View Full Version : About Warfare and CTI
Jun 8 2009, 12:47
I have read everything about multiplayer on this forum, so I want to ask about these game modes, How many teams will be in WARFARE and CTI, maybe 3 or more? Do they lag alot? Are the modes on the whole 225km area? Thx for answers.
Usually 2 teams (more would be strange, what would the players of the 3rd faction do when they loose? Wait for the remaining 2 faction to end the game?)
If by team you mean squad, there's 1 squad per player slot in mission.
Area size depends on the mission, but the biggest official Warfare basically covers the whole map.
Lag depends on server but it's quite stressfull. My Bi-old-Xeon 3GHz dedicated is at like 10-20 FPS (game caculation per second) on the biggest Warfare playable. Without too much people.
Jun 8 2009, 13:43
I don't got arma2 yet but i played alot warfare on arma1.
In arma1 i almost never lagged on the server i played on, and usually it covers the whole map but the comunnity wil create new maps to play warfare on soon enough (not saying chenarus sucks)
I play Warefare/CTI almost exclusively.
1) There are two human playable teams, BLUFOR and OPFOR.
2) At the start of the game, all the towns and control points are held by the third team (guerilla forces) and are controlled exclusively by the AI. BLUFOR and OPFOR begin by racing to take as many towns and control points as possible from those forces, rarely running into each other at the beginning of the match.
3) Usually, the entire map is used which makes for some extremely long game times. I've played some games for days when good commanders are against each other with a decent stream human players JIP and controlling their squads with a sense of a mission. You'd be surprised how small the map area can seem if Close Air Support is in play or good Air Cav tactics... :)
4) The best analogy I can think of for Warefare is to think of your favorite RTS style game (Age of Empires is my favorite :), add in the ability to have human controlled groups and the ability to go down to first person and take part in the battles.
5) Lag is all relative... I have an awesome machine so I get only server network lag (35-40fps) during the initial stages of the game. It can slow a bit (25-35fps) if ground clutter and destroyed vehicles are not being removed by the scripts. In a 16 v 16 Warfare match, with a max of 20 units per player (this is hypotetical as there is no real limit), that's a possible 640 controllable units on the map at time. This does not to count other AI guerilla forces in towns and things like UAVs, Recon helos, etc, which don't count against your active troop count.
6) You can play single player for practice against the AI ...
Jun 9 2009, 13:28
I was not able to find any review on Arma2 warfare feel, have you tried it yet? Can you write a short one?
Jun 9 2009, 18:38
I just hope independent programmers put their heads toghether this time.
Its big enough problem as it is for a competetive playerbase to grow if the company keeps bringing out unsupported beta patches over which the community will disperse and creating a engine that favours coop far better without also having independent warfare programmers creating their vision on the map totally ignoring improvements and ideas of others.
In good ol days you had solid, basic map like mfcti and a long time later one guy came with same concept but completely different crcti. Where the comparisement was arcade and actionfull versus ballanced and profesional.
Both had their moments in my eyes. Eventually there were 2 mayor communities but the crcti was to my knowledge the first with mayor tournaments because of its ballance.
In arma there were so many different versions of warfare ( and really fast 2 ) by independent programmers s that there was no time for 1 community to build up but even if there was.
The quantity and difference would also finnished off any chance of maintaining that community. I mean public games are not bad but playing a official tournament match once a while doesnt hurt either...therefor this time in arma II i hope I will not play one map which has bug a fixed but has bug b while another server has bug b fixed but has bug a :D
Warfare is nice rts with players mix but I ensure that the level of experience in arma was nothing compared to the intense battle of 2 full veteran filled clans taking on a fight based on pre-planned tactics and trainings.
ovendelon, Hi ya... not a bad idea...I can try to do that, yes...
Warfare is nice rts with players mix but I ensure that the level of experience in ArmA was nothing compared to the intense battle of 2 full veteran filled clans taking on a fight based on pre-planned tactics and trainings.
True on that... however, not everyone can or wants to be a part of a clan. Random pick up games are the only way most can play as the amount of time and dedication for some clans can be enormous.
The learning curve for how to be successful in ArmA II can be pretty steep for new players (granted not as steep as EVE Online lol), but it also rewards heavily with better game play and battlefield survivability for players who invest the time. For example...
AI is not completely daft as some may report. The AI will respond correctly if you put them in right stance/formation/direction for a given situation and if you as the squad leader follow even some simple common military doctrine within the scope of what you’re asking your squad to do, your AI squad mates will keep you alive and they will stay alive much longer. This takes a fair amount of game play and amount of research to understand the mechanics and for players with no prior military combat experience/training it can be even more challenging.
The scope of the weapons in ArmA can be daunting. Knowledge of all sorts of bullet ballistics, effective weapon ranges and even sight zero ranges and adjustments, elevation, speed and angle of target, etc. all play a big part in being an effective ArmA player. For example, your silenced M4 might be more effective if you load the correct ammo cartridges. Most games won't go this deep.
The thing about Warfare/CTI is that all aspects of ArmA are brought out into the light. What I think you are saying MiGeL_Hotshots is that if Warfare is truly "Open Source Warfare", there needs to be a true owner, with one base that all features and fixes can easily be rolled into. That is actually a great idea!! But who want to be Linus Torvalds (sp) aka Linux...? I'm sure BIS isn't at this point signing up to do that...at least that I am aware of. Who want to integrate Mando Missile, Hitch? What about some of the other scripts like Paratroopers, etc? To me that all needs to be rolled into the base too by this person/group (similar to how ACE has been working in ArmA as an example of a model that seems to be working)...
Jun 10 2009, 00:17
6) You can play single player for practice against the AI ...
In warfare? Is the AI any good, attacking bases and building units?
Jun 11 2009, 10:53
True on that... can be enormous.
Well if you are not in a pvpclan but playing amongst em even in public matches you learn tricks of the trade. Such as basic tactics, communication and a decent sense of keypoint locations etc. That made those mfcti and crcti days so entertaining. With a real match on saturday 2oclock till 5 o clock or something made you then join up because you were already in sync with the players. Those were the days ;)
The learning curve for how to be successful in ArmA II can be pretty steep for new players ... Most games won't go this deep.
Thats the weak and the strong point of bis his war games. They have unique system. This is mayor turn off for most pvpers though and they dissapear leaving a dried up african child behind calling themselves the pvp community.
Then the misssion editor, armas greatest asset becomes this communities greatest enemy as the many different pvp types splitting the rest of this community into smaller parts but even this can create a very solid community for each gametype flashpoint has proven that.
But this was because each gametype was not modified to will of each group of 20 people playing on a different server. You had many different servers those days running the same missions.
If you check arma already 2 days after warfare release people came with their vision on that engine offering completely new ballance, fixed bugs etc.
After 1 week I was playing one map which had fix headbug button and another map which made it possible to spawn at each Control Center making it possible to spawn at different bases another had dynamic switch to change viewdistance. Then expecting all these superm changes to next version they all went their own directions creating completely different game depth....i even played a version where the small camps are more easily taken back by defenders completely removing the zombie spawn fest by attacking player managing to just take 1 camp.
The thing about Warfare/CTI is that all aspects ....
Thats what I ment indeed, but it doesnt need to be one owner or 1 group of owners. Its just better if there even a hint of cooperation between some the programmers because in arma they never even took 1 look at each others version. ( perhaps they did but i as player of them never saw any taken ideas ) everyone did their own thing. Of course I would prefer a solid team like in flashpoint days but that is perhaps not realistic :D
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.