Why warfare fails as a game mode

[gossamersolid 155]

Honestly, I would use a handleDammage EH on the HQ building, so it's invincible. The only way to kill an HQ is when it's mobile, is how it should be.Sounds shitty, but it's better than loading into a WF, and the WF ending 20 - 30 minutes later LOL...almost everytime. Sure, you may get a good game every now and again. But it's rolling the dice. People leave the server and you have to build back up etc.

That's not a good enough solution.

If you dislike the current situation, you need to think of a way to fix it. Not a hacky workaround.

[iceman77 18]

That's not a good enough solution.

If you dislike the current situation, you need to think of a way to fix it. Not a hacky workaround.

uhhh.. okay. So come up with your own solution instead of asking others how? You were no doubt trying to find out for your edited BE edition no? You did ask right? So... how would you go about it gossamer? How would you stop the base hunting?

Edited December 28, 2012 by Iceman77
removed overly rude comment

[cadmium77 16]

I like the premise of Warfare mode because I actually like commanding AI a lot. I like being in command of a lot of forces and being immersed on the battlefield

The interface for commanding AI could be improved somewhat but still it's not bad.

The main problem as the OP said is that it turns ARMA into a single player online game. And this is the fault of the way Warfare mode is set up. It's just town to town, fortress to fortress. It's not very realistic and it works against teamplay.

And despite commanding a lot of AI forces teamplay could be awesome in Warfare mode.

If I have a company of infantry and someone else has a couple platoons of tanks we should want to team up to assist on another but basically we don't. And we don't because there's no battlefront, there's no common cause. There's no unified strategy. Rather than abandon Warfare it needs to be built up to make it work on a grand scale so that skirmishes build up naturally into magnificent battles on a grand scale that are simultaneously visceral and intimate, full of confusion from which we are compelled to draw order out of chaos.

[mick18 1]

Hi, i've got some things to add to this thread.

I'm a long time OFP player and only recently got a good enough pc to play ARMA 2 ( i have ARMA Gold on order as i want to play through that first ), ive been playing with the demo and the free version for awhile and just got the full version this christmas. Ive been playing with the warfare modes, and i have many of the same problems with it as everyone else has.

The sluggishness, slow-response and the complexity of playing arma/ofp as an fps is hard and even infuriating at times, but you tolerate it because, well, this is the game, and somehow despite the flaws you still end up getting enjoyment out of it. But taking these failures and using them as base for an RTS is a recipe for disaster.

If one developer from BI could do one good thing with their time it would be to play this : Battlezone II Combat Commander.

Battlezone 2 may be old, it may not have been a powerhouse game, but it actually worked, you could do everything that an ARMA Warfare mode should aspire to be.

Playing as a commander, getting the AI to do what you want them to do........i mean, what's the point in setting missions and tasks if they won't f*****g do it?! Why can't the AI organise themselves to use a truck to move out to a location? Why won't that AI bitch just buy some AT squadmates TODAY at some point?! Infuriating would be the nice way of describing Warfare.

The worst part? knowing that there is an idea there, for an RTS mode that is every bit as rewarding as playing the FPS game. It would be poor form if the 4th iteration came along from BI and playing as an FPS was still as sloppy as it is But this very poor RTS business returning in ARMA 3 with this broken AI and broken menu system and broken commands, i'd rather you guys not bother at all and perhaps put your effort into making the FPS experience as a squad leader more intuitive.

[gossamersolid 155]

uhhh.. okay. So come up with your own solution instead of asking others how? You were no doubt trying to find out for your edited BE edition no? You did ask right? So... how would you go about it gossamer? How would you stop the base hunting?

I never said I had a solution.

I was merely saying your "solution" is a poorly designed workaround and NOT a solution.

[iceman77 18]

I never said I had a solution.

I was merely saying your "solution" is a poorly designed workaround and NOT a solution.

No... technically it's a solution. There would be no other way to stop base hunting, besides taking the structures out or asking the teams to not base hunt... which we all know goes over really well :p

And making structures really hard to kill doesn't stop the actual hunting of the bases.

Edited December 30, 2012 by Iceman77

[On_Sabbatical 11]

No... technically it's a solution. There would be no other way to stop base hunting, besides taking the structures out or asking the teams to not base hunt... which we all know goes over really well :p

And making structures really hard to kill doesn't stop the actual hunting of the bases.

You've said it before ! it's a part of the game ! it's what makes warfare different from other missions !

There are two ways to win : Taking all towns or destroy ennemy bases ! ,by eliminating base hunting you take down a whole part of the mission !

Construction menu should be improved to be able to build huge bases with a lot of defenses easily,or just to deploy some kind of "BASE" templates with predefined shapes !

[mick18 1]

BTW i didnt mean my post to come off as angry as it was, but i had just spent several hours playing with every little part of warfare only to figure out that as a commander it is broken, and that it is only really playable when playing as a subordinate.

On the topic of base hunting, really the HQ should be much stronger and much better defended by default, and on being attacked automatic airstrikes and mortar/artillery barrages directly on attacking forces after about 2 minutes. This allows a hit-and-run on the enemy HQ before the auto counter-attack, damaging its capabilities but leaving it operational. The only way to destroy the HQ in that 2 minutes is if you have overwhelming force, so if the game is rebalanced correctly, you'll only have access to those heavy weapons if you've done well enough over the game, relative to the map size, number of towns and number of factions.

[iceman77 18]

You've said it before ! it's a part of the game ! it's what makes warfare different from other missions !

There are two ways to win : Taking all towns or destroy ennemy bases ! ,by eliminating base hunting you take down a whole part of the mission !

Construction menu should be improved to be able to build huge bases with a lot of defenses easily,or just to deploy some kind of "BASE" templates with predefined shapes !

Yes and this is a problem when entire teams are base hunting instead of taking/defending towns. Tell me you like to start a fresh WF only for it to end 20 minutes later... I wouldn't mind it if it weren't so rampant. Here's the routine; load into a fresh wf, play for ~30min, base dead, game over, people leave, restart new wf. Rinse & repeat. Doesn't matter how well or where you place structures, defenses (walls, static AA/AT etc). Now.. I hardly ever command, but that's just what I've noticed, and it's just frustrating after awhile. I like to set down and play a wf that lasts for a good while.

[kraftknife 1]

Dear OP:

I think you are right on many levels of your post, however we must not forget that THIS IS A VIDEO GAME. The desktop has its limitations both technological and physically, what you are pointing out at seems to me as an impossible problem that cannot be solved. There is not enough a level of immersion and control given to the player for a solution to exist at all. But yes they could do avwith a few mroe balance patches..lazy maybe? or not a lacking budget?

[Wiki 1558]

another thing:

Warfare is a sandbox gamemode, which really doesn't fit to SP experience - I had to cheat to finish them in SP (to be honest, in the campaign, I used the endmission code 3 seconda after mission launch).

It really has nothing to do in SP campaign or mission.

out of subject (a little):

the missions in Harvest Red just after Lopotev's escape and the death of Razor leader, well, I didn't like them either, (like Manhattan) because there were sandbox too.

I really prefer missions like in the old OFP or even ArmA 1 - I mean, structured ones, with storyline and this kind of things.

there is no structure in warfare, it's just "ok soldier, you are here, go there, do that, build you base and do whatever you want to finish it".

it just sucks IMO.

[MiGeL_B 1]

I am not sure if full list belongs in a ArmA 3 thread though.

Point 1 is definitely a valid point. Ever since the view distance and power/range of weapons increased, the AI's have been given no changes to cope with these huge effects on the battlefield. When the map towns became more complicated AI path-finding was also not improved. Leaving them rather useless in ArmA1. I am not even sure if they are better at it now since the towns have become more basic, there have been only CQC improvements in ArmA2.

Also their interface and order giving system has only become more complicated. Why can I not give some ai's in my team the ability to give orders? While the ai officer gives an order each 4 seconds involving movement, flanking and setting targets. An average human player just gives em a waypoint where they become a lamb ready for slaughter. The AI system definately needs an overhaul relieving the player of some the work and more options for them to manage themselves.

Point 2 really depends on the script and town numbers. The reason why you can't see clearly what impact town loss has. Has to do with the large numbers of towns that can be taken. And the double currency system allows for impact of financial damage to be minimized. Also the loss of vehicles and winning of battles is so incoherent that the economy is usually a small factor of who wins. Unlike in OFP CTI there is no constant outgoing army to pressure the front line, so a money income loss is not even felt. This would be an arma 3 problem, if you wanted more support in islands made specifically for warfare that came automatically with downloads. Other than that it depends on mapmaker.

Point 3 is on deaf ears for years. PVP is not a goal for ArmA and they are under false pretence that we can change the game ourselves. Even while the harsh truth is that if a super pvp mod would be released only 15% of the total pvp players would be able and bother to install it. Thats a combination of community lazyness, personal preferences etc.

So the only thing we can hope for is more parameters options in the editor. But then it still comes down to what the scripter of the warfare version feels right about.

And hope that the community or bis will support the pvp a tad more in arma 3.

[ranalli 1]

I agree

[cadmium77 16]

If I could change one thing in Warfare it would be to raise the limit of AI soldiers both for and against. I've made scenarios with 150 soldiers a side in Mission Editor. Then I've immersed myself as commander or as an ordinary soldier following an AI commander.

It's awesome. Now if only we could get these kinds of numbers in Warfare games. I can handle it. I bet a lot of other fanatics could too. The thing is VBS2 and Arma 2 have been said to have one real value; they teach situational awareness. Well with 300 men running around shooting stuff let me say the situation spins out of control pretty quickly.

[iceman77 18]

If I could change one thing in Warfare it would be to raise the limit of AI soldiers both for and against. I've made scenarios with 150 soldiers a side in Mission Editor. Then I've immersed myself as commander or as an ordinary soldier following an AI commander.

It's awesome. Now if only we could get these kinds of numbers in Warfare games. I can handle it. I bet a lot of other fanatics could too. The thing is VBS2 and Arma 2 have been said to have one real value; they teach situational awareness. Well with 300 men running around shooting stuff let me say the situation spins out of control pretty quickly.

So go into the warfare configuration files and change stuff how you want it? I don't understand half of these replies. Either wanting things that are already available. Or complaining about things that have nothing explicitly to do with why Wf fails as a game mode.

[JCDBionicman 1]

AI is used in place of Humans. Where commanding Humans would provide for more interesting and dynamic gameplay, it would also be much less frustrating. If this single problem was addressed, Warfare would be alot more fun. It's not the ridiculous size of the maps, or even the slightly unbalanced or unrealistic weapons and vehicles, or even the RTS mechanics. It's that the AI is stupid, and being forced to babysit them rather than cooperate with living breathing people sucks.

As said, since commanding AI boils down to luck most of the time, and since AI populate games on a scale much larger than players, Warfare is nothing more than a giant coop game.

[slatts 1978]

unbalanced or unrealistic weapons and vehicles,

Granted, I do agree warfare is better with real players, explain the unbalanced and unrealistic weapons? I do believe thermal sights exist. In fact I know they do since I held one.

Unbalanced? Sure The US army with all their thermal sights and IR lasers might be a huge advantage over guys like NAPA but it isn't unbalanced, because war is not balanced.

[JCDBionicman 1]

Granted, I do agree warfare is better with real players, explain the unbalanced and unrealistic weapons? I do believe thermal sights exist. In fact I know they do since I held one.

Unbalanced? Sure The US army with all their thermal sights and IR lasers might be a huge advantage over guys like NAPA but it isn't unbalanced, because war is not balanced.

Your saying "war isn't unbalanced, because war isn't balanced" which makes no sense.

I didn't say Thermal Sights didn't exist, I was talking about some of the unrealistic ranges of some of the guns that other users have pointed out. There are also other things, like tread-toting vehicles, such vehicles specifically designed for traversing unconventional terrain, not being able to go up inclines and such.

In the end though I think the minor inbalances are of no issue, because what ultimately makes a game (a PVP game anyways) is player skill. As long as things are reasonably balanced, and I believe they are now, a few slight unbalances here and there don't make very much difference. I also believe that opfor generally has an equivalent answer to each blufor weapon and vehicle.

Edited January 17, 2013 by JCDBionicman

[slatts 1978]

Does make sense, you said it's unbalanced, I said it isn't.

Again, you didn't tell me how you came to the conclusion it is unbalanced and unrealistic, in fact you just said it is reasonably balanced?

[JCDBionicman 1]

Does make sense, you said it's unbalanced, I said it isn't.

Again, you didn't tell me how you came to the conclusion it is unbalanced and unrealistic, in fact you just said it is reasonably balanced?

We agree in that balancing isn't really a large issue with Warfare. What we disagree on is that your argument makes no sense. You said "war is not balanced, because war is unbalanced." You are saying that Warfare in ArmA 2 is balanced because it's realistic, which is not true. Balance is balance, balance is not realism.

Since I haven't been able to force myself to player an adequate enough amount of Warfare in order to get a full experience, I can't actually say for sure whether or not it's unbalanced toward either side. They could however balance things while still catering to realism by simply giving the less fortunate side more volume for it's lesser quality. More opfor players for example might be pitted against Blufor, or opfor might be given more vehicles and supplies over blufor.

---------- Post added at 06:48 ---------- Previous post was at 06:33 ----------

So go into the warfare configuration files and change stuff how you want it? I don't understand half of these replies. Either wanting things that are already available. Or complaining about things that have nothing explicitly to do with why Wf fails as a game mode.

Nobody should have to fix a developers broken game for them.

Edited January 17, 2013 by JCDBionicman

[Beagle 684]

It took me a few years to give up on CTI but finally I really did. The matter was not the mission itself but the high rate of arcade "unrealism" that makes CTI basically futile to play at later stages known as the "airquake" and the fact that BIS was unable to revert the config mismatches that came with OA. that make Air units basically unvulnerable for all ground units except the one and only Tunguska.

The final solution to me was Iron Front because without magic radar, magic flares, magic missiles and magic tab lock all the PvP problems are suddently gone.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Beagle

[slatts 1978]

"war is not balanced, because war is unbalanced." You are saying that Warfare in ArmA 2 is balanced because it's realistic, which is not true. Balance is balance, balance is not realism.

hang on, my example of the US army have all the fancy tech over low tech relates to Warfare. Arma isn't a game that does balance unlike other games. War is not fair, it isn't balanced. And Arma is made to bring you as close to war in a game and does the balance..or unbalance quite well.

Why don't you change that quote of something I didn't say to "Warfare is unbalanced, because War is unbalanced." Makes more sense now ;) (If it doesn't to you then I don't know what to do with you)

[iceman77 18]

If I could change one thing in Warfare it would be to raise the limit of AI soldiers both for and against. I've made scenarios with 150 soldiers a side in Mission Editor. Then I've immersed myself as commander or as an ordinary soldier following an AI commander.

It's awesome. Now if only we could get these kinds of numbers in Warfare games. I can handle it. I bet a lot of other fanatics could too. The thing is VBS2 and Arma 2 have been said to have one real value; they teach situational awareness. Well with 300 men running around shooting stuff let me say the situation spins out of control pretty quickly.

So go into the warfare configuration files and change stuff how you want it? I don't understand half of these replies. Either wanting things that are already available. Or complaining about things that have nothing explicitly to do with why Wf fails as a game mode.

Nobody should have to fix a developers broken game for them.

@JCDBionicman - :459: That really shows how long you've been around and how much you actually know. By leaps and bounds, the most popular version of WF (the one that set the standard for WF), known as Bennys Edition, wasn't made by the BI developers. It was made by a member of the community. As most good game modes are and always will be in Arma. The author (Benny) has set the configs up very easily to configure. I don't understand the "problem" here. Can you open a text file and replace 1 value with a different value? I realize it's super hard to do :rolleyes:... but I think you can manage along with everyone else.

Reminds me of when you brought up TDM... like it's something any one even plays, beside new players who don't know any better. Who the fuck even plays vanilla mountain warfare anyhow? Oh wait yes, new players who don't know any better thats right.:j:

Also, if the configs are set up one way in any given WF, then there's always someone else who doesn't like it or wants things differently. (you know? Like the guy I made that reply to?). That's why the f***ing config files exist. So the people who cry and moan about the way things are can change the damn files. There's no pleasing everyone. Hence, config files! Go learn something. Seriously... this is Arma. This isn't Battlefrenzie or Call of terrible.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Iceman77

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

.

Actually, the "WF" is a "MFCTI" concept. It originated in OFP, by "at that time"..just another game player "modder" with an idea.

But JCDBionicman will never have a clue!

[inlesco 233]

There are several solutions for base hunting in WF/WFBE. For example: LINK system for both sides to communicate with their bases respectively. Leaders choose locations to set up those lines. Only members of a particular side can see and use them. Meanwhile, bases are invisible and invulnerable until some condition is satisfied. Could be anything - one side must control 50% of the towns on the map or similar. Then proceed to search&destroy phase.

Overall, numerous solutions are possible, as you can see. It's only a matter of time and human resources to implement and present them.