Warlords

[Beagle 684]

btw. the sudden "SESSION LOST" message after warlords is won or lost, is an unworthy end for a mission 44 player spend a half day or night with.

Let there be any kind of mission end screen...!

[Dwarden 1125]

On 6/24/2019 at 8:39 AM, Beagle said:

btw. the sudden "SESSION LOST" message after warlords is won or lost, is an unworthy end for a mission 44 player spend a half day or night with.

Let there be any kind of mission end screen...!

 

it's unfortunate, yet known bug which went unnoticed for long time as server used higher values than 1,2 cycles

when the server uses missionsToServerShutdown / missionsToServerRestart feature (automatic process end)

instead of triggering this after DebriefingTimeout it proceed with the operation instantly at missionEnd

 

will try get this fixed as soon as possible

[CaptainDawson 93]

Hmmmmmm, something seems wrong with this picture... Specifically relating to the amount of kills the top player has?

 

 

5 player/AI kills total. 1,210 vehicle kills hmmm.

Strongly suggests he had a very large influence on this very unbalanced match, that and the fact that his own teammates are trying to kick him lol

[pierremgi 4890]

1 hour ago, CaptainDawson said:

Hmmmmmm, something seems wrong with this picture... Specifically relating to the amount of kills the top player has?

 

 

5 player/AI kills total. 1,210 vehicle kills hmmm.

Strongly suggests he had a very large influence on this very unbalanced match, that and the fact that his own teammates are trying to kick him lol

 

The second weird observation is, as a matter of fact,  how can people stay more than 2 minutes on such server?

 

[CaptainDawson 93]

11 hours ago, pierremgi said:

 

The second weird observation is, as a matter of fact,  how can people stay more than 2 minutes on such server?

 

 

Great question. A lot of people don't. Lot of people just got sick of it and don't play Warlords anymore, most players now are newbies rather than veterans. The answer for me is that I did not even realize what was going on until I saw Raikkonen trying to vote kick this player, since I joined an already half-over game. As for everyone else. I'm not really sure why people subject themselves to this anymore. I'm not really interested in playing Warlords until we can at least see some sort of meta change. After buying a Hunter HMG to backcap OPFOR sectors dozens of times in a row, it really just gets boring. It's easier to backcap an empty sector singlehandedly then to fight at the contested sector, and now that a lot of players are starting to figure this out it's just an endless game of Whack-A-Mole, until the experienced players leave one team, and their opposing team just steamrolls to victory.

 

Thank goodness we are at least able to kick most of these problematic players, yesterday we were able to get "AORUS" the repeated teamkiller kicked before he could do too much damage.

[Beagle 684]

4 minutes ago, CaptainDawson said:

 

Great question. The answer for me is that I did not even realize what was going on until I saw Raikkonen trying to vote kick this player, since I joined an already half-over game. As for everyone else. I'm not really sure why people subject themselves to this anymore. I'm not really interested in playing Warlords until we can at least see some sort of meta change. After buying a Hunter HMG to backcap OPFOR sectors dozens of times in a row, it really just gets boring. It's easier to backcap an empty sector singlehandedly then to fight at the contested sector, and now that a lot of players are starting to figure this out it's just an endless game of Whack-A-Mole, until the experienced players leave one team, and their opposing team just steamrolls to victory.

 

Thank goodness we are at least able to kick most of these problematic players, yesterday we were able to get "AORUS" the repeated teamkiller kicked before he could do too much damage.

You just concluded why warlords lost it's appeal and could only serve for a short while as an substitute for the fully dynamic and randomized warfare CTI scenario from ArmA and ArmA II. It will peak up again with the Livonia map... until that novelty wears off also after a few weeks.

[CaptainDawson 93]

1 minute ago, Beagle said:

You just concluded why warlords lost it's appeal and could only serve for a short while as an substitute for the fully dynamic and randomized warfare CTI scenario from ArmA and ArmA II. It will peak again with the Livonia map... until that novelty wears off also after a few weeks.

 

I will be getting my own dedicated server most likely in a few months, I am considering organizing a test Altis Warlords server using adjusted sectors and CP costs to see if that will fix some of the problems basically using the suggestions we've been discussing. Decrease AI number/increase skill, change base location, spread out sectors more evenly and give a range of potential attack routes rather than only 2 or 3, bring some randomization instead of your team knowing where every Strider and Gorgon is! Rhino doesn't need to be nerfed at all, the Ammo Truck's nearly unlimited ammunition is what needs to be nerfed! Nerf things by nerfing their spammyness, not by increasing the price. Significantly increase ammo reload time for all vehicles. Lower heli costs, planes back to 7500 and 10000, nerf heli and plane reload to prevent spam. Remove SAMs. Start players nearby airbases and add invincible/respawning static AA AI/player usable defenses for Blufor and Opfor airports and base to prevent incessant camping. Ban some Arsenal items even? Tron suit guy with Bergen and Titan MPRL Compact does not belong on the battlefield. Limited of course to basic scripting stuff because I am not the expert in that. Obviously just having "Vote Admin" could potentially solve 90% of the remaining player-related problems provided the players elect a trusted individual. It may be difficult to populate such a server because many casual players already avoid non-official servers, and Warlords already seems to be dying. I will advertise it and see if maybe we can get unit vs unit Warlords to get the numbers up, and let individual players join in perhaps... Warlords still has a lot of potential, I hope we can encourage interest in the official servers again by addressing a few of the worst issues.

 

Still think just the addition of 2 or 3 different sector layouts would SIGNIFICANTLY increase the appeal of Warlords to players. Players are tired of the same thing over and over.

[crs24 33]

I’ve said this before but just to say again since I have no idea who reads my past comments if they haven’t followed the thread;

 

Without going into a multi-paragraph explanation like I did the first time I wrote this,

On the subject of the rhino, if in warlords you remove the ar-2’s and possibly the remote designator’s datalink so the rhino atgms needs line of sight to detect the lase or careful aiming to LOAL( and it does have this I checked) to hit with its atgms like every other vehicles LGM in warlords do it would be balanced in my opinion.

 

On the subject of the ammo truck I’d much prefer slower reloading over limited ammo supply since that was a thing in early A3 and I and others hated it, especially since with some vehicles and currently still applicable with the smallest vehicle ammo crate you couldn’t even fully reload some vehicles ONCE before it became completely useless.

 

On the whackamole meta, I think that sectors that are unlocked to both teams and not the current target should lock again to the enemy once the sectors current owner advances far enough past it. Also it should require 2 people/ai to start capping a empty sector.

[CaptainDawson 93]

2 hours ago, crs24 said:

On the subject of the ammo truck I’d much prefer slower reloading over limited ammo supply since that was a thing in early A3 and I and others hated it, especially since with some vehicles and currently still applicable with the smallest vehicle ammo crate you couldn’t even fully reload some vehicles ONCE before it became completely useless.

 

I think both slower reload and limited supply together would be good. Not like early A3, just more limited than the nearly instant unlimited supply of ammo we have now. On the Rhino, if reload amount was reduced and time to reload increased, there is no need for further nerfing. You absolutely do not see people spamming Rhinos like they spam Shikras and Neophrons. Just look at the kill counts. With the exception of me, Bryce, and several other players, there are only a few who actually use the Rhino to its full potential. If you look at certain players who consistently camp the airfield and sector spawns with helicopters and planes, that's where the real problem is IMO. I don't blame those people per say, I blame the fact that this spam tactic is way too easy in Warlords.

[CaptainDawson 93]

Ok I take back what I said about being able to kick people, we have repeated teamkillers back again and the current kicking system does not resolve the problem when they can just rejoin 1 minute later on another bogus account. Legitimately cannot even spawn a vehicle without getting immediately sniped by Shikra or shot point blank by teamkiller. I'm done I'm going back to singleplayer lol 

[Raikkonen2270 7]

The rhino, since the beginning of warlords, it's a few things that people do not like, out of reach and very demoralizing. I played once with the rhino and it's a very easy and boring gameplay.

Quote

Bryce, and several other players, there are only a few who actually use the Rhino to its full potential.

There is a lot of ways to find it and destroy it. The proof, yesterday I killed Bryce stashed in his garage, But the rhinos had already made their effects on this game, my team was completely demoralized.

Spoiler

Jezuro has increased the price of the rhino and the truck ammunition. Since we see much less.

3000 CP for the truck, it penalizes many players who keep their vehicle alive, it should reduce the truck and increase the rhino to compensate.

 

The biggest problem of the warlords is their duration. Especially when they absolutely want to capture ALL AAF sectors. 

[Beagle 684]

1 hour ago, Raikkonen2270 said:

The biggest problem of the warlords is their duration. Especially when they absolutely want to capture ALL AAF sectors. 

Yes, it's almost like both sides agree to avoid direct confrontation after Anthrakia and go for hours of airquake instead, once enough CP is farmed...till server fps is down and people leave. The players that end the gam, most often literally the next day, did not start it. To see the start and end of a warlors mission you need to habe a socially questionable endurance in gaming. Nothing that can be done in the coherently 2 hours at once I would consider "healthy".

[CaptainDawson 93]

1 hour ago, Beagle said:

Yes, it's almost like both sides agree to avoid direct confrontation after Anthrakia and go for hours of airquake instead, once enough CP is farmed...till server fps is down and people leave. The players that end the gam, most often literally the next day, did not start it. To see the start and end of a warlors mission you need to habe a socially questionable endurance in gaming. Nothing that can be done in the coherently 2 hours at once I would consider "healthy".

 

Lol, this is basically true. They avoid attacking past Anthrakia because they know the team that attacks is the team that can NO LONGER backcap for the time being, meaning they will eventually lose the CP war. PLEASE we need alternative or random sector and base layouts so that players cannot just plan out the whole match and camp certain locations by memory! It defeats the purpose of simulating combat if you already know everything that will happen!

 

Since now I already know that CSAT will spam Shikras and blow every NATO vehicle to oblivion in nearly every match, I found myself using the tactics OPFOR usually uses - Camping the airfields. Genar and I mined the Selekano Airstrip into oblivion, I set up AA units at the Salt Flat, and then I Titan killed every Shikra, Neophron, and Kajman they spawned at Molos. It is sad that this is essentially the only way to contest the Shikra spam without calling a dozen Blackwasps. Even so, it was a long stalemated match at Anthrakia as always. The only way we won was by constantly calling in dozens of Blackwasps (2/3rds of which could not even land) to contest their 2 Shikras. The game needs to be shortened. Give us more than one route to choose through the center of the map, as I have demonstrated in my template. The current map layout significantly gives OPFOR an advantage! 

[pierremgi 4890]

As in a real conflict, there is an economic limitation. So here, limit for spawning units or vehicles!

That means teams are free to buy what they want but:

- the global account of CP must be limited by side, for the whole mission;

- all players must have a limited private account by hour of gaming. This way the global account is not too deeply impacted by "supermen";

- all players must have a limited account for respawn!

- there should be a progressive access to allow the buying of heavy assets, based on time last on playing and score

- ammos must be bought as well!

- (civilian and) friendly kills must be punished : here by strong negative CP

- There must be a server reset at 3 hours, what ever the mission is.

 

These limitations are a way to balance your choice for defensive/offensive assets and claims for some coordination.

 

There should be an official roster, not individual, but for teams, as far as there can be some registered teams (limited to twelve guys, no matter their individual participation). On my mind, but I guess how it's questionable, only people belonging to a team should access to some official servers. Teams can be ephemeral. The roster will do the difference.

[Beagle 684]

On 6/28/2019 at 7:20 AM, pierremgi said:

As in a real conflict, there is an economic limitation. So here, limit for spawning units or vehicles!

That means teams are free to buy what they want but:

- the global account of CP must be limited by side, for the whole mission;

- all players must have a limited private account by hour of gaming. This way the global account is not too deeply impacted by "supermen";

- all players must have a limited account for respawn!

- there should be a progressive access to allow the buying of heavy assets, based on time last on playing and score

- ammos must be bought as well!

- (civilian and) friendly kills must be punished : here by strong negative CP

- There must be a server reset at 3 hours, what ever the mission is.

 

These limitations are a way to balance your choice for defensive/offensive assets and claims for some coordination.

 

There should be an official roster, not individual, but for teams, as far as there can be some registered teams (limited to twelve guys, no matter their individual participation). On my mind, but I guess how it's questionable, only people belonging to a team should access to some official servers. Teams can be ephemeral. The roster will do the difference.

That's simply not what "warlords" is supposed to be, Don't try to make it into a gamemode it is not supposed to be.

There are already CTI modes out there no one plays anymore because of to much rules and resrictions.

[AlexRUS 4]

5 hours ago, Beagle said:

That's simply not what "warlords" is supposed to be, Don't try to make it into a gamempde it is not suppose dto be.

There are already CTI modes out there no one plays anymore because of to much rules and resrictions.

"friendly kills must be punished : here by strong negative CP" - there is sound good, -1000 for teamkill and 3 min out of game (if killed player approve it) is not very hard to develop. Of course, you always can say "sorry for teamkill" to killed player to avoid punishment...

[WarlordsFanNumber1 2]

13 hours ago, Beagle said:

That's simply not what "warlords" is supposed to be, Don't try to make it into a gamempde it is not suppose dto be.

There are already CTI modes out there no one plays anymore because of to much rules and resrictions.

Agreed with Beagle. Do not try to make Warlords into KOTH or smth like that.

[pierremgi 4890]

10 minutes ago, WarlordsFanNumber1 said:

Agreed with Beagle. Do not try to make Warlords into KOTH or smth like that.

 

 I thought something like Squad, just because servers turns unplayable. And I don't understand why BI couldn't make two or three kinds of missions, with drastic limitations or "open to cheat/ endless boring fight". But perhaps, some parameters chosen by admins could do the trick.

[crs24 33]

Basically on Altis both teams try to get enough income to get expensive things and tend to wait to advance so they don’t get steamrolled if they lose said expensive things.

 

Usually if one team in a game where both teams have similar player counts tries to charge straight for the hq of the other to quickly end the game without increasing their income through slower advance or backcapping, with either lower cp income than the other team or a income lower than a few hundred per minute, it typically stalls unless they can maintain asset superiority and high enemy attrition, something that’s easier with said backcapping adding more assets first, then people tend to leave on whatever team is getting beaten up or deadlocked, and the winner of said outcome respectively either continues advancing or backcapping until they win the game or advance or stall, and with the latter 2 it starts all over again. Which is why both teams often try to get a good economy before attacking the other full time. Of course it also deadlocks through both teams backcapping everything and then in the center it’s a stalemate, but that can be fun for a while IMO when your not constantly worried about backcapping and both are attacking, at least until people on one team start blowing up everything and the other team just starts leaving instead, but hopefully that means somebody wins.

The issue i think is when it’s been a slog for many hours and the game still isn’t close to ending, then people leave, and unless everyone leaves or the mission finally ends it stalls and starts all over again for the new people until one team finally wins a battle where nobody still there played a part in its early making. I don’t mind long battles but maybe the match should end if it’s been over 12 hours since it first started.

 

Strategically blufor has more sectors before opfor reaches their base, but Opfor has a shorter advance to a choke point if they skip sectors and better airfield locations. If blufor is pushed back far enough from the center to their airfield it’s often game over or a slog win for opfor unless a asset or player shakeup occurs, if opfor gets pushed back more than a few sectors past the map center they have even less sectors separating their base from being taken so it’s often game over or slog win for blufor unless a asset or player shakeup occurs.

20 hours ago, Beagle said:

That's simply not what "warlords" is supposed to be, Don't try to make it into a gamempde it is not suppose dto be.

There are already CTI modes out there no one plays anymore because of to much rules and resrictions.

As one of those of “socially questionable endurance” 😄 (i’m not offended) as beagle put it, I agree with beagle that this would probably kill warlords popularity as written and penalize people for not playing enough. And 3 hours? you often barely see both teams get close enough sector-wise to fight directly in 1 hour 9/10 times, 3 hours it might start getting fun then bang it restarts, it would kill the official servers. A 6-12 hour maximum limit might work so a game doesn’t last forever but not anything less IMO since as bad as stalemates are, if I’m fighting for 2 hours and finally were getting somewhere and then bam SESSION LOST I’m probably getting off instead of playing again. 

14 hours ago, AlexRUS said:

"friendly kills must be punished : here by strong negative CP" - there is sound good, -1000 for teamkill and 3 min out of game (if killed player approve it) is not very hard to develop. Of course, you always can say "sorry for teamkill" to killed player to avoid punishment...

I used to play on a server way back in A2 that had this type of victim controlled punishment system for killing people you shouldn’t and almost no administration (barely more than none unless you jumped through hoops to get a nigh nonexistent until called admin). It was abused constantly by trolls who would run in front of moving cars and people shooting or encourage people to kill them to get killed “wrongfully”, then hit the punish button regardless of the fact they caused it, so I don’t think that selectable punishing should be an option unless it at minimum requires multiple people being teamkilled or rapid repeated teamkills by the same person, which would be grounds for automatic punishment. I think warlords has shown the lack of features A3 has had in its base state to help prevent the many ways a troll can easily abuse nearly anything in the base game if an admin isn’t there to prevent it. The kickvote changes are new yet arma 3 has been out nearly 6 years and had idiots like that since day 1, and arma 2 never got it.

 

6 hours ago, pierremgi said:

 

 I thought something like Squad, just because servers turns unplayable. And I don't understand why BI couldn't make two or three kinds of missions, with drastic limitations or "open to cheat/ endless boring fight". But perhaps, some parameters chosen by admins could do the trick.

Depends on the parameters.

Squad doesn’t have maps the size of altis, at least not yet and the smaller maps barely get played in warlords. And in warlords each player is a squad leader leading a squad of ai, not grouping up in a squad with other players and I don’t think you can do so without breaking the ai subordinates. Restricting things too heavily will probably kill the interest in warlords, and in Squad certain things like the vehicles are apart of the mission and always there as such so say 3 tanks and cars are there at base every time the map plays with it costing tickets and time when they die before respawning. In warlords you only have what you and others buy with everything other than what you can put in your own inventory needing to be bought. And except for what’s in your inventory and certain placeable things like mines or some deployable things from the arsenal like the AR2, everything else like vehicles and crates and static defenses that you can buy disappear when the person who bought it leaves the server.

[Markkos26 2]

On 3/25/2019 at 5:19 AM, Jezuro said:

Not at this moment. I can give you a WIP changelog though:

 

Changed: Subordinates limit increased to 3 for the 64-player Altis scenario
Added: Long-range AA defense assets (SAM sites, radars)
Added: Autonomous defences are now limited to 3 per player
Tweaked: Cost of planes increased
Changed: Most requested assets are now locked by default and can be unlocked either directly via Action menu or through the Strategy tab in the Request menu
Added: Parameter for maximum Command Points
Fixed: Various script errors
Added: Custom offset parameter for Defences
Added: Friendly fire protection for requested assets (first 3 minutes after being requested)

Added: Unless their base is under attack, all playable units are now invulnerable after respawn until they leave the base (60 seconds maximum). - Iteration

@Jezuro how can I set the limit of the subordinates per player?

[Markkos26 2]

Why if I use "class CfgWLAssetCostOverride" the AI stop purchasing paradrop units?

[Markkos26 2]

20 minutes ago, Markkos26 said:

@Jezuro how can I set the limit of the subordinates per player?

nevermind! i found it

[poweredbypot 7]

Hello Everyone!

 

I have lurked around this forum thread for quite some time, and a few of you may remember me mentioning that I make a lot of custom Warlords missions that I someday hoped to put on a server.

I have come in again to tell you all that I have in fact started up that server, and I am working to get as many of my WL iterations setup in the mission rotation. It will take me some time to produce each version, so please be patient but with me and in time there should be no issues with "getting bored" with the same old thing.

I do plan to open additional servers in time that will use CUP terrains, RHS assets and the like. I am also very interested to hear any feedback from the community for any mods or scripts that will serve as fun additions or variations.

 

The server can be found at 38.91.100.119:2402 and I will do my best to get a discord server and website up shortly. In the meantime please feel free to direct any feedback to me here directly via PM (please don't clutter the WL thread) or via steam, username also PoweredByPot.

[Torical 0]

Kinda at a loss here and figured this would be the place to ask.

 

I've been trying to create a custom Warlords mission utilising Operation Trebuchet assets, specifically the Insurgents and Desert variants of the standard UNSC Army branch.

 

All modules have been placed and correctly (As far as I'm aware.) configured. The Blufor side was renamed to OPTRE_UNSC as it's the only Faction Classname which points at the UNSC, and OPFOR has been renamed to OPTRE_Ins.

The Description.ext file has been created and the custom assets code copied over directly from the wiki page. Now I feel this might be the problem, the fact that it technically isn't finished, but it seems silly to have to do everything then discover that one thing is ruining it.

So I decided to change the infantry line to something from Operation Trebuchet.

 

class Infantry
            {
                class OPTRE_UNSC_Army_Soldier_Sniper_DES // --- must be asset class name
                {
                    cost = 100; // --- Command Points required
                    requirements[]={}; // --- dispositions required ("A" = airstrip, "H" = helipad, "W" = water (harbor))
                };
            };

 

Yet when I input MyWLAssetList in the module, as you're supposed to, and enter the game the requisition menu is empty aside from the Strategy and Gear tabs. Even though there is prior code which is stock vanilla nothing shows up.

 

I've been scratching my head for hours and can't suss it out so any help would be appreciated.

 

 

[Jezuro 452]

@Torical Please provide the whole content of your description.ext so I can check what might be the issue.