Jezuro

Implementing a voting reset is technically no issue (apart form some details like what to do with the AI garrison that was spawned there), but it could alter the gameplay in unexpected ways and frankly, I'm not convinced it's all that useful. Let me elaborate: in the situation you mentioned, if you de-targeted the airfield (which incidentally is not that much of a boon considering that runways and heliports are available on other sectors along the way) and instead made your way to some other sectors, the enemy would cut through your unguarded sectors and head straight to your base. By the time you'd gather enough currency, you'd have lost all the other sectors and have no maneuvering space anyway. The tactics in this situation is harassing the enemy fast travel spawn position (which is static if they're always travelling from the same sector) and their air drops. The enemy needs to move through your defences and they are forced to spend lots of resources to do so, giving you the opportunity to push back. I'm convinced that if people wouldn't start disconnecting you would have a very good fighting chance. Ideally, of course, you shouldn't find yourself in this situation by rushing through a straight line of sectors, it's always better to build a framework to be able to attack from more directions. Not to mention that this scenario really isn't the benchmark Warlords experience in the first place as the rest of official scenarios are much smaller scale, or that it could be quite exploitable. Or that it could turn into a sort of tic-tac-toe game of avoiding enemy players and trying to rush through AI-controlled sectors as quickly as possible to zerg the enemy base. I have not yet made up my mind about this feature, so don't take this as a definitive no. But my worry is that implementing this might cause more issues than it solves.

About airdropping: when a vehicle is slowly falling to the ground on a parachute, it's extremely easy to destroy even from a long distance. Also, letting players pick a precise drop location allows various exploits (like building barricades etc.). *edit: If your vehicle blows up in an airdrop mishap, you should get your CPs refunded automatically.

I have to stress out the second part of my answer: you always have the tools to fight back. Cut the enemy off of their base. Disable their fast travel. Deploy static defences. You can always fight back, just don't give up. Again, it's extreme to have 30 secotrs in a mission. Usually it's under 10. The issue is not that pressing there

Technically, nothing prevents you from adding any faction's classnames to a different side in the requisition config.

The error is caused by missing classes in the requisition list (vehicles, aircraft etc.), but it should still work.

Currently I have no plans to make the independent faction playable. I suppose you could set the starting CP to 0 and make all the sectors generate 0 CP, that way the CP received would be limited to kill rewards.

Thanks to all who participated in the event, it's really appreciated :) I'd like to reply to some of the topics that have been brought up the most. One think I'd like to ask of you: Please, don't consider this massive scenario to be some sort of standard for Warlords. Most of the scenarios currently in the game is just 8v8, with maximum 16v16 on the whole Altis. You will find out that on smaller scale, the gameplay is quite different. 1. Player count The 40v40 scenario was basically a very intense stress test to see what the Warlords system is capable of handling. We've decided not to release the 32v32 scenario in RC branch even though it is included in the Workshop version because we were not sure the performance would hold up. Seeing the poor framerate under this massive player count shows us that it's not a good idea to ramp up the playable slots this high. Simultaneously though I was glad to see that the scripts have not fallen apart and the mode worked as it should. 2. Single objective progress This was implemented mainly due to performance reasons as it's easy to control the amount of AI units spawned at any given time. While it is true it would be nice to be able to open multiple fronts, I believe that with more reasonable player count this approach makes the most sense (you always know what the objective is, where to go and fight). Also, to avoid any confusion, nothing is stopping you from backtracking and defending a previously seized sector, or even reclaim lost sectors that the enemy has taken from you. You don't have to vote for the sector you want to defend in order to be able to enter it. 3. Not being able to change currently targeted sector I'm not saying I will never implement sector reset, currently I feel it's not required. When an enemy cuts you off your selected sector, all this causes is the inability to use fast travel. You can still use vehicles or retake the lost sector that will re-enable fast travel, or, ideally, try to do the same thing to the enemy so the odds are even. 4. Comeback mechanics None are implemented. 2 reasons: 1. Once a faction really has the upper hand, it deserves to win I think. 2. It's never too late to seriously slow down the enemy progress by defending your own sectors. 5. The bugs Notes have been taken, we will try to fix as many as possible before the full release. As a final note, please keep in mind that when creating your custom Warlords scenario, you can set up your own set of rules, customizing the experience to your liking.

Public scope means that the asset is placeable in the editor. These assets have had their classnames changed, but the old names are still kept in the config with protected scope so it doesn't cause backwards incompatibility if they're used in older missions or scripts.

Warning: class 'B_Heli_Light_01_armed_F' doesn't have public scope! Warning: class 'B_Heli_Transport_01_camo_F' doesn't have public scope! Warning: class 'B_Heli_Attack_01_F' doesn't have public scope! Warning: class 'B_Plane_CAS_01_F' doesn't have public scope! Warning: class 'B_UAV_02_F' doesn't have public scope! Warning: class 'B_UAV_02_CAS_F' doesn't have public scope! Warning: class 'O_APC_Wheeled_02_rcws_F' doesn't have public scope! Warning: class 'O_Heli_Light_02_F' doesn't have public scope! Warning: class 'O_Heli_Attack_02_F' doesn't have public scope! Warning: class 'O_Plane_CAS_02_F' doesn't have public scope! Warning: class 'O_UAV_02_F' doesn't have public scope! Warning: class 'O_UAV_02_CAS_F' doesn't have public scope! Land_Pod_Heli_Transport_04_covered_F was causing the first error message. You should update / remove these classes from the requisition list.

If you could upload the mission files somewhere I will take a look.

The event handler is added only once and from that time it will fire every time a building anywhere on the map is damaged or destroyed. It's up to you how to handle the event.

https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3:_Event_Handlers/addMissionEventHandler#BuildingChanged

Good note, I will add another file which will contain only the params without the parent class definition: cfgMissionParams_subclasses.inc So you can use class Params { #include "\A3\Missions_F_Warlords\cfgMissionParams_subclasses.inc" };

There are various failsafe mechanisms which should make the AI progress more reliable.

This is all very well, but imagine being on the receiving end of an arty barrage. Even one battery is enough to effectively lock a faction's progress through the map. If they don't have the required assets at hand, they're simply stuck. I don't want the sessions to last hours and hours where everyone is either being killed from 15km away or hunting for a single vehicle on such massive landscapes. Of course it can provide some interesting emergent gameplay. Feel free to set up your own scenario which utilizes artillery, just don't expect to see it in the official scenarios any time soon.

Check section 4 on this page: https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/MP_Warlords

For the smaller-scale scenarios, I think 16 players is a reasonable limit. Only the whole Altis scenario currently supports up to 32 players and we'll be internally testing even a 64-player version.

Similarly to potential overhaul of sector services mentioned earlier, incorporating HC support is a matter of the scope of future updates to the mode. If the playerbase is strong enough, we'll be able to invest more work into Warlords.

I've decided to interfere with engine AI as little as possible. The benefit is that you can attack a sector stealthily without all AI units being automatically alerted to your presence, however with the drawback of situations like these. Is it possible they were trying to engage an enemy at that time or something like that? I will keep an eye out for this behavior anyway. This doesn't sound like something related to Warlords, probably your hardware acting up as you mentioned.

Not currently. I understand that rectangular sectors would make more sense for some areas, but for various technical reasons the shape needs to be fixed as a square.

The specific problem with Arsenal in that situation is that the AI you've taken control of has amassed a ridiculous amount of Command Points. This is to do with server configuration and we'll try to find some good settings so this does not happen. Further restrictions regarding Arsenal are not out of the question either.

Feel free to leave your feedback on the new version of Warlords here. You can play the mode after switching to RC branch, code Arma3Update186RC.

Custom asset lists will still be supported, of course. Warlords scenarios created with the Workshop version of the mode will have to be updated with new module classnames, but other than that I think they should work just fine.

Not currently, no. Arsenal, Fast travel and Sector scan all have hard-coded costs.

It seems there's something wrong with runway configurations on this map.