InCreator

I've always played Warfare BE and have no clue how different it is from vanilla. Anyway, I'd say map size is unbalanced. Played alot, but I know I really suck at this game... this is what I feel (and it does relate to warfare): * AI is either considerably better or considerably worse than human player. I usually drive a tank and let AI man the guns. Why? Because AI spots enemies at ranges I never could and also through foliage and so. While it sometimes fails miserably, more often it's way, way better than me. Also, going against AI is usually hopeless. I get shot and have no clue where from. ...and then, sometimes all my 3 gunners fail to see enemy standing in front of the tank. Come on? It's AI. LET THEM CHEAT FOR REALISM SAKE if you cannot implement LOS correctly. AI knows where everyone is anyway so let them just cheat and shoot the enemy. Being "honest" and relying on broken vision is dumb and looks very buggy and unprofessional. * Maps are way too big and way too tiny... Let's take Chernarus. Playing warfare on it with anything but planes makes this game ARMA2: The country driving simulator. You take good 15 minutes to get somewhere and catch a bullet out of nowhere in 30 seconds. Repeat ad nauseaum. This is absolutely not fun, and all of your team is scattered around the map so there's not even a smell of teamplay. In that regards, MAPS ARE WAY TOO BIG. But - if you're in a plane... well, I have no idea how to even use a plane in this game. At 1000km/h I can barely pilot and shooting just anything is crazy idea better not to try. So MAPS ARE WAY TOO SMALL FOR PLANES. I'd either make planes slower and really easily usable, something Battlefield 2 does right, or remove them at all. I know that there's some plane enthusiasts and pros out there, but if casual gamer cannot pick flying up after 100 hours of gameplay, scrap or fix the damn thing. It's very unfair. Also, It's not very fun to trip few dozen km just to try to shoot something. I'd make maps alot smaller or adjust warfare so there's owned territory, a front line and you cannot go capturing a town at the other end of the map, just 1-3 villages on the front line, and when they're capped, then game opens up next ones. This would concentrate players on same point and have - you know - actual fighting instead of ninjas in every woods in every village. Something like Bad Company 2's rush game mode, but both sides can capture and advance. Simulator okay, but there's no point in making a simulator that isn't very fun. * AI control in all games so far is absurd. "Salute"? "Sit down"? the idiotic way picking up gear works? Few menus of radio commands nobody never, ever uses? All this horror has to go, no game in 2011 would ever develop so user-unfriendly interface. Also, if I point at tank and press a key, AI better understand what the hell I want. And to switch seats, I DO NOT need to order them out. Let me press ONE key and sucker make room automatically, occupying NEXT MOST IMPORTANT position in machine (hint: back seat is not it). AI failing to do simplest of things drags down warfare too. BI should employ a person who has any actual clue what user interface is and how it should serve user, not other way around. I understand OPF and so on, but after so many games in series, bashing in every review ever written and still that monstrosity making players wrestle with it - is simply an insult. If ARMA 3 hasn't improved... or let's say, completely removed and totally rewritten the way you give commands and manage inventory, I will not buy it. * I love warfare, but it really, really should get more enjoyable, team-oriented and feel like a war with plan and goal, not random town capping and general chaos around enormous map. * More visible distance and lose LOD's from units! All heavy weapons shoot large distances, but it's quite dumb if visibility is capped to say, 4km and enemy is reduced to 6-side box.

* What post two posts up says about contrast and color. If your artist/programmer wants to fiddle with global tinting, chop his/her hands off. Arma2 AO was awful mess of yellow-brown and if you're going for realism, world does not look like you're watching it through bottle of urine. Also, 8-pixel gaussian blur and 50% desaturation does not make game look better or more realistic. ArmAII looked best when shaders & Post-proccess FX were disabled for a second during saving the game. That one second. * Improve pathfinding. AI in light vehicles commanded to drive through even smallest forest never made it. AI in buildings was hopeless. * Unf**k keyboard. No, we don't really need use for all 103 keyboard keys. Using expanding command wheels like Battlefield 2 can greatly reduce complexity of keyboard. * We don't need AI to sit or salute or bake cookies. Make it reasonable. But we need it to understand that when commanded into vehicle, and there's shooting 4km away, THERE'S NO NEED to lie down and cover each other while disobeying direct order. You kind of fixed it in AO, but AI still doesn't act very naturally. Things like this need a lot of improvement. Common sense. * Make AI use every position assigned. That means, "fire at will" while you're driving a tank and AI is gunner, should actually mean that AI ACTUALLY FIRES AT ENEMIES. Not waits for you to say "fire". * Make AI player-friendly. For example, if AI pilots a chopper, there should be commands for him to either land or hover or take slow circles around objective so player-gunner could actually hit anything. Like real pilots. * Remove orders that don't work. "advance", "flank left", etc. AI never uses them correctly and human players can simply command this into microphone, instead of having gazillion shortcuts for this. Most of radio signals are useless also. * Rework LODs so for example, Capture The Island/warfare game mode, airborne player couldn't abuse LODS to see camouflaged base in forest due low-poly trees or disappearing trees. Also, remove that horrible tree pop-in from 10 meters. ArmA III will be no doubt hardweight game like previous and people don't need things to run on Pentium III anymore. Better make it more resource hungry, but play fluidly, instead of screwing people with decent PCs. * Realistic weapon effects. When LAV-25 fires its 25mm bushmaster cannon against a wall, all we hear is a clink and few ugly yellow triangles bouncing off. Watch what should REALLY happen: * Most vehicles are effective up to 6 km. In ArmA II, most tank battles happen at 600m at most. Why? Increase viewing, AI spotting, etc distances to realism. AI often cannot spot enemies even at 6m! If you need, make AI CHEAT just for the sake of realism! They can "know" where enemy is anyway! Use it to make them atleast face correct direction in a firefight and not miss seeing enemies standing next to a car they're driving. And on a side, note, make them cheat less, in terms of point-perfect RPG and AK fire over 1km, spotting you half map away and other magical things you can see AI do in ArmA II right now. Shortly, talk to some ArmA gamers, investigate what casual player actually uses in a game and discard the rest. ArmA II was a great game, but there was too much forgotten or useless milsim elements left in. That's not to say that you should stray from milsim line! Just make it accessible and reasonable to normal human being.