Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just now, HazJ said:

Any plans for larger player count? Officially. Currently I only see 16. Was thinking 32 at least?

 

For the smaller-scale scenarios, I think 16 players is a reasonable limit. Only the whole Altis scenario currently supports up to 32 players and we'll be internally testing even a 64-player version.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Man Without Qualities said:

 

I guess I understood Jezuro in a way that he want to bring a CTI which is more "back to the roots". At least I hope that is that way.

Having drones flying around marking the targets and firing with hitech arty hitech shells across the entire range from 1 base into another would jeopardize that "back to the roots" idea.

Jets are bad for game idea too, I hope I see not more then transport copters in his version, everyzhing else could be done in custom versions.

 I see and it's a reasonable point.
But maybe making the artillery virtual and placing it in cooldown and limited only into the attacking area or unable to use in the Faction bases could be a way.
Or limiting only to the mortars.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MrStregatto said:

 I see and it's a reasonable point.
But maybe making the artillery virtual and placing it in cooldown and limited only into the attacking area or unable to use in the Faction bases could be a way.
Or limiting only to the mortars.

 

 

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_Launch_Rocket_System

 

Here you see, some rockets can travel 80km+ so we would need maps of 100-200km lenght each side so 10.000 -40.000 km2 size to be able to maintain a strategic distance to stay out of range.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortar_(weapon)

 

Men-portable mortar do also 5-12km already, so that would be acceptable for the largest BIS islands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/8/2018 at 9:55 AM, Jezuro said:

Custom asset lists will still be supported, of course. Warlords scenarios created with the Workshop version of the mode will have to be updated with new module classnames, but other than that I think they should work just fine.

About this, how would one go about updating the classnames. If all that's changed in their name is a prefix or something, would find and replace in np++ be enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would be better just to make it scroll (if needed) instead of telling them to read article in field manual:

ED5ERuN.jpg

Is it also possible to add further customisable options in the dialog (Camouflage, Slat Cage, etc) for supported vehicles like the Rhino? For a cost of course.

UYu4DbW.jpg

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Concerning the artillery issue:

 

1. Allow players to buy artillery only on one or two specific capture points, like the one they started with and the first they capture.

  • Intention: Reduce the area where you can expect the enemy artillery from the whole map to a certain area, maybe 25km²?, but still leave the artillery enough room to move/hide.

2. Allow players buy UAVs or only the UAVs with laser targeting.

  • Intention: UAVs are the fastest way to spot enemy vehicles.

Example:

  1. OPFOR has Sorchor somewhere.
  2. BLUEFOR has to find it quick.
  3. Fastest way: Buy Darter, and search it.
  4. If you found it, the best way to destroy it would be by CAS with laser guided bombs, which the Wipeout is already equipped with.
  5. If the Sorchor is guarded with AA: Bad luck.

As you can see, that's a "Rock, paper, scissor" system.


Questions? Opinion?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all very well, but imagine being on the receiving end of an arty barrage. Even one battery is enough to effectively lock a faction's progress through the map. If they don't have the required assets at hand, they're simply stuck.

 

I don't want the sessions to last hours and hours where everyone is either being killed from 15km away or hunting for a single vehicle on such massive landscapes.

 

Of course it can provide some interesting emergent gameplay. Feel free to set up your own scenario which utilizes artillery, just don't expect to see it in the official scenarios any time soon.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are various failsafe mechanisms which should make the AI progress more reliable.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do those include failsafes to prevent the AI getting stuck/lost when trying to navigate to a distant sector? Or is that unrelated.

That kind of issue always seemed to be the AI's biggest problem with the gamemode.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, target_practice said:

Do those include failsafes to prevent the AI getting stuck/lost when trying to navigate to a distant sector? Or is that unrelated.

That kind of issue always seemed to be the AI's biggest problem with the gamemode.

That is something that BIS as entire company struggles to make it reliable. Hence, Jezuro alone won't fix it.

It is better to address AI issues in the threads related to this issue:

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I was hardly expecting him to fix the underlying AI, hence failsafes.

I was wondering if one of said failsafes includes a mechanism to teleport stuck AI or something similar, such as allowing them to fast travel to adjacent sectors when given the option; an ability they lacked in the mod version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unrelated question: seeing as the new parameters file (Missions_F_Warlords\cfgMissionParams.inc) contains a complete params array, is there any way to include custom parameters alongside it which doesn't just involve copy-pasting the parameters from there into a new array in description.ext?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good note, I will add another file which will contain only the params without the parent class definition: cfgMissionParams_subclasses.inc

So you can use

 

class Params
{
      #include "\A3\Missions_F_Warlords\cfgMissionParams_subclasses.inc"
};

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just tried porting one of my old warlords missions, and while everything seems to work fine, I get these two errors. Are they of any concern?

 

1E515E54F5B4EDA868812EAF6F0E8BCE552CA216

 

07EA4EECBD5CFCA9D7DE7DBB59932A6250BC77B5

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you could upload the mission files somewhere I will take a look.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Warning: class 'B_Heli_Light_01_armed_F' doesn't have public scope!
Warning: class 'B_Heli_Transport_01_camo_F' doesn't have public scope!
Warning: class 'B_Heli_Attack_01_F' doesn't have public scope!
Warning: class 'B_Plane_CAS_01_F' doesn't have public scope!
Warning: class 'B_UAV_02_F' doesn't have public scope!
Warning: class 'B_UAV_02_CAS_F' doesn't have public scope!
Warning: class 'O_APC_Wheeled_02_rcws_F' doesn't have public scope!
Warning: class 'O_Heli_Light_02_F' doesn't have public scope!
Warning: class 'O_Heli_Attack_02_F' doesn't have public scope!
Warning: class 'O_Plane_CAS_02_F' doesn't have public scope!
Warning: class 'O_UAV_02_F' doesn't have public scope!
Warning: class 'O_UAV_02_CAS_F' doesn't have public scope!

 

Land_Pod_Heli_Transport_04_covered_F was causing the first error message.

 

You should update / remove these classes from the requisition list.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the help. Any idea why these classes aren't working properly when they did beforehand?

 

EDIT: Having looked at the CfgVehicles page on the biki, I notice that all the vehicles listed here are said to have a protected scope, as opposed to public.

I'm still pretty inexperienced with scripting so what does the scope of the vehicle mean in this context, and why does the lack of public scope cause problems for WL?

 

I should clarify that I do understand the concept of scope within programming in general, but I'm confused as to what it is referring to here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Public scope means that the asset is placeable in the editor. These assets have had their classnames changed, but the old names are still kept in the config with protected scope so it doesn't cause backwards incompatibility if they're used in older missions or scripts.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello! I am a member of 19th Yorkshire, a group which had the privilege of attending the Warlords TvT playtest on 16/11/2018. First of all I'd like to say thank you to BI, Flash-Ranger, the [88] and the rest of the team for organising this event, we had a lot of fun! I was asked to leave any constructive feedback here, please let me know if this is the wrong place for it.

For the most part the event went well and my regiment had a lot of fun, so please don't take my critiques the wrong way. Here are some issues that were raised in the event:

  • 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.
  • Only being able to attack one objective: This isn't an issue for lower player-count games, but for 45 v 45 having all players fight over a single front-line was not ideal.
  • 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.
  • Inability to change attack objective: Once you set your target to a given objective, no one could figure out how to change this objective. This made it so, if you lose ground, you're still supposed to be attacking an objective you can no longer get to! Here is an example: 5C631011E83F2547980BA704808F6FF51977C84B
  • From the above image you can see that, even though we have very little chance of getting to the airbase anymore, we are still required to attack it to move forwards.
  • Spawn protection: I did not suffer from spawn-camping, but several soldiers on Bluefor complained that they were being killed by jets as soon as they spawned in.
  • Comeback mechanics: Once one team started losing, it seemed there was no way for them to turn it around, as the attackers had way more CP and could spawn more deadly weapons and vehicles at a faster rate.

Once again, thanks for organising such a great event :smile_o:. Fighting in the ruined streets of the town at the end of the game was very immersive, as Redfor had reduced the town to rubble in our attack. The build-up phase was also interesting, as we were racing against eachother to meet in the middle. Watching the equipment that was being utilised slowly growing in scale and power was a lot of fun, we were surprised by the first Jets strafing our position and had to struggle to adapt. As guided AT and guided AA were both cheaper than tanks and aircraft, teams had to be careful with their CP and couldn't just spam tanks etc. As a regiment of primarily PvP/TvT players, we found the PvPvE experience very enjoyable.

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure comeback mechanics are such a good idea, it'd probably lead to a never ending back and fourth in a gamemode that takes long enough to play as it is.

Otherwise I agree with all points, especially on the matter of spawn protection; it should not be possible for one team to find a suitable hill from which to continuously spawncamp the other, something Opfor did extensively for most of the event.

It was more or less impossible for Blufor to bring in any helis, as they were shot to pieces the second they spawned in, with no other available sectors with the relevant disposition.

 

As much of a spectacle as it was, the event clearly demonstrated that such high player counts simply don't work when funneled into one small sector at a time. I honestly think the ability to unlock multiple sectors at a time would be mandatory to make 60+ player matches manageable.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, target_practice said:

Not sure comeback mechanics are such a good idea, it'd probably lead to a never ending back and fourth in a gamemode that takes long enough to play as it is.

 

I concede this point, it's very hard to balance a game so that the game ends in good time and the losing team don't just quit/switch sides when they start falling behind too far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×