MG, spawn crew and MBT, capture, MBT gets killed by a CAS on its way back to base... repeat!

[crs24 33]

I’ve suggested this before, and I think that instead of the current situation with sectors controlled by one team and locked to the other that when captured by the enemy team they remain forever unlocked for both teams to play whack a mole over, the captured sectors that are unlocked for both teams when not being a targeted sector should return to locked status for the team not controlling the sector if the other nearby sectors are also captured by this sectors controlling team and there’s no enemy sectors nearby so theres a limit to how many sectors 1 person can just drive a quad bike to or send a single ai to take by themselves.

At the very least i think it should always take 2 people or ai squad members or some other minimum being there before your able to start taking an empty sector with no one else there.

[CaptainDawson 93]

1 hour ago, Beagle said:

Warlords tends to coem to a stall more and more often. more and more often it becomes "whack a mole" aroudn the centr towns. Yesterday the mission on US#01e went on for 18 hours, without any progress on both sides until server restart. it was the first time I saw the sun go down and set again, when im rejoined hours later, in warlords. Which brings up a problem....the whack a mole recapturing gameplay.... it's not original nor very interesting.

 

Sector scan, look for the one player and its automated MG, spawn vrew and MBT, capture, MBT gets killed by a CAS on itsr way back to base... repeat!

 

I completely agree with what @Beagle and @pr9inichek, and @crs24 are saying. @Beagle your observations on server performance are accurate in my opinion.

 

Whack-A-Mole theory case in point: The other day I personally flipped a Warlords match for Blufor when Opfor was already as far as AAC Airfield. Opfor had the advantage in players numbers. I simply snuck through their air defense in a MH-9 and backcapped Anthrakia without any contact with the enemy (Besides dodging Nephrons). I then proceeded to backcap over 12 sectors from Poliakko to as far as Paros, using a spam of sector scans to determine which sector did not have any enemies in it! After capping each sector, I immediately left before the enemy could find me. Eventually, Opfor's teleport to the West side of Altis was completely cut off. I convinced my teammates to use the same tactic as I had been using, and we split up and played "Whack-a-mole" as Beagle was talking about. 

 

The map of Altis is MASSIVE. Even with 64 players AND their AI subordinates, there is NO WAY any team can cover enough ground to realistically attack and defend all those sectors. The scenario is an awesome idea and I love it, but it is just too big and has too many units involved to work smoothly in the current state of things. We need a way to break the inevitable stalemate at Anthrakia. It seems nearly EVERY match I join, it is nighttime and both teams are locked on or near Anthrakia. Honestly when I see that I almost always just disconnect, the same situation and repetitive tactics every game has made it become stale and boring. Most players I have discussed this with in the game voice channel agree that it's becoming very annoying at best.

 

Once again I make my suggestion: RANDOMIZE the base start locations, and make alternative sector locations and sector costs. We need to force players to think about their strategy, instead of one experienced player just having to yell "VOTE ANTHRAKIA" every time. Nerf the overpowered tactics by discouraging the use of the same tactic over and over again. Not by simply increasing the cost every time we decide a vehicle/SAM is overpowered. Consider pr9inichek's recommendations!

[Jezuro 452]

If there's a stalemate, I'd suggest resetting sector vote and trying a different route. If a strategy always leads to a stalemate I'd go as far as calling it a bad strategy. You want to change the rules to mix up tactics and at the same time you're saying these tactics don't work. Why use them at all then?

To be honest I'm fine with Altis scenario taking such a long time to finish. The map is huge and it takes time to push through it. If you want shorter scenarios then by all means play some other maps as well.

[CaptainDawson 93]

24 minutes ago, Jezuro said:

If there's a stalemate, I'd suggest resetting sector vote and trying a different route. If a strategy always leads to a stalemate I'd go as far as calling it a bad strategy. You want to change the rules to mix up tactics and at the same time you're saying these tactics don't work. Why use them at all then?

To be honest I'm fine with Altis scenario taking such a long time to finish. The map is huge and it takes time to push through it. If you want shorter scenarios then by all means play some other maps as well.

 

That's the thing. When it comes down to it, there is no different route to try. Ultimately you have to go through Anthrakia, and until you arrive there the only choice is which green sectors you want to cap first. Any strategy you use will only speed up or slow down how quickly you arrive at the stalemate. Only exception is when one team is significantly worse than the other, in which case the better team can push past Anthrakia before the enemy arrives. The strategy of Whack-A-Mole I agree is a bad and ridiculous strategy. But it is inevitably what ends up happening on both teams once the players start leaving. Why would they fight 10 enemies in one sector, when they can simply drive to an undefended sector and cap it uncontested? Most players don't play the entire match, and most players don't want to join a stalemated match when they could join a server that has just restarted. 

 

I'd love to play the smaller maps, but as I've browsed the server list lately, it has been very unusual for me to find a non-Altis Warlords server with more than a few players. I'm not calling for the rules themselves to be changed on Altis, I just have the opinion that alternating the base locations could add some variability and more interesting gameplay than in the current meta.

[Beagle 684]

2 hours ago, Jezuro said:

If there's a stalemate, I'd suggest resetting sector vote and trying a different route. If a strategy always leads to a stalemate I'd go as far as calling it a bad strategy. You want to change the rules to mix up tactics and at the same time you're saying these tactics don't work. Why use them at all then?

To be honest I'm fine with Altis scenario taking such a long time to finish. The map is huge and it takes time to push through it. If you want shorter scenarios then by all means play some other maps as well.

The problem here by is, there is no real strategy. It is near impossible to get randons player follow a plan more then say: till respawn. You are lucky if you find 2 guys to help you in your "plan". And then when you're there, someone hits "reset sector" because it's more important to capture airbase before Lakka military hill. No, most of the time you see lonewolf Rambos that onyl look like a team because they spawn at the same location.

 

I noticed that particularly on NATO side, any cooperation and battle plannig is poor, very much on EU servers. US servers are a bit better on that part.

 

But i also noticed I now rely a lot on teleprt tactics.... teleport with Stealth suit and a Bergen full of Titan AT (5) to AO or a high terrain point, teleport back to rearm, rinse and repeat till tankers leave the game, capture.

I think the teleport thingie is too easy andarcade for a battlefield simulation, it should really have a cooldown of a few minutes as long as you're alive and don't have to respawn. Because right now, Teleport itself is a weapon.

You litterally wear of an defender witch respawn waves, not with actual combat tactics or conceted actions. What dos he do? He retreats 20 meters out of the border, digs in, waits and recaps when the circus has left the town.

Ben there, done that, ad nauseum till the CP counter shows 13500.

 

Oh and by the way... it's really much easier to win on OFOPR side. Better armour, better airpower, better positions on the map from the Start.

 

The mission could really use some randomization!. Why not switch or simply mirror starting positions randomly. Also, the Altis north west hill area rarely sees PvP ground combat depite the fact that those hills make things really different.

 And last but not least a feature request, would it be possible to use the garage, to customize vehicles the way it is done for the arsenal? Mainly asking for camo nets, slat cages and alternate paint.

[CaptainDawson 93]

 

1 hour ago, Beagle said:

But i also noticed I now rely a lot on teleprt tactics.... teleport with Stealth suit and a Bergen full of Titan AT (5) to AO or a high terrain point, teleport back to rearm, rinse and repeat till tankers leave the game, capture.

 

LOL I was waiting to see how long it would take for this to come up! Yes it is extremely OP, when your sector is being attacked by enemy tanks you can often literally teleport to right next to the enemy tank and immediately shoot him with 5 Titan missiles. If he kills you, all you have to do is just respawn, regain loadout (50 CP) teleport (50 CP) and appear in a different spot near the enemy again! I even have my launcher equipped and player crouched so I can immediately fire as soon as I appear. Assuming the tank is on thermals (which he usually will be) he can hardly even see you on his scope when you wear thermals. Yes I fully admit I use these kinds of spammy tactics, this one and a lot more others. Why? Because the current layout is conducive to this type of fighting if you want to win. The enemy does spam tactics, and it is often not easy to counter him unless I do the same. Have I mentioned that if a BLUFOR knocks down a specific tree near the OPFOR base, you can gain a tiny sliver of line of sight to snipe from 1800 meters every player in the base, with 1% chance of ever being found? (No I don't do this anymore, except as a counter to OPFOR spawn camping BLUFOR.)

 

1 hour ago, Beagle said:

Oh and by the way... it's really much easier to win on OFOPR side. Better armour, better airpower, better positions on the map from the Start.

 

The mission could really use some randomization!. Why not switch or simply mirror starting positions randomly. Also the Altis north west hill area rarely sees PvP ground combat depite the fact that those hills make things really different.

 And last but not least a feature request, woudlk it be possible to use the garage to customize vehicles the way it id done for the arsenal? Mainly asking for camo nets, slat cages and alternate paint.

 

Finally someone who agrees with me! I agree with this completely! NW side of Altis would be very interesting for combat, especially since armored vehicles would have a much harder time moving about in the forests and mountains. A whole portion of the map (my favorite portion) has only one capture sector, Oreokastro, and you hardly ever get to capture it! A full vehicle Arsenal to customize your tank for an additional CP cost would be awesome. It would add value and interest to using your own special vehicle and would add some variation to the same few baseline vehicles we always see!

 

I think a VAST IMPROVEMENT could be made to Warlords simply by changing the base locations, even if we kept the sectors in the same places! It doesn't need to be perfectly even and balanced; war is never fair, and the current Warlords balance definitely isn't. Most players who have played for awhile will certainly agree this is a needed change.