Favourite/Least Favourite Aspects of Warfare/CTI?

[gossamersolid 155]

I know CTI isn't as popular of a gamemode that it used to be, back in the ArmA 2 and prior days, but for nostalgia's sakes - let's discuss it a bit.

What is everybody's favourite and least favourite aspects of the gamemode as a whole.

 

Favourite

• Making use of most/all of the game's assets in one mission

• The amazing feeling of playing over the entire giant map

• Those rare moments where you see the enemy MHQ driving around and you blow it up

• Mixing and matching gear to make the loadout I want

Least Favourite

• Length of matches. This has always been an issue, but it's gotten worse as ArmA's maps have gotten bigger. Also I don't have as much time to dedicate to playing games as I used to

• Commander role. Nobody ever wants to play it, which ended up with me and one other person in my community always having to do it. I've yet to see an actual good AI commander either (base placement is something only humans are capable of, in my opinion).

• Driving 10 minutes, dying, walking 15 minutes, dying, etc

[JojoTheSlayer 35]

Pro:

Scale and Core Concept.

Commanding a bunch of units via voice command and actually beating players.

Epic servers could some times have large battles without slow downs.

 

Cons:

Overall balance in regards to limited long range Ai capabilities.

The fact the game mode turned into "super gear soldier" vs a ton of Ai = no problem.

Tab targeting from the air (should be less of an issue with Jet DLC).

Commander having the ability to wreck a game within minutes, while a general game could last up to a day.

Server performance.

Newer version going further and further away from the Ai commanding aspect to just become a large scale player vs player thing.

 

Tbh what ruined it for me was there was just too much gaming of the system. With limited recon abilities a single TOW could hide on a hill forever and never be spotted. Cost 100$ and kill a whole platoon worth 100 000$ without an issue because Ai are bad at attacking long range etc. Arma Warfare just never seemed to get the level of balance that say "Natural Selection 2" got.

 

--------------------------------

 

If a mode similar to warfare re-emerged.

I would probably think it would be better to have a bit more RTS focus with other players being able to take control of a unit leader that the RTS player have already spawned in. The RTS player would mostly command via the map, but could have "satellite" upgrades or drone options to get "eyes on", but the general idea is to have him spawn in whats needed, send them to a staging area for whatever needs to be attack and then have actual players select the group they want to control dynamically as a force multiplier and take the Ai into contact. So no more "Rambo unlimited AT rockets etc"

 

In turn you would need to make the player Ai commanding controls allot easier for that mode alone.

Basically something like having Aggressive - Defensive, combat modes. Aggressive being "shoot on sight" and Defensive being the Ai would only fire AFTER the commanding player fired (within say 60 seconds and then go back into "just report" mode). And having a choice between column or line formations. The former being for transit, maybe give it a "speed boost as well" so the player would be given a incentive to give the Ai an easier time, and line for combat. The rest could be removed because it wouldnt be applicable.

 

So the basic outline would be that you have 2x RTS commander facing each other (min amount of player needed).

That can only spawn predefined unit groups of X (infantry, armor, aa group and so on).

The supporting players could only take control of leaders in one group and from there control it (ala Zeus jump into unit). When they die, they go back to the map overview or Commander view, ready to select another unit leader if available.

The goal of the game is to gain resources via capturing towns or similar, combat other enemy units consisting of Ai or Ais and a human commander and lastly combine all of that until the enemy HQ/Base is destroyed.

 

In short, retaining the core aspect of the original warfare mode, but making it more streamlined and thereby removing allot of the abilities people had to game the system. Hopefully making it more fun to play for more than the guy that had 1mill$ because he camped at some hill with a TOW and got easy kills for 3 hours .

[silentghoust 132]

CTI, always will be in my opinion. The fundamental mode in which Arma can show it's full potential as a competitive game. You will never find a PvP game that requires you to plan almost every level of strategy.

It's ashamed that BI hasn't provided us with proper building structures. Particularly when the originals were just a collection of models slapped together. I think I would kill just for some proper variants of vehicles as well, like a HQ, medivac, ect.

[nkenny 1057]

Good

-  Large scale of tactical operations

- Teamwork in a deadly PvP environment.

 

Bad

- Obfuscated strategic economy-

--- Discrepancy of price of units as compared to capability

--- Economic impact of damage (or gains) difficult to measure; games rarely won by superior economic positioning.  

- Everyone is a ninja (DMR + AT galore) 

- Poor AI control interface within Arma3

 

------------------

 

Much of what @JojoTheSlayer notes are relevant. If players had an easier time switching between friendly AI units, many of the issues would clear up. (such as driving for 15 minutes then dying-- solution, simply take control of another AI). 

 

The greatest challenge is creating a sensible economic meta-game which permits reinforcement and resupplies within a technically simple interface that nonetheless permits informed strategic decisions to be made. The ability to create forward SPAWN points-- perhaps via  avehicle--  where players can call in friendly AI  (perhaps vehicles in some situations) would likewise create more obvious frontlines and ressuply points needing destruction. Loss of men and equipment, alongside gain of resource hubs, should have an immediate obvious impact on the flow of the game. 

 

All in all. Arma3 has seen improvements in AI behaviour and lethality of AI weapon systems-- so Arma3 as an RTS  (save some notable lacks (the ability to force AI movement or disengagement for one)) remain rather more viable than before. Perhaps the Vanilla Zeus vs Zeus missions can provide valuable experience and input. 

[BlindNavigator 4]

Yep, good ol' times, especially miss your version with Mando's missiles script in A2.

 

These comments below are mostly based of Warfare in A2.

 

+ The RTS aspect, a good commander could really matter. Base placement, spread out, upgrades and so on.

+ AI and player classes. Medic being able to build respawn tents for example.

+ Economy and progression. You always had something to look forward to. You started out poor with crappy weapons, and barely any vehicles.

+ PVP and TvT, had some very fun back-and-fourth-battles on Takistan.

 

- Long matches, sometimes so long they was never finished. At least when doing a full Chernarus or Takistan. 

- Matches could sometimes end abruptly by a good pilot bombing out all bases. Related to:

- Bad commanders could early in the match destroy any chances for the team to win.

 

I think the biggest problem was that you never knew if a match would be completed/fair/good. I wasted 4h for nothing more than once. And the early game could feel like a boring chore. 

[Grumpy Old Man 3545]

My favorite aspect?

Finally being able to buy that M270 MRLS.

 

Been wasting a decent amount of time playing benny warfare in A2 or jammy warfare on zertys server in A3.

Can take on a good day going from the early beginnings to dominating half the map battling occupied towns and enemy players to equal extent.

As @BlindNavigator said, these kind of games stand and fall with a good community. Having an incompetent commander blow up the HQ at start or lose it in battle basically results in a restart vote.

 

Some good points being made in this thread.

Too bad to see nothing being done in this direction by BI.

Them stepping away from the splendid warfare gamemode is a sad sight.

Especially since it's a gamemode where arma really can shine.

 

Cheers

[major_barnes1987 33]

12 hours ago, silentghoust said:

CTI, always will be in my opinion. The fundamental mode in which Arma can show it's full potential as a competitive game. You will never find a PvP game that requires you to plan almost every level of strategy.

It's ashamed that BI hasn't provided us with proper building structures. Particularly when the originals were just a collection of models slapped together. I think I would kill just for some proper variants of vehicles as well, like a HQ, medivac, ect.

 

Couldn't agree with you more my friend.This is why Warfare/CTI is my favourite game mode from any game ever.

[Beagle 684]

Pro:

The scale of the mission and the use of all assets of the game.

That even on public servers, some kind of cooperative game develops, including sometimes really good coordinated Combined arms operations

The only game mode where you can really play as an part of support branches (Engineers, technicians. Medics, Artilleriy)

The possible variations and the possibilty to change your gamestyle completely from Lonewolf sniper to Field Commander of an multi vector assault.

The element of surprise as soon as you enter the area if opposing players, you never know if you will run into unaware noobs or pros that lay in ambush inbeetween towns.

 

Con:

Often too long and it becomes repetetive

Not working CTI on Tanoa so far, including some jungle warfare.

AI is either overwelming or much to easy (mostly to dumb use of AT ad Armor assets of town defense AI.

Soem players play CTI like an e-sport, using any exploit possible, like Capturing Tanks ar even helicopters early, due to the way AI works.

Some commanders even don't build a base and use the MHQ as an respawn vehicle till they have a handfull of large towns.

I also realyl dislike the promotion of repawn fights instead of coordinated operations.

After a while the game becomes "whack a mole" with towns switching sides all few minutes.

 

the main Con so far is due to BIS not delivering the basic assets for warfare CTI in ArmA III.

Those old ArmA and ArmA II bases could really look like real FOBs and firebases.

[lex__1 422]

CTI is the best version of the mission in Arma3. But if you are not familiar with bug and flaws in Arma3 - get ready to get to know them by playing CTI missions. I'm just disappointed with the work of BIS, in terms of solving problems and bringing the content to perfection.
If BIS supported this type of mission, perhaps this would affect the speed of problem solving more.

I like BIS's view on the development of Arma3 and DLC content. But when problems, a long time, remain part of the gameplay - it's frustrating.

I understand that solving problems can take longer than releasing the next DLC, it's difficult to combine, but there is very little performance in this part.

I hope, my criticism will not upset BIS, and their work will please us. )))

 

 

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

from my experience, the CTI designers tend to have no idea how to find and emphasize the "fun" in their scenario, instead wasting development time and energy on fancy/complex systems that just add unnecessary and non-fun-related complexity. maybe a tiny minority finds this stuff fun, but theres a reason why most CTI server stand empty.

 

Last ttime i joined a CTI server, I pressed a button and was greeted by a huge menu with 4-5 different lists and about 30 buttons. really?

 

scenarios made by dry "systems programmers" rather than game designers.

[sama 67]

10 hours ago, fn_Quiksilver said:

from my experience, the CTI designers tend to have no idea how to find and emphasize the "fun" in their scenario, instead wasting development time and energy on fancy/complex systems that just add unnecessary and non-fun-related complexity. maybe a tiny minority finds this stuff fun, but theres a reason why most CTI server stand empty.

 

Last ttime i joined a CTI server, I pressed a button and was greeted by a huge menu with 4-5 different lists and about 30 buttons. really?

 

scenarios made by dry "systems programmers" rather than game designers.

Yeh I had the same experience.The amount of options and addons and poor interface turned me off instantly.Plus really,performance wise a very ordinary game mode.It's a shame BIS did drop it after arma2.u The best cti game mode I believe is on the EUTW servers,tho it hardly resembles cti warfare of old and is more AAS mode pvp orientated but with all the assets.By far the best hardcore pvp mode there is.

 

 

 

 

 

[scratch_one 0]

favourite:
roleplay
dance with the enemy

command work
unfavourite: 
meat fight that can happen if teammates act randomly

Edited May 25, 2017 by scratch_one

[gossamersolid 155]

Ah this thread seems to have got some nice varied responses now. Thanks for everybody who provided their opinions/suggestions.

 

It seems like most people agree that the thing that makes warfare great is the scale and freedom you get within ArmA, put into 1 gamemode.

 

The negatives seem to rely around the quality of the players (not doing what's best for the team, sitting there with sniper + rocket combo, etc) and that matches go for far too long.

 

I know I tried to address the match length issue in my CTI implementation for ArmA 3 with a ticket system. Each team had x amount of tickets (I think 1000), each time a player died the team  had 1 ticket subtracted. If your team owned more territories over the enemy team, the enemy team had a ticket "bleed", meaning they lose x amount of tickets (that increases as the other team has more and more territory over your team) every minute. I thought it was a great way to make the fighting more focused and stop the whole 24 hour match length issue, but it just caused people to rage quit when their team had less than 100 tickets (even though the bleed stopped at either 25 or 50 tickets, meaning they could still make a come back).

There's a very fine line to walk between restricting the player's choices (having capturable zones connected so the fighting is contained) versus the freedom that people expect from the gamemode.

[silentghoust 132]

On 5/26/2017 at 7:07 AM, gossamersolid said:

I know I tried to address the match length issue in my CTI implementation for ArmA 3 with a ticket system. Each team had x amount of tickets (I think 1000), each time a player died the team  had 1 ticket subtracted. If your team owned more territories over the enemy team, the enemy team had a ticket "bleed", meaning they lose x amount of tickets (that increases as the other team has more and more territory over your team) every minute. I thought it was a great way to make the fighting more focused and stop the whole 24 hour match length issue, but it just caused people to rage quit when their team had less than 100 tickets (even though the bleed stopped at either 25 or 50 tickets, meaning they could still make a come back).

On 5/22/2017 at 0:19 PM, BlindNavigator said:

I think the biggest problem was that you never knew if a match would be completed/fair/good. I wasted 4h for nothing more than once. And the early game could feel like a boring chore. 

Honestly the easy and best solution is simply having a timer on the match. But most communities never really implemented a timer aside from assuring that a game resets the next day. 

The balance often comes with the community you bring. On one hand, you get a handful of very competitive players who enjoy the actual PvP content. On the other hand a large majority of players simply like the fighting between towns, and when they have their fill they leave. I think CTI could still be a entertaining thing to watch on a stream, but it would have to be a very specific "competitive" version vs the usual casual one people play. 

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

On 5/27/2017 at 0:07 AM, gossamersolid said:

 

I know I tried to address the match length issue in my CTI implementation for ArmA 3 with a ticket system.

 

more "systems" isnt going to save CTI.

 

find and emphasize the fun.

[spanishsurfer 58]

So I'm late to the party on this post but I feel like many of the "CONS" some of you have addressed are in fact being worked on in the OFPS community who runs BECTI. I've played CTI since it's inception in 2001-02 and have watched the game mode flourish from the abomination that it first was to the monster it's become today. The 2 biggest problems with the mission to me are this, the length of matches and the constant attacks on bases.

 

To fix this, we're currently in the process of switching the emphasis from base attacks to town captures. We don't want to remove the ability to attack an enemy base as many folks love doing that, but we have made it a hell of a lot harder for 1 lone wolf to wreck another teams base (autonomous defenses like a CRAM, custom compositions w/AT-AA turrets on top of towers, etc). We also want to introduce timers and economic victories. After X hours, the round ends and the team with the most town value wins; simple.  The other is economic victory. When a team captures 50-60% of a maps available town supply, that team wins. To really push players back to the towns (besides the $ incentive) we want to have notifications that remind a team on their progress towards an economic victory and when they're about 5-10% from achieving that victory the opposing team will receive a notification on how close to winning their enemy is. We're hoping this system draws most players out of the mindset of constantly attacking each others bases (which is also a lot of fun) and more towards battling out in towns. Also, regarding town warfare (since I read some of your gripes on that).

 

-When a town is captured there is a 10 min "Peace Time" which prevents the opposing team from taking the town

-Towns can only be capped by taking all the surrounding "camps"

-Camps act as spawn points by which ever team has taken it.

-You can purchase low tech gear, vehicles, infantry from the town center if you occupy the town and own all the camps (if the enemy takes just 1 camp you can't purchase anything from the town center)

-Teams can HALO jump into a town being taken by an opposing team to defend it (if you have the upgrade and an air fact at base and if you're thinking about spam spawning, the HALO jump has a timer)

 

The above is just a taste at the level of detail we go into CTI.

 

We are constantly editing/fixing stuff with the mission but IMO, we currently have the best CTI mission ever made, with more content than any other mode I've seen (RHS gear, CUP assets, all vanilla stuff, fast roping mods, jump/climbing scripts, etc, etc, etc).

 

 

TLDR, CTI is alive and well and it's in it's best form it's ever been. The OFPS CTI mission is the game mode by CTI players for CTI players!

 

**Hit me up on our discord if you'd like to join the dev team or just want to play.

[major_barnes1987 33]

On 17/5/2017 at 6:08 PM, gossamersolid said:

I know CTI isn't as popular of a gamemode that it used to be, back in the ArmA 2 and prior days, but for nostalgia's sakes - let's discuss it a bit.

What is everybody's favourite and least favourite aspects of the gamemode as a whole.

 

Favourite

• Making use of most/all of the game's assets in one mission

• The amazing feeling of playing over the entire giant map

• Those rare moments where you see the enemy MHQ driving around and you blow it up

• Mixing and matching gear to make the loadout I want

Least Favourite

• Length of matches. This has always been an issue, but it's gotten worse as ArmA's maps have gotten bigger. Also I don't have as much time to dedicate to playing games as I used to

• Commander role. Nobody ever wants to play it, which ended up with me and one other person in my community always having to do it. I've yet to see an actual good AI commander either (base placement is something only humans are capable of, in my opinion).

• Driving 10 minutes, dying, walking 15 minutes, dying, etc

 

I agree in most of them.But my biggest problem was always the length of matches.I do many other things besides gaming and i want keep a ballance between them.So i end up playing CTI alone with AI cause i can save and continue some other day.But playing alone brings other issues to the game.

[gossamersolid 155]

On 1/3/2018 at 10:49 AM, spanishsurfer said:

-When a town is captured there is a 10 min "Peace Time" which prevents the opposing team from taking the town

-Towns can only be capped by taking all the surrounding "camps"

-Camps act as spawn points by which ever team has taken it.

-You can purchase low tech gear, vehicles, infantry from the town center if you occupy the town and own all the camps (if the enemy takes just 1 camp you can't purchase anything from the town center)

-Teams can HALO jump into a town being taken by an opposing team to defend it (if you have the upgrade and an air fact at base and if you're thinking about spam spawning, the HALO jump has a timer)

 

I tried the peacetime effect when I was early into the development of GWAR3. It was overwhelmingly negatively received by literally everybody play testing besides me. People described it saying it was annoying to make your way over to a zone for somebody to capture it and then you have to either respawn or drive somewhere else. I still like the idea myself, so I'm glad to hear that it's working out for your community.

 

Ah, that's a great idea for capturing. I never really liked taking the depot myself, but couldn't think of a decent way to handle this. Forcing all camps to be captured instead is a solid idea.

 

The camps being a spawn point is something I've done from the start as that's the way I had it in ArmA 2 as well. Basically camps provided equipment purchasing and spawning capabilities, while the depot was for purchasing "zone" vehicles.

 

We tried the purchasing infantry from the town center way back in the early ArmA 2 days, but found that 90% of players didn't want to use it, but the 10% that did had unstoppable zerg armies of infantry harassing zones adjacent. While I think they were doing very well strategy wise, it seemingly annoyed a majority of my playerbase. I think we disabled purchasing if the zone was active (enemy within 400m or so of the depot).

 

See now that's a good idea about HALO deploy. It allows players to easily get right into the action - something that CTI usually really suffers from.

 

 

I think a lot of match length issues can be related to how big Altis and Tanoa are compared to Chernarus/Takistan and especially compared to the original 4 maps from OFP. Either there's too many towns to capture, or there's too much time in between towns to keep the action heavy. Malden's release kinda rectifies this as the design of the map allows for fairly quick matches.

 

On 1/6/2018 at 5:10 AM, major_barnes1987 said:

 

I agree in most of them.But my biggest problem was always the length of matches.I do many other things besides gaming and i want keep a ballance between them.So i end up playing CTI alone with AI cause i can save and continue some other day.But playing alone brings other issues to the game.

 

For sure - matches take too long. I think this is partially related to the map sizes as the games have progressed (OFP had tiny maps compared to ArmA 1+). Another thing to point out is that people's gaming habits have changed. A lot of us have gotten older and have less time to play. Also the most popular games these days allow you to easily jump into matches, play for a half hour and be finished. CTI matches seemingly take 3hrs+.

[nkenny 1057]

Old thread:

 

[x3kj 1247]

On 22.5.2017 at 5:45 PM, nkenny said:

Good

-  Large scale of tactical operations

- Teamwork in a deadly PvP environment.

In theory. And i think this is why most people like the idea of the warfare game mode. But can it really deliver that in practice? Imo it can only deliver less than half of what the idea promises. Especially for public servers with casual players (meaning those who do not have 3-5hours available to sit through a whole game, and those who do not have sworn in groups and methods for team play).

There are no good systems and aids to help and encourage players to organise and collaborate with each other. A task and request system is what could be a good way to solve this issue.

And the 'large scale' degrades over time, as people spawn less and less AI, in favor of single powerfull assets.

 

Why does it often boil down to player trying cheese strategies or only using powerfull assets themself instead of using more AI?
1) Because controlling AI can be cumbersome
2) The way bigger aspect imo, is that setting up your AI team is extremely cumbersome. The "barbie soldier " aspect, where sometimes you have to even purchase individual gear for AI soldiers is taking it to the maximum level of uncomfortability. This works in single player missions maybe. But not for mission where you can lose half or more of your AI a lot quicker than you can say "holy s..".

Example - You had your "dream team" setup. Vehicles, Planes, Infantry. Somewhere in the middle of the map shit hit the fan and you have some vehicle crew without vehicle remaining, you and some other are dead and back at respawn, some of your infantry are still defending their position. Getting back into action from this, with an organised team is really cumbersome. You have to recruit and outfit new units, possibly set them up into groups (red, green, etc) and you have to bring them all back together, and then get back into action. Considering that this "shit hit the fan" can happen very very quickly, the demotivating factor can be really high. Sometimes you lose half your group before you even have assembled everything and are ready to strike. Simply put: There is way too much micromanagement required to maintain your AI units at a constant amount in a coherent formation.

This is why many people will spawn less and less AI, and will rely on high value assets or cheese tactics only (which they usually control themself).

So there's 2 things to increase AI usage and therefore also scale of conflict:
1) Keep resupply lines and spawn routes short. Provide options to setup depots, where units can be temporarily stored for reducing time to get back in action.
2) Significantly reduce amount of micro management required to maintain AI units amount -> auto re-recruitment after losses, automatic execution of pre-specified command (meet at position xyz, regroup with player, follow unit xyz)

 

On 22.5.2017 at 11:17 PM, Beagle said:

After a while the game becomes "whack a mole" with towns switching sides all few minutes.

Indeed. And i think this is what the biggest problem is with the current incarnation of Warfare game modes (including becti). There is never a 'frontline' - everything is in flux and instead of warfare it often boils down to roaming bands of warriors who try to claim every village for their tribe while trying to find the enemies tribe leader. This means coordination and team tactics become difficult. It is never really possible to tell where an enemy would have to be expected and where not. Confusion is reigning. With the primary objective to assassinate the HQ (because it is a game ender) this gets even worse, as groups actively try to bypass each other in order to get to the base of each other. 

The destruction of the HQ therefore should only have secondary effects temporarily and not mean the end of the game. Making the destruction harder will not change the focus.

 

On 3.1.2018 at 4:49 PM, spanishsurfer said:

To fix this, we're currently in the process of switching the emphasis from base attacks to town captures. We don't want to remove the ability to attack an enemy base as many folks love doing that, but we have made it a hell of a lot harder for 1 lone wolf to wreck another teams base

There will always be a way to use cheese tactics and lone wolfing to destroy bases. Especially if commanders take a long time to build their "dream fortress". Maintenaince (that means keeping the base alive and functioning) should be very easy and quick, and dream fortress building (tons of wall sections, tents and huge domes) should be discouraged - it just increases object count and removes focus from the actual game. In addition it makes the target just the more enticing, the more elaborate it is and the more time has been spent on it - the inner troll in everyone will agree. And no base can withstand a quick carpet-bombing run with a CAS plane or Arty/MLRS barrage.

 

On 12.1.2018 at 4:22 PM, gossamersolid said:

CTI matches seemingly take 3hrs+

There is no other way, due to the complexity. But the important take-away is that CTI should be fun, even if you have only 30min and can only JIP. Which currently it generally isn't, as you have to earn money the hard way first, and have considerable time to get into action with your AI group first. With this beeing the case, people with limited time will find much more enjoyment in other game modes. But i think this can be adressed, if concessions to "commander/ player progression" are made.

 

[spanishsurfer 58]

COPY/PASTE from REDDIT, but seeking same answers.

 

Our BECTI server has an issue where VET players all join on 1 side and the newer folks join whichever team, causes for 1 sided games most times. Which in Arma also applies to many other game modes, due to the game's complexity.

I figured I'd try this community and see what answers I get.

Your tools are over a years worth of player historical data exactly like what Game Tracker provides for arma: Player name, total score on the server, and total time played on the server.

Would you build a handicap to even teams out a bit? How would you do it? Have you seen any effective handicaps out there for a MP fps?

Thanks in advance to any effort provided.

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

On 2/10/2018 at 9:30 AM, spanishsurfer said:

COPY/PASTE from REDDIT, but seeking same answers.

 

Our BECTI server has an issue where VET players all join on 1 side and the newer folks join whichever team, causes for 1 sided games most times. Which in Arma also applies to many other game modes, due to the game's complexity.

I figured I'd try this community and see what answers I get.

Your tools are over a years worth of player historical data exactly like what Game Tracker provides for arma: Player name, total score on the server, and total time played on the server.

Would you build a handicap to even teams out a bit? How would you do it? Have you seen any effective handicaps out there for a MP fps?

Thanks in advance to any effort provided.

 

simple is to add constraint coefficients to the important values in the mission.

 

1. detect stacking

 

2. differentiate between veteran and noob (time played, database, etc)

 

3. apply constraint coefficients to players who are veterans on a currently-stacked team.

 

some examples of coefficient tweaking: 

 

- multiply incoming damage in a handledamage event, effectively giving the veteran on the stacked team less health. such as:    if (veteran) then { incoming_damage = incoming_damage * 1.25 };

- reduce income or any ingame currency the veteran on the stacked team can earn or have access to. basically like a graduated income tax, if he's a vet on a currently stacked team.

- reduce what weapons/attachments the veteran on the stacked team can use, or what vehicles/buildings they can spawn.

- show their position on the map to the enemy team

 

if they dont like it they can just switch teams

 

the damage modification would probably cause irritation, so if I had to pick one I'd pick the currency taxation. add a 90% 'income tax' to the veteran when they're on a currently stacked team.

[esfumato 75]

I liked a lot to play Arma 2 Warfare Benny Edition mission. And I hoped to see the game mode again in Arma 3.

In arma 3, the most similar thing that I have found is CTI - EUTW. (no base building in it, and no upgrades).

 

Dislikes in Arma 3 CTI.

 

No 3D objects to represent the Base Factories. (Now maybe could be possible to add some Eden Editor Composititions)

Long wait for upgrades. making the games even longer.

Weird Menus and options in the CTI missions of Arma 3. hard to understand.

Long travels to find action. Respawn and long travel again, is more a car driving simulator than a shooter.

Commanders can't take desitions must do what players ask for, or get kicked.

Empty servers no one is playing

 

Likes in Arma 3.

Haven't played. so no likes at all.

 

I had a really big suggestion post with images and everything in the arma2 subforums of the benny edition, but all those post have been removed and lost if you want some feedback I can try the mission and post something at your forums.

 

Also, I don't know why in Arma community each modder have his own version of a mission instead of cooperating with missions that are already done and have servers running. In EUTW is GIPPO alone developing the mission, it have 4 servers and have a hard time to fill just 2 of them, maybe some help to EUTW could improve the mission and make it a must play for every Arma 3 player.

 

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

16 hours ago, esfumato said:

Also, I don't know why in Arma community each modder have his own version of a mission instead of cooperating with missions that are already done and have servers running. In EUTW is GIPPO alone developing the mission, it have 4 servers and have a hard time to fill just 2 of them, maybe some help to EUTW could improve the mission and make it a must play for every Arma 3 player.

 

 

This has been a problem I've noticed since day 1 here

 

arma 3 community is full of "lone rambo" designers, producing mediocre and poorly polished products, many months (even years) after their intended release date. there is some peace and quiet in DIY, but any ambitious project with realistic goals, needs a team.

 

i noticed it got really bad around the MANW contest. designers locked themselves in their dev dungeons hoping to one-man-army a project to win $$$.

 

 

On the flip side, it is more peaceful to work alone with no one nagging you and no obligations, and i have been burned in the past on joint projects by back-stabbing profiteers so there is that ...

[esfumato 75]

5 hours ago, fn_Quiksilver said:

 

This has been a problem I've noticed since day 1 here

 

arma 3 community is full of "lone rambo" designers, producing mediocre and poorly polished products, many months (even years) after their intended release date. there is some peace and quiet in DIY, but any ambitious project with realistic goals, needs a team.

 

i noticed it got really bad around the MANW contest. designers locked themselves in their dev dungeons hoping to one-man-army a project to win $$$.

 

 

On the flip side, it is more peaceful to work alone with no one nagging you and no obligations, and i have been burned in the past on joint projects by back-stabbing profiteers so there is that ...

 

The thing is, that is not needed a big modification, just a few good designed multiplayer game modes that use the potential of all the assets of Arma 3. There is no need of a ton of 3d models or sounds voice acting or whatever. We have been playing poor Multiplayer Game modes since Arma 3 release and with all the people that have talent and know how in this community is a shame.