Warlords

[CaptainDawson 93]

Currently on US01e the game is being ruined by another hacker, spawning us in the sky and killing all players at once. Most of our players came from another server, which was also ruined. Many players are new and said this was the first game they had played in Arma. They are now discussing in the voice chat what other game they should go play with each other cause we're all sick of this. One says he's sorry he bought the game, and all I could tell him is to try single player or a private server and give the game another chance.

 

It's pretty obvious at this point that Battleye is kind of useless. The hackers even say this in their screen messages. I think I've about had it with the public servers, I'm going to see if I can get my own server set up with an actual ability to kick hackers so at least some of us can play in peace. I'll link on the thread if I can get it up and running.

[Jezuro 452]

How should this randomization of base location work with i.e. distance to important sectors such as the airbase on Stratis?

 

I'm thinking of having fast travel to a friendly sector under attack by the enemy work the same as with contested sectors.

[Beagle 684]

22 hours ago, Jezuro said:

How should this randomization of base location work with i.e. distance to important sectors such as the airbase on Stratis?

 

I'm thinking of having fast travel to a friendly sector under attack by the enemy work the same as with contested sectors.

Randomization would already exist when the map gets mirrored, NATO starting in the east instead of West. Could as well be a second version of the mission that is rotating on the servers.

Possible Base locations could me made by hand by markers that define suitable base locations and a defined minimum distance between factions. That's how it was done in Warfare.

[Tex_Actual 5]

Out of curiosity, is the performance drop that came with the new patch being investigated? If so, do you guys have any leads?

 

Off topic: MTP CTRG Stealth suits for nato would be amazing.

[CaptainDawson 93]

22 hours ago, Jezuro said:

How should this randomization of base location work with i.e. distance to important sectors such as the airbase on Stratis?

 

I'm thinking of having fast travel to a friendly sector under attack by the enemy work the same as with contested sectors.

 

I like that idea. 

 

Here's another idea I've been considering for awhile: What if for example Opfor started at (or very close to) the Stratus Airbase, and Blufor started at (or near) another decent sized base. (Or vice-versa) Here's the balance: Both have the ability to spawn helicopters at their bases, but neither can spawn aircraft. Using aircraft on Stratus or Malden is a little unbalanced, since obviously there is only one primary airbase and only one team can own that sector at a time. That essentially means that one aircraft would usually have complete air superiority, and it's unlikely anyone will have enough CP gain from the smaller maps to set up SAMs very often. Besides, it's doubtful that in real life they would risk operating aircraft out of an airbase that could be captured back at any moment!

 

A theoretical idea for Altis: What if some of the possible base locations for Opfor and Blufor STARTED on or near airbases as well. Examples: AAC and Feres Airfield, AAC and Molos, NW airfield and Feres, NW airfield and Molos, etc. Just hear me out - Having the ability to spawn aircraft at the base would not be that overpowered in the beginning, since obviously no one would even have enough CP to spawn an aircraft until they have capped several sectors, assuming they were playing from the beginning. True: The players could work together and combine their CPs to buy one player an aircraft after only a few sectors are capped. BUT, using up all that CP would leave them with less CP to buy low tier AI-clearing vehicles, and so it could take them longer to cap the AI sectors. Already we almost have this for OPFOR, they start only a couple sectors away from Molos airfield and they can cap it very early in the game. Further on in the game, if airports were used as the main bases, both teams would always have the ability to spawn aircraft since once that airfield/Base is captured the game is over.

 

In real life, the primary objective of an invasion would most likely be an airfield. Therfore, in my opinion, it would make sense that an airbase should be one of the first sectors you have to control, or even the sector they start at.

Give me a couple hours, (EDIT: tomorrow evening) and I will post some screenshots of hypothetical base/sector layouts, since this would be easier to discuss if we can see it in front of us!

[CaptainDawson 93]

The current Warlords is a bit repetitive in the way of sector capturing. Almost all of the sectors are cities, basically all the large cities on Altis are used, even if some of them seem strategically unimportant. We all can agree that the largest sectors are also usually the most annoying, the most laggy, and the most problematic for capping. We all know how annoying it is clearing an entire sector, and then one AI fires a shot and the whole team has to comb the town and use sector scans, just for it to happen AGAIN just before the capture is complete! On the other hand: Smaller locations like Koroni, Frini, and Ifestonia (and OPFOR side's counterparts) are tiny towns which do not deserve so much strategic importance with the current base layout. In fact, both teams often ignore sectors like these because they are so far out of the way of the main advance, and they are worth so little CP. There are so many awesome and interesting locations built into Altis, many of which we don't even get to experience in Warlords. What if we REPLACED 10%-25% of the non-strategic lag-inducing city sectors with smaller “outpost” style sectors and military bases which already exist in the map? Replacing large sectors with some smaller ones might benefit everyone's frame rate. The recent addition of Ammolofi Airstrip (The little NW airport) was a great example of a slightly more strategic and different sector! But it is so far out of the way, that there is really no motivation to capture it since if you have advanced this far, you obviously already have AAC and Airbase.

 

Hence I suggest reconsidering the base and sector layout on Altis. No major rule changes. Just several different variations of Altis Warlords to keep it more interesting and balanced, and prevent players from just doing the exact same thing over and over.

[CaptainDawson 93]

Base/Sector layout suggestion: Make a pool of many sectors, (see picture) and select from them a certain group based on where the Starting Base locations are. Two theories on this: 1. Eliminate sectors which are irrelevant due to their distance from the invisible line between the bases and replace removed sectors with some Base and Outpost locations closer to the area where the two teams will meet, or 2. Eliminate some of the large repetitive/laggy sectors. Or maybe something in between…

WIP Sector/Base pool, from which to randomly select 1 base pair and randomized or predetermined sectors in between:

 

 

Two early WIP suggested layouts by me:

Theory 1: Remove sectors which are too far away from the main fight between Opfor and Blufor:

Spoiler

 

Theory 2: Keep far-away sectors but remove some of the ones that are repetitive. (note that some more sectors might need to be removed):

Spoiler

 

Yes I am aware that this looks like way more sectors than we already have. But keep in mind, many of these sectors will be MUCH SMALLER than the existing ones. In keeping with the fact that, realistically, the AAF would never have enough manpower to garrison every single town! Realistically, they would defend the most important cities, and take up defensive positions at strategic locations near major roads and military installations. Another way we could better handle a sector increase, while improving FPS and quality of gameplay: DECREASE number of AAF AI units, but INCREASE their skill. If you counted the total number of AI that spawn at every sector, you would find that there really are just way too many soldiers for a small island nation like Altis to realistically possess. Further, the current Warlords AI is just inept. I sometimes have time to reload a mag even when an enemy is right in front of me pointing towards me without shooting. We know how powerful the AI can be on max skill. Can we tune them up a notch or two while removing some of them? I think this would increase the realism and immersiveness of Warlords.

 

Arrange sector links so that more options are available than we currently have, but restrict them enough so that no one route has too much of an advantage. Add the ability to cross the Pyrgos Gulf at several points utilizing the new sectors, the balance being that you cannot fast travel across water. Meaning you would have to take a boat or amphibious APC.

 

 

Again, this is only a personal suggestion, take it with a grain of salt. I think at the very least, some type of base location change or randomization could really put new life into Warlords. It doesn't have to be like my suggestion, I just want to see it changed.

@ everyone, please give us your input and criticisms on this topic! It doesn’t need to be just the same 5 people talking on this thread!

[eriktrak 76]

Today I played on an official Warlords server where after ~90 kills I found out that I am invincible. For a short period I felt like a Delta Force member. 🙂

 

Is it some bug or somebody hacked the server?

 

Here is the video proof:

 

 

 

[pierremgi 4738]

I can see three reasons:

- a hack as you said;

- you are still in a protected base area;

- some problem occurred when you leaved this area, failing to enable damage on you. Usually a localization one (allowDamage is not so easy to apply, in some cases). Did you leave to the lobby and return back in game, or something you could point at (previous respawn,switch...)?

[eriktrak 76]

Actually it's difficult to remember what happened exactly. But I did not leave the game to the lobby for sure. And the server just started when I joined.

 

This town was taken over by the red team from the blue and it's some spawn point for the red forces. As you can see the enemy appears right around me.

 

However I don't know how long I was invincible, easily possible from the beginning of the match.

 

One more thing...I played this map few hours earlier today but I don't remember on which server.

[pr9inichek 133]

On 5/22/2019 at 3:44 AM, CaptainDawson said:

@ everyone, please give us your input and criticisms on this topic! It doesn’t need to be just the same 5 people talking on this thread!

May be request help(votes, opinions) through reddit and official discord?

 

On 5/22/2019 at 3:44 AM, CaptainDawson said:

DECREASE number of AAF AI units

Agree with you.

Another idea: some sectors randomly empty, without AAF

[Corona 1-1 6]

I'd like to take the time to thank @CaptainDawson AKA Kestrel for his tireless efforts in creating dialogue and formulating suggestions. I'd like to offer input of my own.

 

On 5/22/2019 at 8:44 AM, CaptainDawson said:

DECREASE number of AAF AI units, but INCREASE their skill.

 

Seconded. I'd further add that instead of distributing the AI throughout sectors and creating a hide-and-seek, station them at key prefrabricated points. Mainly, creating checkpoints and defensive positions through objects in the editor located along major ingress routes ( roads ), with manned turrets. This should apply to the major towns alone. I think it prudent to raising the CP gain for such towns with the increased challenge.

 

On 5/22/2019 at 8:35 AM, CaptainDawson said:

What if we REPLACED 10%-25% of the non-strategic lag-inducing city sectors with smaller “outpost” style sectors and military bases which already exist in the map?

Concurred. I'd like this to be a feature of remote locations. Small outposts with towers, but with the additional benefit of providing free, high value assets. Say, SAM launchers or radars at locations like Vikos Outpost, Pyrsos Outpost, Pefkas Outpost, to name a few regarding to the conventional Warlords starting positions with NATO in the SW and CSAT in the NW. For NATO's side they should also benefit from the USS Freedom's defensive armaments as statc emplacements, which should not only be attributed to said outposts but be available to NATO as defensive items in the purchase menu.

 

Of course, what sectors that should confer this benefit must be tailored to the starting configuration. I'm very much a fan of Kestrel's rotational base concept. For the aforementioned implementation to be sensible it'd have to be based on the basis of each base configuration, such that only remote locations with respect to the starting base be given such high value assets. 

 

On 5/21/2019 at 5:44 AM, CaptainDawson said:

Here's another idea I've been considering for awhile: What if for example Opfor started at (or very close to) the Stratus Airbase, and Blufor started at (or near) another decent sized base. (Or vice-versa) Here's the balance: Both have the ability to spawn helicopters at their bases, but neither can spawn aircraft.

 

On 5/21/2019 at 5:44 AM, CaptainDawson said:

A theoretical idea for Altis: What if some of the possible base locations for Opfor and Blufor STARTED on or near airbases as well. Examples: AAC and Feres Airfield, AAC and Molos, NW airfield and Feres, NW airfield and Molos, etc.

 

 

I don't think it necessary to have them start from airbases. Rather, bases should innately have the capacity for spawning helicopters and VTOLs. It makes quite a bit of sense since these aircraft don't need large flat spaces to land. I'm not keen on using AAC as a starting location at all because it doesn't have any rough positional symmetry with a possible starting location for the opposite side that'd give it sufficient spacing. Starting from the small airfields is fine, but not from AAC. In general all bases should have helicopter and VTOL holding capabilities.

 

On 5/22/2019 at 8:44 AM, CaptainDawson said:

Arrange sector links so that more options are available than we currently have, but restrict them enough so that no one route has too much of an advantage. Add the ability to cross the Pyrgos Gulf at several points utilizing the new sectors, the balance being that you cannot fast travel across water. Meaning you would have to take a boat or amphibious APC.

 

I say allow for fast travelling to locations provided that they have a continuous chain of captured points to form a land bridge of sorts. This basically covers a water divide issue. Assume for example that from CSAT's base in the NE I have a continuous chain to Neochori, but my sole link to it being the Airfield SW gets captured. I no longer have a continuous chain and fast travelling to Neochori should be prohibited. Additionally waterborne vessels should only be allowed to be spawned within the radii of coastal capture zones under one's own control as opposed to any where like it is currently, at least that's how it is to the best of my memory.

 

 

On 5/22/2019 at 8:44 AM, CaptainDawson said:

WIP Sector/Base pool, from which to randomly select 1 base pair and randomized or predetermined sectors in between:

 

 

 

Great thing about these configurations is that each pair is spread across nearly the entire width of the map. Additionally each pair should be randomized as to which faction gets what to minimize repetition. 
 

 

 

 

[Tex_Actual 5]

Are there any reports on people carrying launchers with more than one rocket in the launcher at one time? Curious because I picked up a launcher from a player named Blitzkrieg that I could fire 3 times.

[rami 2]

Would it be possible to fix the issue of when one or two players can hold off almost an entire team from capturing a town by just hiding and spamming in AI? 😕 Not sure how it works 100% but I think its because if someone gets hit it reset the capture or something. And its hard to get people to avoid getting hit 😛Many battles have been like this last couple of days. Maybe force people to be within ~10m from the centre/flag to be able to guard/capture? 

 

And I think it is to easy to recapture previous contested bases/towns, just go there alone and you got it. It makes the game endless.. I rather have the teams being able to choose 2-3 attack objectives at the same time.

 

And could night/day cycle be not so realistic? Feels like I'm always playing when its night ingame 😞

 

Maybe not an idea everyone likes but wouldn't it be more fun to capture towns if they rewarded the team with unlocks? Like certain town/outpost unlocks tanks, another unlocks certain rifles/backpacks etc. 

 

I do really like this mode tho! 🙂

[Beagle 684]

2 hours ago, rami said:

Would it be possible to fix the issue of when one or two players can hold off almost an entire team from capturing a town by just hiding and spamming in AI? 😕 Not sure how it works 100% but I think its because if someone gets hit it reset the capture or something. And its hard to get people to avoid getting hit 😛Many battles have been like this last couple of days. Maybe force people to be within ~10m from the centre/flag to be able to guard/capture? 

 

And I think it is to easy to recapture previous contested bases/towns, just go there alone and you got it. It makes the game endless.. I rather have the teams being able to choose 2-3 attack objectives at the same time.

 

And could night/day cycle be not so realistic? Feels like I'm always playing when its night ingame 😞

 

Maybe not an idea everyone likes but wouldn't it be more fun to capture towns if they rewarded the team with unlocks? Like certain town/outpost unlocks tanks, another unlocks certain rifles/backpacks etc. 

 

I do really like this mode tho! 🙂

In fact, there should only be one AO per team at a time. Everything else ist just playing whack-a-mole for the rest of the night. The winnig team is the one that can stand the boredom best, with the last player in game.

[Dwarden 1124]

test of 96 players Warlords :  

5.62.127.2:2302

[Beagle 684]

5 hours ago, Dwarden said:

test of 96 players Warlords :  

 

5.62.127.2:2302

 

Experience tells... 64 is already too much for the servers. 96 would work ONLY without any AI.

[target_practice 162]

Nevermind server performance, the game just becomes a huge mess at that playercount.

[Dwarden 1124]

2 hours ago, Beagle said:

Experi8cne tells... 64 is already too much for the servers. 96 would work ONLY without any AI.

 

that CPU is even faster than the fast CPUs used for the 64 player ones

not many server CPUs faster than this one ...

[Dwarden 1124]

2 hours ago, target_practice said:

Nevermind server performance, the game just becomes a huge mess at that playercount.

 

that's why you need to give constructive feedback to @Jezuro

so he can attempt to insert order into the chaos :)

[pr9inichek 133]

@Jezuro This videos from server with 96 slots:

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

[Beagle 684]

3 hours ago, pr9inichek said:

@Jezuro This videos from server with 96 slots:

 

Happens randomly on every version from the very beginning of warlords.

[CaptainDawson 93]

@Dwarden, I appreciate you force restarting the EU00 server, it was a huge mess. When every single Blufor player converges on the Blue spawn with AT launchers, there is really no way Opfor can move in close enough to end the game in a reasonable time. I don't want to know how many hours it was stagnated before I joined...

 

 

Quote

that's why you need to give constructive feedback to @Jezuro

so he can attempt to insert order into the chaos 🙂

 

If you'll look at the last several pages of suggestions from myself, Beagle, Pr9inichek, and the rest of the people on the Warlords forum, we have provided many action reports, data, suggestions, and constructive feedback on how to remedy the problems. Aside from any new problems I haven't seen yet, from my experience so far the problems in the 96 player has essentially all the issues the 64 player, 32 player, and 16 player Warlords have. I still get awful framerate at all times except near the beginning of the game, on a PC which can run heavy missions in singleplayer at 50-60 FPS. Again, the "team balance" parameter is definitely problematic, preventing new players from joining while also increasing the imbalance when players start leaving the losing team. There are a lot of problems in Warlords, the biggest being the bad meta and the bad performance. In many of our opinions, both of these can be fixed by reassessing the sector/base locations, and reducing the amount of AI/units while increasing their skill to balance it out. There have been a lot of great suggestions by other users to fix the "Whack-A-Mole" meta.

 

We don't need to reiterate all the problems, I think everything has been made abundantly clear. It is for you guys to decide whether or not the issues will be fixed using our recommendations. I understand that it can take a lot of time and effort to roll out major changes, but switching up the sector layout should not be that big of a challenge. If our exact suggestions aren't going to be used that's ok, we're just trying to help, but we only care that the game is fixed. All I can say is that if the current problems persist for too long, Warlords players will continue to dwindle and be forgotten as other official gamemodes like Vanguard and Endgame which currently have 0 players connected.

 

When new players join, they often will connect to the unmodded server with the highest number of players, usually Warlords. Warlords is often the face of Arma 3 and the place where noob players will decide whether or not their purchase was worth it. Warlords has the most potential of any game mode in Arma, I really want it to be the best it can be so it can reflect well on the rest of the game.

[Jezuro 452]

Sorry for my recent inactivity here, due to a workload on other projects I've been unable to put much work into Warlords but will try to allocate some time to adress the feedback you've provided. Thanks to all who contributed here, will get back to you when possible.

[CaptainDawson 93]

As for feedback on the new setup, EU 00 96 player server just froze up again, consolation was that we were actually able to progress fairly far into the game before it died. Despite all of my average 17 frames per second, I was able to achieve the top ranking XD. (33 MRAPs, 26 tanks, and 4 helis killed) A player said he had the top level CPU and GPU, and still had horrible frame rate. Honestly I don't think the 96 player server is too much worse then the 64s, but it definitely isn't better IMO.

 

EDIT: After waiting for my kick timer to elapse, (why?) I reconnected and the server was running OK, albeit now with much less players...

 

2nd EDIT: After server unfreezing, I am now getting up to 45 FPS which is unheard of for me in Warlords. This happened after almost all the players left, then half rejoined. Of course, after Blufor selected Telos, the lag came back like a wave.