CaptainDawson

Ok I should have been more specific, even when you are using selections that DON'T conflict, if you turn something on and then off again, it creates issues. At least one of the selections changes the color of the bumper to an older texture intended for the repair Offroad, and when you turn it off the numerous paradoxes of conflicting options messes up the texture. BTW can I just say that the customization option menu for vehicles (especially the new Offroads) is just awful. Why do we need so many check boxes, they should be "either or" selections because so many of them require the disabling of another option. Some disable automatically when you select something that conflicts, and some don't! They cause clashes in the textures and clipping when you create a paradox by accidentally selecting something you didn't know conflicted. Just mess around with the customization options in the Vehicle Arsenal and you'll see what I mean.

Hi, In Warlords Livonia I noticed an issue that some sectors don't spawn enemies. Also, Nato uses the same MTP camo instead of the new Forest camo... I assume this is still WIP? CSAT Arid camo will look especially strange in Livonia! It would be really nice to fight as the new Livonian units against new Russian Spetsnaz, so we can experience the new vehicles and weapons. I know the new factions have much less vehicles and weapons, but I think it could be a nice change to Warlords not to have super overpowered tanks and planes dominating the match, especially on a map with heavy forests not conducive to tanks and only ONE airfield. Spetznaz and LDF could be reinforced with a few small NATO and CSAT vehicles, Pawnee, Orca, etc if need be... Perhaps even combination of LDF allied with NATO against Spetsnaz and CSAT. Infantry warfare is where Arma shines, not jets! So far the sector layout looks interesting and different. Only 3 sectors distance from base to base should also be interesting lol. Might want to rethink a few of the sector links around Nadbor XD. I can already see what will happen, Blufor will go for Airbase because it is closer to it than CSAT is, and CSAT will immediately drive for Blufor base. Will be more challenging with so many MBTs and APCs in some of the early sectors. It should make for some interesting new style of Warlords, curious to see what happens!

Also, it would be really nice to have some way to differentiate between LDF, NATO, CSAT, and AAF ED UGVs. They currently all have the exact same skin between the different factions. I can just imagine the terror in Warlords in Anthrakia when we have dozens of these swarming around and hiding behind every corner and there is no way to know which is friendly and which is not!

Hi, on Offroad (Comms) the headlights cannot be turned on when the beacon is enabled. I am assuming this is not intentional? Also, with the few dozen modification options for this vehicle, some texture/3D clipping glitches are created on the bumper when options which contradict are enabled or disabled.

Lol, this is basically true. They avoid attacking past Anthrakia because they know the team that attacks is the team that can NO LONGER backcap for the time being, meaning they will eventually lose the CP war. PLEASE we need alternative or random sector and base layouts so that players cannot just plan out the whole match and camp certain locations by memory! It defeats the purpose of simulating combat if you already know everything that will happen! Since now I already know that CSAT will spam Shikras and blow every NATO vehicle to oblivion in nearly every match, I found myself using the tactics OPFOR usually uses - Camping the airfields. Genar and I mined the Selekano Airstrip into oblivion, I set up AA units at the Salt Flat, and then I Titan killed every Shikra, Neophron, and Kajman they spawned at Molos. It is sad that this is essentially the only way to contest the Shikra spam without calling a dozen Blackwasps. Even so, it was a long stalemated match at Anthrakia as always. The only way we won was by constantly calling in dozens of Blackwasps (2/3rds of which could not even land) to contest their 2 Shikras. The game needs to be shortened. Give us more than one route to choose through the center of the map, as I have demonstrated in my template. The current map layout significantly gives OPFOR an advantage!

Ok I take back what I said about being able to kick people, we have repeated teamkillers back again and the current kicking system does not resolve the problem when they can just rejoin 1 minute later on another bogus account. Legitimately cannot even spawn a vehicle without getting immediately sniped by Shikra or shot point blank by teamkiller. I'm done I'm going back to singleplayer lol

I think both slower reload and limited supply together would be good. Not like early A3, just more limited than the nearly instant unlimited supply of ammo we have now. On the Rhino, if reload amount was reduced and time to reload increased, there is no need for further nerfing. You absolutely do not see people spamming Rhinos like they spam Shikras and Neophrons. Just look at the kill counts. With the exception of me, Bryce, and several other players, there are only a few who actually use the Rhino to its full potential. If you look at certain players who consistently camp the airfield and sector spawns with helicopters and planes, that's where the real problem is IMO. I don't blame those people per say, I blame the fact that this spam tactic is way too easy in Warlords.

I will be getting my own dedicated server most likely in a few months, I am considering organizing a test Altis Warlords server using adjusted sectors and CP costs to see if that will fix some of the problems basically using the suggestions we've been discussing. Decrease AI number/increase skill, change base location, spread out sectors more evenly and give a range of potential attack routes rather than only 2 or 3, bring some randomization instead of your team knowing where every Strider and Gorgon is! Rhino doesn't need to be nerfed at all, the Ammo Truck's nearly unlimited ammunition is what needs to be nerfed! Nerf things by nerfing their spammyness, not by increasing the price. Significantly increase ammo reload time for all vehicles. Lower heli costs, planes back to 7500 and 10000, nerf heli and plane reload to prevent spam. Remove SAMs. Start players nearby airbases and add invincible/respawning static AA AI/player usable defenses for Blufor and Opfor airports and base to prevent incessant camping. Ban some Arsenal items even? Tron suit guy with Bergen and Titan MPRL Compact does not belong on the battlefield. Limited of course to basic scripting stuff because I am not the expert in that. Obviously just having "Vote Admin" could potentially solve 90% of the remaining player-related problems provided the players elect a trusted individual. It may be difficult to populate such a server because many casual players already avoid non-official servers, and Warlords already seems to be dying. I will advertise it and see if maybe we can get unit vs unit Warlords to get the numbers up, and let individual players join in perhaps... Warlords still has a lot of potential, I hope we can encourage interest in the official servers again by addressing a few of the worst issues. Still think just the addition of 2 or 3 different sector layouts would SIGNIFICANTLY increase the appeal of Warlords to players. Players are tired of the same thing over and over.

Great question. A lot of people don't. Lot of people just got sick of it and don't play Warlords anymore, most players now are newbies rather than veterans. The answer for me is that I did not even realize what was going on until I saw Raikkonen trying to vote kick this player, since I joined an already half-over game. As for everyone else. I'm not really sure why people subject themselves to this anymore. I'm not really interested in playing Warlords until we can at least see some sort of meta change. After buying a Hunter HMG to backcap OPFOR sectors dozens of times in a row, it really just gets boring. It's easier to backcap an empty sector singlehandedly then to fight at the contested sector, and now that a lot of players are starting to figure this out it's just an endless game of Whack-A-Mole, until the experienced players leave one team, and their opposing team just steamrolls to victory. Thank goodness we are at least able to kick most of these problematic players, yesterday we were able to get "AORUS" the repeated teamkiller kicked before he could do too much damage.

Hmmmmmm, something seems wrong with this picture... Specifically relating to the amount of kills the top player has? 5 player/AI kills total. 1,210 vehicle kills hmmm. Strongly suggests he had a very large influence on this very unbalanced match, that and the fact that his own teammates are trying to kick him lol

Yeah who was saying the Spetsnaz weren't powerful enough? Maybe the Spetsnaz ARE the aliens?

Makes sense, thanks!

It's not just this one item, there are several items labeled "LDF" which are exactly the same model and texture as another item. Crew Helmet [AAF/LDF], Heli Crew Helmet [CSAT/LDF], Heli Pilot Helmet [CSAT/LDF], Pilot Helmet [CSAT/LDF] etc.. Why can't we just have Crew Helmet (Soft) instead of Crew Helmet (Soft) [CSAT] and Crew Helmet (Soft) [LDF] which are exactly the same! There is literally no difference, so why do we need separate items? The Arsenal is already cluttered with an overload of repetitive items, if we somehow can't have each item type with a texture choice sub-menu, at least can we try to limit the amount of repetition? I already have to disable all my mods just to use the Arsenal because I don't have time to scroll 45 minutes to find a fedora hat. Worst offender is Kitbag (Green) and Kitbag (Green) with a Contact logo next to its name. Not only are they the exact same model and texture, they even have the exact same name. Twice. 🤨 Hey, if we are paying for this, I should at least be able to brag to my friends that the Contact Kitbag (Green) is better than their lowly Kitbag (Green) Non-Contact.

1. Perhaps not much would improve with the feature disabled, so perhaps what we need is a different solution. Team Balance Parameter may be useful for balancing on player join as Beagle said, but it still does not prevent the eventual imbalance in team player numbers. 2. Players are much less likely to join servers with low player counts REGARDLESS of which team they want to play. This applies to players who don't care which team they will play on, most people just want to play on a well populated server. I played almost an entire game the other day and saw this play out. It could never get over about 16 players, despite the fact that both Blufor and Opfor had extreme advantages in players over each other at various times. Before the change, it was more likely to see a fresh server be completely full on both teams before half of the sectors had been capped. The player capacity means there will be an equal number of players if the server is full, regardless of the parameter of course. If we could fill more servers, we wouldn't have this problem as much IMO. 3. On that note. Having an equal number of players on each side does not necessarily balance the game in the long run. Those of us who have played Warlords extensively know that the game is often won or lost by a few players who know the most effective tactics to use in Warlords. I have been in plenty of games where one team had several more players, but was completely hopeless due to the opposing team having all the experienced players! Noobs often flood onto one team. I've tried to balance the game for the benefit of everyone by making an agreement with Opfor to send a few experienced players over to Blufor so we don't have to have another one-sided game, but we were prevented by the "Team Balance Parameter", because Blufor had 2 or 3 more players, players who were noobs I might add. There are plenty of players who like to join the losing team and help them out. If the losing team is flooded with a lot of inexperienced players, they can't join if they are prevented by the parameter. Team Balance Parameter means that server slotting is balanced as if a Blufor noob player who cannot learn how to teleport from the base is the equivalent of someone like an experienced Opfor player who single-handedly maintains air superiority and has 50+ vehicle kills in a single game. Letting the players balance the game themselves is a bad idea, but it's still better than the current scenario... At least without it, or with another solution, more players would want to join!

Hi, Dunno if anyone actually uses this thread anymore, but in case anyone does, here is more proof of the failure of the "Team Balance Parameter". In this game on US server, Blufor steamrolled Opfor due to lack of coordination on Opfor's part. We were already at Nidasos Base, TWO points from their base. Then a bunch of players join Opfor, and 4 players leave Blufor, leaving us with HALF the amount of players. With the low player numbers that were left, this leaves such a massive imbalance that Opfor was able to cap 3 points in literally a few minutes. Despite Blufor's advantage in sectors, you can see that after I had to leave the match, Blufor's 3 remaining players will have no chance against Opfor. Why were this server's numbers already so low? Because the team balance parameter prevented new players from joining the team they wanted to play, while NOT preventing players from leaving the team with less players. Each time I play I find it harder to find a stable well populated server. If the issues are not addressed soon, there won't be a whole lot of players interested anymore.

Anyone know where to find the script for making players respawn with their loadouts? Yes, I know there are tutorials and forum posts for this, but so far all the ones I've found are either incomplete, or the links to the code are dead. Any help with finding the script and how to use it would be much appreciated!

This is the setup that was the first to work for me. Save loadout on death, and on respawn, delete the new loadout and then load the previously saved loadout. From ArmaPhronk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiBXZFZEF70 Create .sqf/.ext files in the mission folder. You do this by making in the folder: New->Text Document, open the document, Save As->All File Types. type ".sqf" or ".ext" as the extension of the file name, and save. Now delete the .txt and open the new .sqf or .ext in Notepad++ to insert the code. onPlayerKilled.sqf onPlayerRespawn.sqf description.ext init.sqf

Thanks, I'll see if I can try this!

Hi, I cannot for the life of me figure out how to make a respawn on other players for multiplayer. We have it in Apex campaign, Escape missions, etc so I know it's possible. How can I put this into my Eden missions? I've been told it is possible without scripting. Yes, I have already read the BIS page, but I don't know how to use this since there is no example explaining the an entire working system. There are only single line examples with no info on which init to place in or what units/objects require variable names. I'm not a scripter or advanced user. I just want to have a respawn on players, AI, or even a dynamic area respawn. Can anyone explain to me how to use this? I want to know how to make a working player-based respawn from start to finish. Appreciate any help, thanks

Am I the only one who thinks the Promet shotgun is extremely powerful? You can kill multiple soldiers with vests in one shot, and it has pretty decent range too. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, I think it's awesome! Just think that it has a significant advantage over nearly everything else in the realm of "dual purpose" weapons. 6 shots in quick succession O_o I can almost already hear the Warlords players who didn't buy Contact complaining when they get one-shotted in CQB 😆 I love it.

FYI, today there was another hacker on US01e, 99% sure it is player "Schellshock710". Killed everyone and spawned naked in the sky continuously. The issue was resolved this time, because now we can actually successfully VOTE KICK! We found 4 or 5 players that had recently joined, everyone spammed vote kick on all of them for 5 minutes and the hacker was kicked. He tried to rejoin several times, but he was kicked with "Cannot reconnect until server restart". Thank you to the devs for the recent server updates, while it appears there are still teamkillers and hackers, we at least now have the power to kick them. Slowly but surely we are reclaiming Warlords from the griefers...

The easiest interpretation of the wording is tunnels. But that might not be what it actually is. Most likely, it's literally nothing.

Ok I see what you're saying. It still think it's more likely that it is a just plot point of course, but if what you said is true that would be much better.

There are several modded maps I can think of which have a range of small to large caves, tunnels, or bunkers made using workarounds. Even in the stock maps there are several small caves, and there is no reason a couple small tunnels couldn't be made even using the existing placement of boulders on Livonia. Sure maybe the AI path doesn't work right, but it doesn't work on the USS Liberty and I managed to find a workaround myself with a little trial and error. People are justifiably annoyed when many mods still have better content than some of the official counterparts they're expected to pay for. Our expectations from a expansion or dlc are formed based on what we read on the Steam page. So actually yes, I guess we do know little, because expectation rarely matches reality. So you're suggesting that the tunnels could be illegal... that still sounds more plausible than it not being possible 😕

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cave An underground network is like a cave. If it's not there in the map after they so specifically mentioned it on the Steam page then there will be more disappointment. That's what I'm referencing.