CaptainDawson

Great! I'm about to join a server and find out right now.

Yes mate, I am well aware. As a pilot myself, I have operated from small airstrips and know the capabilities of my aircraft and the risks of making landings under less than ideal circumstances, albeit not in jets of course. What I am referring to is the unrealistic setting in which jets are expected to operate. Just because a certain purpose built plane can land in a short distance in a somewhat rare instance does not mean a superpower would commit multi million dollar fighters to operate from sub-standard airstrips like Molos and AAC, especially when all airports on Altis can hypothetically be within range of enemy anti-air. The runways in stock Arma maps are not proportional to most standard runways in real life, it only takes a quick look at width to length ratio to tell you that. Lets not forget that the flight models are not very realistic, and considering the fact that it takes a Blackwasp almost until the end of the AAC runway to take off, along with the large number of player driven planes that crash on landing (granted mostly noobs), my personal opinion is that jets do not make the game feel more realistic or immersive. I think that may be a more accurate assessment of the issue. I was able to place one or two SAMs in coordination with a teammate, and the lag only increased by a fairly small amount. It was when they started to fire a lot that the game died. After my last game crashed, we all went on Global and both sides discussed the issue. Opfor confirmed that the addition of their SAM corresponded to the freezing of the server shortly after. My new theory is that it may have to do specifically with the AI controlling the SAM, since it seems to be less of an issue when it is player controlled. After the freeze, I saw the humorous spectacle of hundreds of SAMs trying to target my Darter drone, which was pretty hilarious trying to dodge all of them. The Opfor player who placed the SAM had the theory that the issue was specifically the guidance systems of too many missiles trying to hit the target at once, and that if the target was hit and destroyed, the server would recover its other tasks. I agree with you. Probably the reason they increased the player count was because Altis was simply too big for so few players. But at this point performance should be over player count. I think 48 player cap on Altis could be a start for testing better performance. Also, I think the addition of a 48 player Malden scenario would increase the amount of Warlords players trying something besides Altis. Malden is much smaller and has less sectors, for that reason alone it should have better performance than Altis with a similar player count.

Once more I offer my humble suggestion: 90% of the Warlords imbalance and lag problems would be fixed by just REMOVING the jets. While the Jets DLC is a fun and interesting addition to Arma, it does not belong in Warlords. It is not at all realistic to have massive air-superiority jets taking off from short dirt runways, and it is unreasonable to assume major superpowers of NATO and CSAT would be committing such expensive assets at dangerous spawn-camped runways so close to the enemy base. The Arma jets have unrealistic flight models, and missiles have unrealistic flight and targeting characteristics. The visibility is still far too low to provide for realistic flying. The "Jet Spam" is overwhelmingly powerful for either side. Once a team has air superiority, that side can nearly completely deny the other the use of all vehicles and aircraft with only ONE JET. The win condition is controlled by whichever team has a persistent jet player. People complain about the Rhino being OP despite its limited range, but the jets have full reign over the ENTIRE MAP! The new SAMs are not effective against the jets when the server has to lag to death in order to lock onto them. The jets do not add to the Warlords experience, they detract from it. Keeping the smaller helicopters as well as the Kajman and Blackfoot would make the game more reasonable and more realistic for Arma's tactical focus. Remove the SAMs and remove the jets and the game will become much better and playable in my opinion.

@Jezuro, I played a full Warlords match today, from start to server crash. I witnessed BOTH US 01e and 01w freeze permanently right after long range SAM launchers and radars were placed. There is a direct correlation between the server issues and the placement of the SAMs. There is visible increase in lag when the first AA is placed, increasing to the point where the missiles are fired, and the game freezes. It eventually recovers sometimes, but not before every player is forced to leave and lose their CP, meaning the game is effectively over for most players. Assuming one of the teams uses a SAM, the server often cannot progress beyond that point. The players that were in those matches today have agreed to a truce of no SAMs or radar use in the next game, but that will not prevent the inevitable crash when an unknowing player places an AA. There are multiple players who can confirm this, and there will be more once every player has experienced the inevitable server freeze. In my recent experience, before completing half of the mission time, the server crashes more often than not. This is very annoying and I hope that it will be fixed soon, because it is no fun to be invested in a match and have it all crash.

@Jezuro, today on US 01w the whole game froze permanently for everyone again, this has been happening more often since the update. Some people are saying it has something to do with the new AA systems, since the placement of SAM sites has been corresponding to huge FPS drops for the whole server.

That's right I think, I was kicked a while ago for being AFK, but I don't see why that should ban me for the next day... I hope it goes away because it has been awhile since I was able to connect to that server. This is happening before I even select a slot, before the mission even fully loads.

While we're on the subject, not only are teamkillers often difficult to kick, I find myself being kicked more often than not. And no, I was not teamkilling or vote kicked. When I try to connect to US 01e server, I immediately get kicked for no reason. Apparently I cannot connect ever again until the server is restarted. But this has been happening for a few days. The kick happens before the lobby menu even loads. I would really appreciate it if my ban could be removed. Even on the weekends, there are rarely more than 2 US servers more than 1/2 populated at any given time. EU servers are pretty pointless for me as a US player, since the already bad lag is even worse when connecting to EU servers. Having only one US server left to choose from, which could be full or lagged out, means I often can't play Warlords at all anymore!

The plane/helicopter AI in Arma is pretty finicky... If both helis are going to be flown by AI and not players, you might be better off setting separate waypoints for each and adjust the starting positions so that the helis fly the right distance from each other.

How can I make sub-missions on my scenario, like in the East Wind campaign? Is this something that I would have to script, or can I use a trigger to load a side mission? I don't need it for purposes of a campaign, I only want one mission with sub-missions activated when the player selects or activates it. Any help appreciated, thanks!

See, I didn't even know that, and I've played Warlords for quite a while. Just like half of the players who use Rhinos don't even know how to use the ATGMs. We are dealing with a majority of players who are clueless because there are no instructions to tell them how to do these things. "Hold 'I' to open Command Menu" is not sufficient to explain the entire gamemode to a new player. I would know: I have hundreds of hours in Warlords, usually top player on my team on the kill board, and I still don't know how to do some things. So the players who are experienced, like me in a Rhino or you in a Shikra, just run roughshot over the other players. The battle is won or lost by a few experienced players on each team who are using spammy tactics to grind down the enemy's noobs. You realize we still have a large number of players sitting in the spawn because they don't know how to teleport.

Not true, using the Rhino does differ with the increased view distance. Just as the T-140 can see farther, now the drone can see farther as well! No, they did not try spawning in the next sector, because driving a slow vehicle over a few kilometers requires patience that noob players do not have. The players are expecting to spawn at AAC without being mowed down instantly. Anything a player on the ground does can be countered by the spammer on the island. The Rhino is the only realistic solution because 90% of the time Blufor players refuse to coordinate in any way. You have to understand, this is nearly always an every man for himself battle. A single Blufor player hoping to spawn a jet is not going to go through all those steps to kill the Tigris just so that his AI jet can be immediately killed on landing by a Shikra. It's not LOAL as far as I know, and I've been using the Rhino for quite a while. I'm not arguing with the fact that the Rhino is OP. I'm saying that it's a necessary counter to the current Opfor-dominated meta. In case you haven't noticed, the Rhino hasn't been able to prevent Opfor from winning the vast majority of all Altis Warlords matches. Remember, Opfor has APC launched ATGMs, and Blufor doesn't. Opfor has better faster tanks, better CAS heli, better aircraft, etc. I agree the Rhino should be limited in it's reload, but not fully remove its ATGMs. Today I had a Shikra player find and kill my hidden Rhino 3 times in a row. The Rhino is very counterable, the Shikra is not. Once Opfor has air superiority, Blufor has no chance of using any kind of plane or tank. Remove the Rhino's ATGMs and you make an unbalanced game even more unbalanced.

Ok, @Jezuro I went and played a Malden Warlords today. It was actually funner and ran more smoothly than many of the Altis scenarios I've played, but as usual, it suffered from a low player count. There were only 2 Blufor and 1 Opfor when I joined. Players began to join both sides, but then a problem started to happen. There is a pretty significant problem with the "Team Balance Parameter": This particular game was fairly even, until some Opfor players started to leave more often than Blufor players. They weren't salty or losing, they just had to leave. The Team Balance Parameter prevented more players from joining Blufor since they now had more players than Opfor. But it DID NOT of course prevent Opfor players from leaving. You see where I'm going with this? The new joining players didn't want to join Opfor because they were now at a significant player disadvantage. They couldn't join Blufor either, so they just left the server! Slowly but surely the total number of players started to decrease. But because no new players would join the server, the player count could only DECREASE. Since there were already not enough players, Blufor began to turn the tide, and before we knew it every single Opfor player had left, and we were left with just 5 Blufor players. Arguably, the balance was even WORSE than if the players had been allowed to join Blufor, because if the server player count increased, perhaps more OPFOR players would have been willing to join in the first place! If the total player number is too low, many players not join no matter what the situation is. Honestly, balancing teams by player numbers can't fully solve the problem. I've seen plenty of Altis servers where Blufor had a more than 10 player advantage and were still LOSING. Why? Because one player using a spammy tactic or exploit (such as the camping tactics I mentioned earlier), that player can become the tactical equivalent to 20 enemy players.

I'd love to play them, but I rarely see more than 10 players using Malden or Stratis Warlords. I think that's why all the feedback is on Altis. Possible suggestion: Could you make a 48 or 64 player Malden or even Stratis scenario? That would change things up a bit and bring things back to more intimate PVP instead of long range vehicle use. Rhino, aircraft, and other vehicles would be less spammy in a smaller area of operations with a higher density of players! I believe if we had a 48 or 64 player Malden or Stratis scenario, we would have more players trying them. I think when players log in, they see the server with the highest player count and join it, and that's almost always Altis. Many of the servers including Altis suffer from high player turnover, and in this scenario the smaller maps would seem to be better suited to Arma's great close-in infantry and tactical fighting. I know for a fact that the smaller Warlords maps run MUCH better in terms of framerate. I love Malden, and I think it is the best suited to Warlords. But I cannot find enough players to play with on it 😞 It is just not as fun to play when there are only 5 or 6 players on. If I find one populated I will be sure to try it again and report back! One more thing, we cannot tell the map being used when we look at the server list. We have the player number which helps us make a guess, but if we had the name of the map being used in the Warlords server list, maybe more would like to try an alternate map than Altis. I almost never see a Malden or Stratis Warlords running with players anymore, and until recently, I have been playing Warlords a lot. Edit: currently the only Malden running has only 4 players, while there are 4 Altis scenarios running with many players.

@Jezuro, I want to say that I appreciate the attempts to fix the problems in Warlords, and I hope that eventually a solution can be reached. The Anti-Griefing measures seem to be relatively successful so far, albeit with the downside that I have been getting mistakenly banned much more often. Please take a moment to see some examples of why I think the meta needs to be changed. Currently, certain experienced players are taking advantage of certain tactics that in my opinion are very unfair. From my experience with Warlords after the recent update, it is still incredibly unbalanced. Increasing the Rhino/Ammo Truck combo cost to nearly as much as the Nephron and Wipeout does not fix the root of the issue. The issue is certain players abusing spammy techniques and unrealistic tactics which should not be possible in the game. People complain about the "Rhino spam" as if there is no comparative Opfor spamming. There are just as many overpowered and unrealistic OPFOR tactics as there are for Blufor. Allow me to explain my reasoning: I give you 2 examples from a game just yesterday: Example #1. A T-140K sits with his ammo truck peeking over a hill far away from the AO, raining 120 and 30mm cannon fire on every thermal signature in Telos, PowerPlant, and Anthrakia. The tank is FAR outside Blufor's territory, beyond Titan locking distance, and if a player gets a lucky hit, he just rolls back 20 meters out of sight, buys a repair truck, then comes right on back. Bringing Slammer tanks against the T-140 in this situation is hopeless, when the Angara can disengage at ANY time to repair all damage in LITERALLY 5 seconds outside the line of fire, while the NATO vehicles are caught in the open and disabled in 1 or 2 hits. Cannot flank him when we are on the narrow part of the island and Opfor dominates the skies. Never mind the fact that 95% of Blufor players will never even see him since he has almost no thermal signature when he is sitting with his engine is off, and he can move behind the hill and hide at any time. It would essentially require a drone to see at that kind of distance, and I did not even find him until I did so. I countered this with a Rhino. In this situation, which happens quite often, what other tactic could I have used to quickly eliminate this single tank which was denying Blufor the ability to capture Anthrakia? Example #2. A SINGLE OPFOR PLAYER flies to the island near AAC, spawns a TIGRIS and AMMO TRUCK, and mows down every plane, vehicle, and player that spawns at AAC. The Tigris in this situation has UNLIMITED OVERWHELMING firepower and complete control over the ONLY airport Blufor has access to for the majority of, if not the ENTIRE game. Players spawning at AAC are lightly armed as they are expecting to only spawn a plane and then leave. The only way the Tigris spammer can be removed under normal circumstances is for Blufor to launch a coordinated assault on him with several players. How do we counter this threat? Teammates at AAC cannot spawn any vehicles, as they can be destroyed out of their parachutes with the Opfor player's titan launcher. I could try to coordinate with my team, who is 75% noobs, 20% actually helping the team but without a microphone, and 5% teamkillers. Or, I can launch another drone, lock onto the camper with a laser, and destroy the player's Tigris with my Rhino. Shortly after I did so, said camper whines in Global about me using the Rhino, despite the fact that just seconds ago, he had been mowing down the players and aircraft spawning at AAC uncontested. Certain Opfor players had been consistently using said spam tactics the whole time I had been grinding to save up 10K to get a Rhino and Truck. Example #3. Last but certainly not least, Opfor has the obvious airpower advantage of having, Molos, Selekano, AND Almyra airbases, while NATO can be denied the use of ALL aircraft by ONE player spamming AAC. Don't forget the fact that the Shikra has more AA missiles than the Blackwasp, or that the Xi-an can utterly demolish any ground force with impunity in the hands of an experienced player. The Rhino is spammy in the hands of a knowledgeable player. But the Rhino is also quite literally the SINGLE defense of Blufor in the face of Opfor spam tactics. My opinion is that a lot of problems would be solved by shortening the game. I rarely see a game completed without stagnating first. The team that is winning often turns into the team with the most players. Now that players are prevented from joining a team with a player advantage with the team balance parameter, the games will likely run even longer. Ultimately, what I think will solve the problem is 1. FORCE players to vary their tactics by moving the Blufor/Opfor bases and reassessing the sector locations and costs, 2. Prevent players from singlehandedly disrupting their entire offensive by spawning tanks/AA far behind enemy lines or camping player/vehicle spawns. 3. REDUCE costs of Rhino, Ammo, and Repair, but INCREASE the repair/rearm time and LIMIT the number of uses.

Hi, I want some AI helis to stay on the ground idling. Currently, they start with engines off, and immediately try to take off when they see an enemy. No waypoints. I just want them to stay put and idle. I've tried the "engineOn" command, but haven't seen any change. The engines will turn on, but they don't start on. I'm new to scripting, so I'm not sure how to do this. I've also tried attaching the heli to an invisible helipad (this attachTo [pad, [0, 0, 0] ]; ). This prevents it from moving, but it also results in a weird glitch where the heli's rotors quickly start and stop moving. Any help appreciated! Thanks

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.

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. 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.

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.

I agree with Beagle, while the Rhino does have a unique ability to strike at longer range, that doesn't really threaten the CSAT's radars unless they put them foolishly close to the front. The Radars and SAMs have much farther range than the Rhino. So unless you're trying to put Radars in hostile territory or too close to the front line, you can just place them far enough back to be out of range of the Rhino. As for the LR AAs, I just hope that they can present some form of reasonable deterrent to jets. Jets on either team should not be able to bomb the enemy spawn, and deny aircraft from taking of without being contested.

I wholeheartedly agree with everything you just said. Having 3 variants like the Ghillie suits, Arid, Semi-Arid, and Lush perhaps with different patterns would be even better. We have Arid Viper gear, why not CTRG... Back to radars though, is it just me or does 10K sound like a lot for an object that can be killed without any way of defending itself without the SAM units? I mean, your radar gets destroyed and it can render all of your SAMs useless. That's a big CP loss that is difficult to replace unless your team has the CP advantage. You'll want those increased-price Ammo trucks for the SAMs of course, since the SAM launchers can waste all their ammo on one target. Unless players coordinate, how will a player be able to afford to set up a whole SAM/Radar system? Couldn't the cost be prohibitively expensive for a faction that is being ground down by jet spamming?

On that note, @Jezuro will the new radar and SAM objects be movable from their spawn locations? Obviously, they are not drivable vehicles like most of the other units are, so should I assume that they can't be moved from where they paradrop? This could create problems, as some of the current air drop locations in close proximity to buildings would cause problems for the new AA to operate properly...

I would completely agree with you, were it not for the fact that Blufor friendlies routinely bombard and rocket areas with both forces present regardless of my urgent pleas to "GUYS CHECK YOUR TARGETS WE HAVE PLAYER ICONS FOR A REASON". The current Blufor meta mostly consists of newer players who are not using text OR voice chat, and do not care about coordinating or working with other players. Often, the only people who care about friendly fire are serious players, which lately there has been a serious lack of if you haven't noticed from the incessant griefing and TKing especially on Blufor. From my experiences in Warlords, it seems many experienced players have either migrated to Opfor because they got tired of the griefing and lack of coordination on Blufor, or simply just don't play Warlords anymore. Just since the release of Warlords, I have seen a shift in win rate to Opfor side, primarily for this very reason. Lately, I've found it very hard to find more than a couple Blufor players at a time willing to talk on voice and coordinate/plan offensives and defenses. In fact, I often end up chatting on global with Opfor to complain about their jet spam! Also lets not pretend that Warlords is milsim realistic. Tens of thousands of pounds aircraft can land and take off of an unpaved ultrashort runway? Pilot who is shot down can instantly teleport back to airport and spawn another air superiority jet with no repercussions except a little CP loss? Blufor can use Viper helmets in Arsenal and Opfor can use full NATO Carrier Special Rig and MX loadout with exception of uniform, which is difficult to recognize at night? Yes, I agree that friendly fire is an important and realistic factor of Arma. I just see the case for disabling it in some situations to deter griefers, that's all.

Yes. Please for the love of God just ban these players. When we have a consensus agreeing on toxic players, they should just be banned. I do have to disagree with you on one thing though. There will always be the occasional griefers, but the issue of TKing could honestly be almost completely solved by changing one thing. Just DISABLE teamkilling and all friendly fire in the Base Sector. For that matter, maybe even just disable it completely! Yes, friendly fire happens in real life. But do we need it in this gamemode? NO. Warlords is not a milsim-spec realistic gamemode. Seriously, how often do decent players accidentally kill a friendly WITH the player icons on him that we have in warlords? The only time I do is when I'm using thermals and being careless about checking the map, and it almost never happens. Currently a single griefer can ruin the entire game for both factions. A LARGE PORTION of these griefers will simply leave if they cannot have the instant gratification of TKing in the spawn area. Teamkilling is a serious issue in this game. If we aren't going to be allowed useful vote kicking or voting our own admins, sacrificing a little realism is worth it to make the game playable.

Hi, player Kestrel here. I am a regular player, and many on Warlords probably have seen me at least once or twice. I often accumulate large killstreaks and am AFK a lot, but I DO NOT use scripting or any kind of hacks. I simply use imbalances in the gamemode to my advantage in a attempt to counter the enemy's jet spam. When one team spams, it's only reasonable to expect someone on the other team to spam back. I do not regularly attempt to gain an advantage for my team by glitching, when I see a glitch I only seek to find out what is going on. If that means giving any players 20k CP or free aircraft without paying anything to test a theory then so be it. Fix the game, I shouldn't be able to do that. For you guys that were whining at me as "kiddie scripter", real hackers and scripters who use game deficiencies to their advantage are rampant on the servers, don't complain at me for trying to find problems for reporting and having a little fun in the process. For those who play Warlords regularly, you know the current meta is pretty unbalanced even without the glitches. Here are just a few of the issues I've encountered. I have not personally seen these mentioned yet so I post them here. 1. Stand up in closed cockpit aircraft/land vehicle glitch. Seems innocent? Imagine someone hovering a M320 sniper over your spawn. I have not tested that yet, so as not to incur the wrath of the Opfor whiners. But you can definitely gain an advantage by using this in a jet with HUD, now you have much greater FOV plus your player can withstand a mach 2 airstream to the face, which is incredibly epic. (NO, I have never used this to my advantage, unless you consider laughing uncontrollably an advantage.) It is 100% reproducible. Not saying how to reproduce cause I know people will take advantage. 2. Parachute glitch still persists. Parachutes move on ground, freeze in the sky, and more. Its annoying to see these refuse to despawn and litter the map. I did not personally see this issue when Warlords was released, only started to see it worsen in the last month or so. 3. Glitched control points. Sometimes points appear an incorrect color, or show an incorrect selected sector. I know I am not the only one this has happened to after talking with others. Yesterday, I helped capture Anthrakia as a Blufor. I airdropped a Rhino there. Got in, and started driving. The game lagged, then the point turned green (AAF), gave the alarm, and my tank and player exploded for being in a "non contested sector". This is AFTER the sector turning Blue and verbal cue of Anthrakia being capped by Blufor. Sorry no video evidence. 4. CP transfer glitch. I spawn in with default 500CP. Go AFK for short period of time. Ask a guy can I have 5000 CP transfer please cause I am poor. He types in the box "5000" but I receive 500,000CP. The game hadnt been going for that long, it is unreasonable to assume he accumulated that much. He was not hacking nor was I. Free CP for everyone I say, blame the game, what do you expect me to do? Leave and waste all that CP? Only happened once so far. 5. "Scalar NaN" CP glitch: Just saw first today, this is a glitch where I have essentially "infinite" CP. Cannot spawn any land vehicle, only air assets. I am still bound by max asset limiter. Can enter ANY number of CP into CP transfer without greying out the send button, but when I click send they will not actually receive any CP I found after testing. I bought a bunch of units to see what I can spawn in, then play around with the vehicles for a little while cause I've NEVER been able to fly in a BlackFish VTOL before in Warlords due to the usual jet spam. It was a big moment for me to actually be in a non-BlackWasp aircraft in an Opfor dominated game and exist for more than 1 second. I have no clue how to reproduce this I literally just ALT-TABed back and its there. Video: 10PM EST 4/5/2019 US Warlords server As you can see, I can request Blackwasps without losing anything forever, until the unit limiter kicks in. Take note that I had just joined the game, and should have had almost NO CP. Certainly not tens of thousands. I destroy these Blackwasps that are glitched so my team does not get an advantage, even though in this game Opfor already had massive incredibly unbalanced advantage of having non-TKing players. Don't say I'm "ruining the game", game was pointless at this time anyways since the game was already ruined at this point by the obligatory Blufor TKer. People immediately me accuse of "scripting" and whine on Global. I did nothing to cause this glitch, and team was not given any lasting advantage since all those units were presumably deleted when I left shortly after. Again, I did not DO anything in order to get this glitch, it literally just happened. I encounter a ridiculous amount of glitches and hackers, and I'm very tired of it. I am not really interested in playing anymore at least until something is done about TK and hacking at a minimum. Warlords has a lot of potential and is in my opinion, the best official gamemode. I really appreciate all the work that has been done and continues to be done on the game. I have a dream that one day we can play Warlords fairly and without TKers. Hope this report can be of help to you. Thanks, Kestrel

That sounds like a good idea to me