Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I’m more concerned with a camper just putting a rhino within 8km of molos and blowing up every AA site opfor puts down within 8km in both directions while enemy aircraft hinder hunting him down since static AA has to be in a captured sector, with little effort required beyond flying a drone close enough. Just like someone can camp the airfield with a rhino now. But I’m willing to wait and see the LR AA added to the game with the rhino armed as it is now to see if it’s a big issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, crs24 said:

I’m more concerned with a camper just putting a rhino within 8km of molos and blowing up every AA site opfor puts down within 8km in both directions while enemy aircraft hinder hunting him down since static AA has to be in a captured sector, with little effort required beyond flying a drone close enough. Just like someone can camp the airfield with a rhino now. But I’m willing to wait and see the LR AA added to the game with the rhino armed as it is now to see if it’s a big issue.

 

There's really no reason to be concerned. Yes, it already fully possible to spam both Molos airfield AND Opfor spawn with ATGMs, I've done it a couple times myself. This is already possible to kill every jet that lands on Molos before the pilot can even walk out to meet it. But how often do you see that? Almost never. Because unlike the current jet spam, the Rhino is actually counterable. Getting that far to Molos requires a vehicle, which requires some form of air superiority in order to not die. You will almost NEVER see a Rhino that far behind Opfor lines, it takes a huge amount of CP, time, and effort to get a Rhino within range of Molos. To be honest, there are very few Blufor players left on Warlords who are knowledgeable and patient enough to attempt this. And any Opfor player who gives more than few seconds of thought can just look up, see the direction the ATGM came from, and follow the trail right to the Rhino. Hence why I don't put my Rhino behind enemy lines anymore. A single Rhino player cannot defend himself very long in the middle of Opfor territory. If more than one enemy player makes a concerted effort, no vehicle can survive long behind enemy lines. 

 

On the other hand, to pose an example of how ridiculous the Jet spam is, I went afk in a Warlords game today and came back to the usual situation of a half-dozen CSAT jets, VTOLs, and helis and total Opfor domination. I had 30K CP by then. Spawned a Rhino at Kaverida. Killed before I could even teleport to the sector. Spawned 2 Blackwasps, instantly killed before they even crossed the threshold. I then proceeded to shoot down over 6 Nephrons, helis, and even a Shikra with a Titan MPRL. Opfor was so completely uncontested by Blufor that they were flying completely carefree over AAC. They were so used to being invincible that they were flying right near the ground at low speeds mowing down everything the instant it spawns at AAC. In game chat 2 experienced players trying to explain to teamates how spawning a Cheetah was useless. Also answering for the 27th time "How do I get where you guys are on the map". Why? As often happens near the end of the game, most of the experienced Blufor players rage quit because they were sick of it. That's what their team told me. The helpless noobs left have no chance to accomplish anything without the leadership and learning assistance of the experienced players.

 

I've had some games where a 50+ vehicle kill streak in my Rhino seemed insignificant in comparison to the utter annihilation the jets on both sides were causing. The Rhino is the only thing Blufor has that can come close to match the havoc an Opfor team with air superiority can cause. Blufor jets can do the same to Opfor, if they can actually get to the point where they have a CP advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today’s development branch update has changes to warlords in it for anybody interested, gonna go try it myself.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Increasing the cost of the support trucks and the rhino isn't the solution.

 

keeping the rhino cheap and removing it's ATGM from the mission is enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

So initial thoughts on the dev branch warlords:

 

1. The LR AA is in which is good. Plane cost increases are as stated in the wip changelog with the added blackfish at 9000,might be a slight increase if I remember correctly of 7500 to the Xi’an,and the subsonic planes and and supersonic jet planes at 12000 and 17500 with the Sam and radar being 7500 and 10000 respectively while totaling 17500 the same as a jet,and I’ve already said my thoughts on plane and sam site costs being lower than that with the SAMs and radar added so no need to repeat myself. But I think it’s even more unneeded to increase the plane costs and the Sam and radar costs along with that since in the dev branch you can buy a cheetah/tigris and use its radar to guide the SAM by itself at about up to half the range of the static radar with 360 degree coverage at 8-9km vs the static radars 16km 120 degree coverage range and it’s RWR while still gaining additional short range defense for a total of 11500 cp instead of 17500 cp with the increased effectiveness of the LR missiles,combined with them locking on as far as the vehicles radar detects them part still included. Which makes this setup cheaper than every plane except the blackfish and Xi’an,while still ending with planes die more quickly and easily, reducing the need to increase the cost. And before anyone asks I made sure to test that the radar works like this in warlords mode.

 

2.The repair truck cost at 1500 cp is what I expected,but 3000 cp for the ammo truck I think is a little much since it’s half an attack helicopter and the same as an apc. Having it cost the same as the repair truck at 1500 or at 2000 cp would probably fit it better and be less restrictive on its use,but that’s my opinion, and the vehicle ammo crate while it has limited ammo and it’s static does exist. It can be problematic with the crate however since it’s static,if it lands in a bad spot for vehicles to get to you’re gonna have to purchase it again,and when it runs out of ammo the new crate might have this problem. And with the increase in some other assets costs 3000 cp feels prohibitive. Also I prefer the service trucks grouped together in the purchase menu but that’s me.

 

3. The rhino being upped to 7000 is about the cost of the t-140 so it’s in line with other costs, removing the atgms to make it direct fire only if possible might be a better option if keeping it cheaper in line with it being weaker than a tank in direct engagement is the goal,but it works for me if leaving the atgms in is what’s happening to represent this capability.

 

4. The lock/unlock function is a good thing. It also works on the autonomous turrets being remote controlled so that could help if a idiot tries to TK with stuff someone else buys. It does lock out everyone not currently controlling it through a terminal including you,but taking control first before locking it works to keep anyone else out if you disconnect,although it doesn’t boot out someone else already using it I assume. When a vehicle is locked It does stops you or anyone else from being able to leave the vehicle, but that probably needs players other than the owner being unable to leave to be a problem.Why the unlock function exists on ammo crates though I have no idea since you can use inventory on locked things but it’s not a problem. Does locking a vehicle stop the enemy from stealing your vehicle as well?

 

5. Added ai classes are nice for people who want a pilot or crewman in their vehicle. Do all player commanded ai spawn at the same skill level in warlords? Or is it some default editor skill based on class, I’m suddenly wondering since individual group placed squad members have slightly different ai skill levels in the editor and I wouldn’t want too low skill or too large a difference between classes in warlords, but I’m still curious.

 

6. The 60 second spawn protection seems to work fine when I tested it by telling my ai to shoot me after respawning,but the 3 minute asset protection didn’t seem to do anything when I or my ai shot at a car or a jet I bought. But maybe it only stops other players from killing other players assets.

 

On an off topic note since this exists in the main branch and dev branch:

 

Much like with the respawn camps being in the warlords arsenal, is being able to place a boat Literally Anywhere in water when your team has a boat spawning sector,such as 20km away from any friendly sector and you,when every other asset needs to be in a captured sector or on your position to place it somewhere,is this something that’s working as intended? It’s not a big concern to me,just something I’ve been curious about since I noticed it.

Edited by crs24
Clarification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, HellhoundF said:

Increasing the cost of the support trucks and the rhino isn't the solution.

 

keeping the rhino cheap and removing it's ATGM from the mission is enough.

that's a bit short sighted thinking. Single Assets in ArmA III are not even and the Rhino itself is no wondenr weapon. It can use it's "superpowers" only when working as a team, and that should indeed be rewarded. What I hear most often in Warlords, when lasing is: "no assets available or not in range" when I count on it and have somethign worthy in LD sight. Now that it is very well know what the Rhino does, can do and can't do, it has lost a lot of the surprise it initially delivered. Instead there are now CSAT Rhino hunter squads...and we all know by now which shed or garage they always use to hide, turning them into stationary targets to plant a satchel on.

Since warlords is a very static mission, it is already repetetive. The same players play it at the same daytimes in a way which they had the best results so far.... but in a already predictable and repetive pattern. You can really predict what will happen next just looking at the player list, the progression and sectors captured. You can predict when which player wil show up at what sector with whyt unit already, since only few player try out a new way to play the mission. See for yourself, you will run into the first Neophron right when approaching Lakka if NATO goes the straight way...always...and the Pilot is "Pendramon".

 

I begun to analyze how players play to develop a plan to counter them...thats the thrilling meta game, Warlords allows you to play. It not so much about the mission or the objectives after all the months now, its about knowing that you better spawb for Lakka with an AA Titan and 4 missiles in the ruck. In the same way you can already predict that a Player in a Rhino will sit in the factory near Agios Dionysios, when you play CSAT and make you first strafe into Lakka.

 

As I said, the mission is static, the dynamiv battlefield is an illusion after the 20th restart. Player will mostly use the same way that once worked. Its often drawed on the map right from the start.

Warlods is simpyl not ike Warfare, where you had a real "fog of war" and had to find out where the Opposing force is, by real recon.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Beagle said:

that's a bit short sighted thinking. Single Assets in ArmA III are not even and the Rhino itself is no wondenr weapon. It can use it's "superpowers" only when working as a team, and that should indeed be rewarded. What I hear most often in Warlords, when lasing is: "no assets available or not in range" when I count on it and have somethign worthy in LD sight. Now that it is very well know what the Rhino does, can do and can't do, it has lost a lot of the surprise it initially delivered. Instead there are now CSAT Rhino hunter squads...and we all know by now which shed or garage they always use to hide, turning them into stationary targets to plant a satchel on.

Since warlords is a very static mission, it is already repetetive. The same players play it at the same daytimes in a way which they had the best results so far.... but in a already predictable and repetive pattern. You can really predict what will happen next just looking at the player list, the progression and sectors captured. You can predict when which player wil show up at what sector with whyt unit already, since only few player try out a new way to play the mission. See for yourself, you will run into the first Neophron right when approaching Lakka if NATO goes the straight way...always...and the Pilot is "Pendramon".

 

I concur. The Rhino does not even come close to being as OP as the jets on both sides. It takes 3-7 direct hits of a Rhino ATGM to kill a T-140, wheras a Blackfoot, Blackfish, or Blackwasp can easily one-shot any vehicle with a lock-on, nearly guaranteed hit. And as Beagle and I have stated, they are predictable and can be countered by any experienced Opfor player who puts two and two together. Removing the ATGM would make the Rhino nearly pointless. Yes, it has the 120mm APFSDS, but lets be real, how effective is that unless the enemy doesn't fire back. Even when a Rhino could get the first or even first 2 shots, a T-140 or T-100 can still easily return fire and one shot it. Remember, both CSAT MBTs are arguably better than NATO's, and their BTRs have missiles capabilities that NATO's do not. Both the Shikra and the Nephron are faster than their NATO counterparts, the Blackwasp and Wipeout. The Xi'an is fast enough to evade the Cheetah and MPRL, while also having the ability to land vertically and deliver troops... a capability that Nato cannot match. The increased price of the Rhino and the overly increased price of the ammo truck mean that you will see even less Rhino players, and when you destroy a Rhino, he can't as easily replace it anymore.

 

The last thing I have to say on this is to look at the current win rate between Opfor and Blufor. When Blufor occasionally wins, is the winning blow from Rhinos? I've never seen that. Nearly EVERY time I have been in a game until the end, the faction that was won was using an overwhelming majority of jets and helis, uncontested, to beat down every plane or tank the enemy spawned. Air superiority is a win condition, the Rhino is not.

 

 

1 hour ago, Beagle said:

I begun to analyze how players play to develop a plan to counter them...thats the thrilling meta game, Warlords allows you to play. It not so much about the mission or the objectives after all the months now, its about knowing that you better spawb for Lakka with an AA Titan and 4 missiles in the ruck. In the same way you can already predict that a Player in a Rhino will sit in the factory near Agios Dionysios, when you play CSAT and make you first strafe into Lakka.

 

As I said, the mission is static, the dynamiv battlefield is an illusion after the 20th restart. Player will mostly use the same way that once worked. Its often drawed on the map right from the start.

Warlods is simpyl not ike Warfare, where you had a real "fog of war" and had to find out where the Opposing force is, by real recon.

 

I have an idea that would solve this and make the game much more interesting. Why don't they make the Opfor and Blufor bases start in a DIFFERENT place every game? Have like 12 or so balanced presets of base locations that can be randomly selected from at game start. It would force both sides to form new strategies and tactics, rather than the same old stalemate at Anthrakia! Maybe some of the sectors could be moved to different locations, some removed, and some with different difficulty levels AKA sometimes easier Telos, sometimes Lakka Base or Nidasos Base be the hardest one, etc. For one example, Opfor could start at the South East Airbase, Blufor could start at Oreokastro and have access to the small North Western airfield for small aircraft and helis. Exclude the Blackwasp and Shikra from being spawned at the starting airfields, only allowing them at AAC, MOLOS, and Altis International. This would provide some secondary objective besides rushing Anthrakia. Maybe make some bases with helipads like Lakka and Nidasos to allow small helis like the Orca and Pawnee to be spawned, to create more incentive to capture these bases rather than rushing past them so your team can mine Anthrakia. The gameplay will become stale when both teams can predict what their enemy will do and where they will do it. Give variability to the paths to the enemy base, and force teams to do real recon. That would create a lot more immersion and "fog of war" as Beagle said.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CaptainDawson said:

I have an idea that would solve this and make the game much more interesting. Why don't they make the Opfor and Blufor bases start in a DIFFERENT place every game? Have like 12 or so balanced presets of base locations that can be randomly selected from at game start. It would force both sides to form new strategies and tactics, rather than the same old stalemate at Anthrakia! Maybe some of the sectors could be moved to different locations, some removed, and some with different difficulty levels AKA sometimes easier Telos, sometimes Lakka Base or Nidasos Base be the hardest one, etc. For one example, Opfor could start at the South East Airbase, Blufor could start at Oreokastro and have access to the small North Western airfield for small aircraft and helis. Exclude the Blackwasp and Shikra from being spawned at the starting airfields, only allowing them at AAC, MOLOS, and Altis International. This would provide some secondary objective besides rushing Anthrakia. Maybe make some bases with helipads like Lakka and Nidasos to allow small helis like the Orca and Pawnee to be spawned, to create more incentive to capture these bases rather than rushing past them so your team can mine Anthrakia. The gameplay will become stale when both teams can predict what their enemy will do and where they will do it. Give variability to the paths to the enemy base, and force teams to do real recon. That would create a lot more immersion and "fog of war" as Beagle said.

That would basically turn "Warlords" CTI into "Warfare" CTI. While Warlords is more accessible and fast paced, Warfare was way less repetetive, since it would start at random map spots and you did not know what the opposing side was doing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so, 51% votes of same teammembers hould be able to kick now
at the 64-players servers which now run 1.90.145580 build
also votekicked person should not be able return until missionEnd

 

features details in https://forums.bohemia.net/forums/topic/160288-arma-3-stable-server-190-performance-binary-feedback/?do=findComment&comment=3350010

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is there no team balancing? It's not fun at all if there's 20 blufor and 3 opfor (literally what I saw when I got on today.) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jezuro said:

@needlenuts It's coming.

 

Honestly? That was the fastest response I have ever received from any staff in my life. Thank you, I love you.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No change on the script injection front. All US servers still get scripted to death on weekends. mostly player setpos, gear removal and vehicle spawn artillery in particular. It's a bit better on EU servers and I guess it's daytime related.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I express concern at making Warlords less " Warlords-esque " by trimming vehicular combat to achieve pseudo balance. It's a shallow approach merely making economic tweaks and slapping CP increases across a wide range of vehicles. CP accumulation is arduous, combine that with large asset cost increases and you've killed a lot of the focal point of Warlords by slashing the potential for combined arms, and I highly doubt everyone people play Warlords just to do infantry. You don't balance anything just by making items more expensive, you do so by altering relative costs of counters. 

The jet dominance issue can be solved with the introduction of comparatively affordable long range SAMs whose launchers can rearm off ammo trucks. Increase the view cap to something like 4.0km to give the SPAAGs some actual lethality. Script jets such that they spawn in the air away from the main map with the player in it. Oh and please give the F/A-181 the AMRAAM double racks so it has a similar kill potential to the To-201, this is an issue of major contention. NATO's jet is a fair match for CSAT's but having to land to rearm for every kill given the appalling PK and low missile count unduly hinders NATO's air contention capability contrary to competitive merit to which outcomes should mostly be contingent upon.

CSAT's Molos AF is fairly remote and secure and CSAT has 2 airfields on their half of Altis while NATO's only AAC AF is exposed and vulnerable. Kavala should give NATO access to a carrier west of Kavala which can serve as a point for all aircraft to even the playing field. 

The MGS " issue " is an interesting one. Removal of asymmetrical ( arguably balancing ) elements and forcing purely symmetrical engagements which clearly favor CSAT is a terrible proposition. Instead just script the rearms so it takes significantly longer to do so off a truck. Extend this to all vehicles so you don't end up with a 1 jet conducting a solo Operation Rolling Thunder. This way the high power assets retain their full capabilities but are forced to engage more discirminately and be forced to incur opportunity costs for decisions made. All this without actually tweaking price points, how great is that. It's great, simply put.


 

On 4/10/2019 at 7:23 AM, CaptainDawson said:

I concur. The Rhino does not even come close to being as OP as the jets on both sides. It takes 3-7 direct hits of a Rhino ATGM to kill a T-140, wheras a Blackfoot, Blackfish, or Blackwasp can easily one-shot any vehicle with a lock-on, nearly guaranteed hit. And as Beagle and I have stated, they are predictable and can be countered by any experienced Opfor player who puts two and two together. Removing the ATGM would make the Rhino nearly pointless. Yes, it has the 120mm APFSDS, but lets be real, how effective is that unless the enemy doesn't fire back. Even when a Rhino could get the first or even first 2 shots, a T-140 or T-100 can still easily return fire and one shot it. Remember, both CSAT MBTs are arguably better than NATO's, and their BTRs have missiles capabilities that NATO's do not. Both the Shikra and the Nephron are faster than their NATO counterparts, the Blackwasp and Wipeout. The Xi'an is fast enough to evade the Cheetah and MPRL, while also having the ability to land vertically and deliver troops... a capability that Nato cannot match. The increased price of the Rhino and the overly increased price of the ammo truck mean that you will see even less Rhino players, and when you destroy a Rhino, he can't as easily replace it anymore.

 


Exactly. People have a proclivity to whine about the MGS, call it OP, and demand its removal. It's like yeah, you say that, but no, that's a palpably false claim.

 

On 4/10/2019 at 7:23 AM, CaptainDawson said:

I have an idea that would solve this and make the game much more interesting. Why don't they make the Opfor and Blufor bases start in a DIFFERENT place every game? Have like 12 or so balanced presets of base locations that can be randomly selected from at game start. It would force both sides to form new strategies and tactics, rather than the same old stalemate at Anthrakia! Maybe some of the sectors could be moved to different locations, some removed, and some with different difficulty levels AKA sometimes easier Telos, sometimes Lakka Base or Nidasos Base be the hardest one, etc. For one example, Opfor could start at the South East Airbase, Blufor could start at Oreokastro and have access to the small North Western airfield for small aircraft and helis. Exclude the Blackwasp and Shikra from being spawned at the starting airfields, only allowing them at AAC, MOLOS, and Altis International. This would provide some secondary objective besides rushing Anthrakia. Maybe make some bases with helipads like Lakka and Nidasos to allow small helis like the Orca and Pawnee to be spawned, to create more incentive to capture these bases rather than rushing past them so your team can mine Anthrakia. The gameplay will become stale when both teams can predict what their enemy will do and where they will do it. Give variability to the paths to the enemy base, and force teams to do real recon. That would create a lot more immersion and "fog of war" as Beagle said.



This with my aforementioned would be superb. 


And of course I had to bring up scripting. Isn't there a way to ban scripters based on their motherboard IDs instead of this impotent kicking? I know nothing of code but

 

Spoiler

namespace Palaxium.Core.Cryptography

{

    public static class HardwareHelper

    {

        public static string GetMotherBoardSerial()

        {

            var mobos = new System.Management.ManagementObjectSearcher("SELECT * FROM Win32_baseboard").Get();

            foreach (var m in mobos)

                return m["SerialNumber"].ToString();

            return null;

        }

    }

}

 


something like this I was informed would serve such a purpose. 



 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cost increase of some assets is not for the sake of balancing, rather to counter obvious exploits and spams to keep the battle more varied and interesting.

 

Kicking will become less impotent when match-long bans are working properly after a votekick has been issued.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Jezuro

 

I’ve already listed my opinions on most new things I’ve seen so far in dev in my previous post on Tuesday, that primarily being its good stuff,i think jets probably don’t need a big increase when SAMs being added similarly priced means having CAP isn’t do or die, and I really think ammo trucks don’t need to be as much as an apc if they are being increased, but regardless I’m eagerly awaiting the new update to play it online.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Static defense on base should spawn with crew, not counting as units available in player's group. You can increase the cost.

The air assets should be limited to helicopters... or even no air at all, as a mission param for server admin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno where the Rhino/Drone hate is coming from guys, yes it is very good in the hands of an experienced player, but it is absolutely necessary in situations where Blufor is denied the use of aircraft. In the game I was playing today, Blufor had NO CHANCE of winning because 90% + were noobs. Even when we have 20+ players in the cap zone, they all get mowed down by Tigris because no one seems to know how to use the Arsenal and get AT. Some Opfor player is taking a Xi-an and landing next to Blufor spawn, dropping a Tigris and mowing down the players. When NATO is completely denied using any aircraft by Opfor jets, we also cannot use ground vehicles on the front because they will all be destroyed by the planes. There is literally no other option but to use a undercover Rhino. Opfor had already finished all backcapping while Blufor still has only ~240CP/min, when Blufor inevitably fails to move past Anthrakia, Opfor sends a flood of T-140s and Tigris at Anthrakia. We are denied the use of tanks against them because Opfor has air superiority. Majority of my team using in-game chat are still asking if they can get a heli ride to the contested sector because they don't know how to fast travel. What else are we supposed to do? In this particular situation, which happens nearly EVERY game I play now, there is literally no counter to tanks or aircraft except the Rhino, which will now be 7,000 CP. If you want to further nerf the Rhino, please explain how you can justify that when CSAT in MOST situations has the more capable vehicles on a 1 to 1 comparison.

 

I think best possible compromise solution would be what Corona said, I agree with everything he said. INCREASE time of reload. It nerfs Rhino, and nerfs Shikras who can currently land on Almyra and reload 8 missiles in 10 seconds without hardly coming to a stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Jezuro said:

Cost increase of some assets is not for the sake of balancing, rather to counter obvious exploits and spams to keep the battle more varied and interesting.


Still, can the jet costs retain their original costs because the current 17.5k for the Gen 5s and 12k for legacy jets along with 10k for radar and 7.5k for the SAM is incredibly steep. I believe 5k for the radar to be appropriate.

I know not what is precisely subsumed under " exploit " here but I'll raise what's uncontroversially an exploit. The price adjustments do nothing to correct airfield camping and giving one side a stranglehold on air presence as the change log only reflects

 

Quote
  • Requested assets are immune to FRIENDLY fire for 3 minutes



If anything I think price adjustments definitely need to be made, but not this way. But I think a compromise can be reached by amalgamating different proposals without taking a wrecking ball to the current economy, if you'll excuse the term. Yeah, and some of what I list will just be repetitions of my aforementioned but bear with me.
 

  • Making all supply trucks 1750 each, but offer discount prices when bought together, say 4200. Adjust the rearm times such that they're reasonably related to payload. So arming an MGS would take some time, say 90s, and a Gen 5 jet say 180s.
  • Scale drops on coordinate prices by increasing the price of a coordinate drop itself by making it a linear function as a distance from the nearest friendly sector. Forbid coordinate drops after a certain distance from the sector has been reached, say 3.0km. Measure distance from the nearest point of the sector's square perimeter ( solves airfield camping issues via the ground ). 
  • If scripting jets to have airborne and remote spawns to be not an elected option, apply invincibility during the entire landing process and for the entire duration the jet is on the ground for the period just after landing, or extend a timer instead that gives a pilot a near assured chance of at least lifting off without getting swatted out of the sky. Same applies for helicopters. Perhaps an even simpler implementation would to have the jet just spawn on the ground with the interface much like the placement of static defenses where you can see a projection of where it'll be then confirm it to avoid disasters. Within the confines of airfield zones of course.
  • Extend view cap to 4.0km. ( Makes SPAAGs more lethal to aircraft ).
  • Increase SPAAG costs to 5k.
  • Increase Gen 5 jet costs to 10.5k
  • Increase CAS jet costs to 8.5k.
  • VTOL costs adjusted to 8k.
  • Radar 5k, launcher 7.5k.
  • MGS to 5k, MGS UP 5.5k ( I find the 7k equivalence between an MGS and T-140 to be a rather unfair pricing decision )


Airfield camping more or less taken care of. Spamming somewhat managed by increasing inter-strike duration. Prices still relatively stable. 


 

23 hours ago, Jezuro said:

Kicking will become less impotent when match-long bans are working properly after a votekick has been issued.

 


THANK. YOU.

 

18 hours ago, kullwarrior said:

For those who think MGS is OP, here's a suggestion.

Removed AR2 drone.

 


Feature extermination bat. No thanks. Not a dig at you, but just my take on the anti - MGS lobby.

2yk4aj.jpg


 

15 hours ago, CaptainDawson said:

I dunno where the Rhino/Drone hate is coming from guys, yes it is very good in the hands of an experienced player, but it is absolutely necessary in situations where Blufor is denied the use of aircraft. In the game I was playing today, Blufor had NO CHANCE of winning because 90% + were noobs. Even when we have 20+ players in the cap zone, they all get mowed down by Tigris because no one seems to know how to use the Arsenal and get AT. Some Opfor player is taking a Xi-an and landing next to Blufor spawn, dropping a Tigris and mowing down the players. When NATO is completely denied using any aircraft by Opfor jets, we also cannot use ground vehicles on the front because they will all be destroyed by the planes. There is literally no other option but to use a undercover Rhino. Opfor had already finished all backcapping while Blufor still has only ~240CP/min, when Blufor inevitably fails to move past Anthrakia, Opfor sends a flood of T-140s and Tigris at Anthrakia. We are denied the use of tanks against them because Opfor has air superiority. Majority of my team using in-game chat are still asking if they can get a heli ride to the contested sector because they don't know how to fast travel. What else are we supposed to do? In this particular situation, which happens nearly EVERY game I play now, there is literally no counter to tanks or aircraft except the Rhino, which will now be 7,000 CP. If you want to further nerf the Rhino, please explain how you can justify that when CSAT in MOST situations has the more capable vehicles on a 1 to 1 comparison.

 

I think best possible compromise solution would be what Corona said, I agree with everything he said. INCREASE time of reload. It nerfs Rhino, and nerfs Shikras who can currently land on Almyra and reload 8 missiles in 10 seconds without hardly coming to a stop.



Refer to my meme.


The fact that people who rarely if ever touch the forums are here to discuss this game mode makes it quite clear to me that Warlords Protocol has a committed base and I really do hope that mutual dialogue between players and developers can expand upon the viability popularity and longevity of the Protocol. This game mode is something I believe that A3's sorely lacked for years, it's quite literally a manifestation of A3's full vanilla potential done in a PVP context.







 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone for the feedback. I really appreaciate it. However, please keep in mind that Warlords is not only the Altis map. It's a modular system and as such, its rules apply for every scenario on every map. Yes, there are some issues on Altis. Trying to fix these issues by making fundamental changes to the rules, such as some that have been proposed here, would cause other issues on other maps.

I take all of your points into consideration, but please don't feel offended if I don't implement them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Jezuro said:

Thanks everyone for the feedback. I really appreaciate it. However, please keep in mind that Warlords is not only the Altis map. It's a modular system and as such, its rules apply for every scenario on every map. Yes, there are some issues on Altis. Trying to fix these issues by making fundamental changes to the rules, such as some that have been proposed here, would cause other issues on other maps.

I take all of your points into consideration, but please don't feel offended if I don't implement them.

Thanks, I checked 1.92 warlords out. But what about CAS drones, why not to make it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with making aircraft invincible while landing is that raises the question of should everything airdropped be invincible as well. And I don’t think it should be, and gameplay wise you shouldn’t single out one type of vehicle to be invincible when it’s arriving while leaving everything else vulnerable.

Also the opfor tanks aren’t vastly superior nor the blufor tanks weak in my opinion, especially if your counting the Mbts. The m2a1 slammer has better base armor than the t100 without era with equivalent main armament while being slower and holding passengers, becoming equal armament and even better armor with era on the m2a4, while the t140 has better crew protection than the m2a4 having a unmanned turret, their armor is similar, the main armament effectively the same, the biggest differences are size,speed,weak points, and the t140k’s commander armament and extra sensors vs the m2a4s passenger compartment. The apcs and such hell everything also have their own good and bad, and I feel saying blufor can’t win or opfor only wins vs the other or vice versa cause one beats the other in how big it’s gun is ignores this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As it appears, I got also banned from several official Warlords servers: Admin Ban (wlbicu2).

 

The reason is unclear to me.

The only irregular action I took was using symbols from the windows character map instead of regular nicks.

 

Please don't start a virtual witchhunt now, even if the hacker and script infusion issue is pressing.

  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That reminds me, I’ve seen some people (or at least one) on the official warlords servers kicked repeatedly by BE in the last couple weeks for only, as far as I know anyway, setting off too many of the apers mine dispensers at once when laying down minefields. I hope they didn’t later get a perm ban if that’s all they did. You can easily get a backpack full of mine dispensers by using the Arsenal.

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

×