Warfare B.E 2.071 Re-Balanced for GON

Re: Warfare B.E 2.071 Re-Balanced for GON

Unread postby Mix » 6 Apr 12, 8:39 am

Is it at all possible to remove staitic defences and fortifications from the radars of tanks and aircraft or giving off radar signature? The oil wells and houses dont show on radar so why should walls and statics?
As it is now it is to easy to spot bases because of this.
Pop up in a chopper or sit on a hill with a tank and look for the all the grey dots in one location. Base found.
Would make base hunting that bit more challanging to what it is now.
Mix

User avatar
Player
 
Offline
Posts: 46
Joined: 10 Jul 10, 11:54 am
Location: Infront of my PC, in a house, on a street somewhere

Re: Warfare B.E 2.071 Re-Balanced for GON

Unread postby SnatchReamer » 6 Apr 12, 12:03 pm

That would be good thing Mix.
TIGZ
SnatchReamer

Regular
 
Offline
Posts: 61
Joined: 7 Apr 09, 3:31 pm

Re: Warfare B.E 2.071 Re-Balanced for GON

Unread postby Freeborne » 6 Apr 12, 4:41 pm

Imp, I welcome your suggestions but you seem to criticize without offering logical suggestions.

So the MGS is 'too powerful', but you want it moved from HF2, to HF0? The price doesn't seem to bother you either. I moved it to LF3 instead, and you think that HF0 is somehow 'harder' to get than LF3?

If either side loses their HF:
OPFOR get BPPU and BTR90 from the LF. Both good at killing armour and factories.
BLUFOR only get... the LAV25? Pfft. BLUFOR need the MGS at LF3.


I also suggested removing it's AT ammo (just keeping HE rounds) but you laughed at this idea for some reason too.

FYI, WASP edition also has MGS at LF3.



Aside from the 'default' parameter changes, these are the 'forced' changes to the game that make it different to Benny's Edition.

- AT is more expensive. (game-play changing)
- GPK is at LF1. (balancing)
- Ambulances at LF2 and HF0. (balancing)
- Removed redundant wood_camo units. (minor)
- Increased rewards for capturing towns approx. 800% (game-play changing)
- Minimum "Respawn Penalty" is "Full Price on Mobile Respawn" or "1/2 Gear Price" (depending on which you consider harsher). (minor)
- Bounties/Salvage increased from 25% to 35%. (minor)
- M113_UN_Ambulance and BMP2_UN added to BLUFOR. (balancing)
- M2A2 price decreased. (balancing)

Probably a few other minor changes as well, but go through them all and honestly tell me you think this is a putting a sledgehammer to the original version?

Want to play with Hellfires and Tunguska's? Turn UnitBalancing off.
Don't like "Half income" coz you like to return after dinner and buy yourself an SU25? Change Income System parameter.
Want to snipe the helpless AI at 800m and then stroll in to capture a town? Turn off Town Reinforcements.
Image
Freeborne

Jedi Upstart
 
Offline
Posts: 986
Joined: 29 Mar 10, 2:01 pm

Re: Warfare B.E 2.071 Re-Balanced for GON

Unread postby Baskerville » 7 Apr 12, 10:44 am

Well If the LAV had missiles you could chuck that at LF3 and it would be like the BTR (without the grenade launcher). I'm sure this is something you can do Freeborne. Then just move MGS up to HF0.

I don't know if you can remove grey contacts such as walls/forts ect without removing active vehicles ect. I'll ask around.
Baskerville

User avatar
1337 p0st3r
 
Offline
Posts: 1420
Joined: 15 May 10, 12:12 am

Re: Warfare B.E 2.071 Re-Balanced for GON

Unread postby Freeborne » 10 Apr 12, 9:15 am

LAV25 with missiles seem a little cheesy though.

What about removing the BTR90's missiles and giving the LAV25 a double ROF option (or maybe same cannon as BTR90)?

WASP actually has MGS at LF Level4 (not 3 as I said before), which is not a bad idea either. LF is practically obsolete when BLUFOR get HF2, while OPFOR still get good use from their LF.

Changes planned for v1.3:
- Remove the 2x Sidewinders from A10 (oops).
- Replace 4 AT2's on KA52 with 4x AT6's. (Not sure if this is overkill)
- Fix basic flares on some aircraft to chaff flares.
- Possibly drop the price of some aircraft, especially attack choppers.

Only tab-locking ATGM on aircraft should be the 2x Mavericks on A10 and 4x AT on KA52. I like the Mavericks with the 2KM parameter distance and their slow velocity. You can't just tab-lock and shoot it without lining up fairly close to the target, and they can quite often miss fast moving targets.

Unfortunately every game I've played so far has had one team dominate the other, so there hasn't been any cool air-vs-air combat.

AA manpads seem effective (if the team bothers to invest in them). Without your own jets, they are your best defense against fast moving aircraft. Against choppers, most ground AA will do, including Shilkas, M2A3's, Avengers and even M2 machine guns. Without their missiles, the Avengers and Tungs are still good at tracking and firing on choppers.

A lot of the newer players seem to enjoy it, but haven't had any more feedback from the regulars. Some like it, some hate it, but few have bothered to explain why other then a few uneducated assumptions.
e.g:
"OMG the Stinger is $1000? What BS!"
"WTF. The Tunguska has no missiles!"
"OMG I just died and spawned at ambo and it cost me $2000!" (because he's carrying 4x SMAAW AA and a thermal rifle)
Image
Freeborne

Jedi Upstart
 
Offline
Posts: 986
Joined: 29 Mar 10, 2:01 pm

Re: Warfare B.E 2.071 Re-Balanced for GON

Unread postby Sky Monster » 10 Apr 12, 1:36 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS1NGlJHnz4#t=01m22s

Totally changing the dynamics of several vehicles is ludicrous. Only thing that ever needed changing was a maximum tab locking range and MWS for all aircraft.
8-)

Freeborne wrote:Well said. I agree with Baskerville!


Image
Sky Monster

Padawan
 
Offline
Posts: 430
Joined: 27 Mar 11, 8:43 pm

Re: Warfare B.E 2.071 Re-Balanced for GON

Unread postby Freeborne » 10 Apr 12, 4:01 pm

So why are those two things not in your list of ideas or changes in your own version Sky?(viewtopic.php?f=207&t=192921)

FYI, I honestly have read all your posts looking for ideas for Rebalanced (as well as Undertow, Baskerville, Wraith and Imp).

This is what you attempted:
Increased AT prices, moved vehicles around the factory lists, dropped price of aircraft, made AA more expensive.

I did all that (and more) yet you're criticizing me for making the same changes that you and Wraith made :?

Repeating myself again, but play with "Unit Balancing = Disabled" and you can keep all the standard armaments. The majority of armament/price changes I made are all dependent on that single parameter. It's that simple!


Benny really didn't do much with the Unit Balancing parameter. He really just treated it as a "Side Balancing" parameter and made sure both teams had an equivalent counterpart. AH1Z vs KA52, Tunguska vs Linebacker/Avenger. 3 units is all he effectively edited!

I went one step further and made it so all the "Units" were "Balanced" between the different levels of Light, Heavy and Air, as well as East-vs-West. So now a Kamov can't kill 50 tanks in one game. Aircraft don't have to fly at 1000m altitude to avoid the Tunguska's and Linebackers anymore, which only resulted in them using their tab-locking missiles for everything anyway. How boring!


Here's a recap of some famous Sky Monster quotes:
Sky Monster wrote:Aircraft are too expensive...
The way BIS have implemented AA and Benny's pricing of AA is horrible and it breaks the game. If you want a broken tabspam ground warfare game so be it. ...


(Jets on sale at 40%-80% off! Still not happy are you...)

Sky Monster wrote:I remember dogfighting you and Wartorn F35/Su34's with cannon, was fun as hell, even the people on the ground were having fun watching us.


(All aircraft have flares, AA missiles reduced across the board!)

Sky Monster wrote:A good player in a Tung > good player in Aircraft 80% of the time.


Fairly true. No more tab-locking noob Tunguska's!

Lots more here search.php?author_id=92260&sr=posts

Do you see what I'm getting at here? From what I see, there's no consistency between your suggestions and criticisms.

You complain "the Tung and Linebacker's are bullsh!t sometimes" in how effective they are, are "way under-priced", and will "usually beat a player in any aircraft 80% of the time"!

No matter how expensive you make the Tunguska, the above problems still remain. If you limit missiles to 2KM, then the Tunguska cannot counter BLUFOR aircraft as they're most effective when stationary (engine off) and catching them by surprise. They can't do that if they have to drive 1-3KM into the combat zone, as aircraft will spot them on radar, fly within missile range and shoot them (while dumping flares). Tunguska = Dead, aircraft = safe! Sky = still crying... :P

Simple solution, if you believe this idea will fix everything, play normal B.E with the "Incoming Missile Range" parameter set to 2000m.
Image
Freeborne

Jedi Upstart
 
Offline
Posts: 986
Joined: 29 Mar 10, 2:01 pm

Re: Warfare B.E 2.071 Re-Balanced for GON

Unread postby i76 » 10 Apr 12, 5:28 pm

Edit for balance = Fail.

Not having a go at all FB, I admire that you've taken the time to try... I tried with AAS back in the day and most of my posts where defending the changes I had made.

Its as simple as this... When shot by say a KA-52 you hate and curse them and claim its unbalanced (aka "thats BS") for all sorts of reasons, when you kill in a KA-52 you love and praise them and defend their design and that its fair...

We all want it our way.... its just the way us weak a55 westerners are these days.
i76

User avatar
n00bie
 
Offline
Posts: 5
Joined: 9 Apr 12, 6:46 pm

Re: Warfare B.E 2.071 Re-Balanced for GON

Unread postby Baskerville » 11 Apr 12, 11:52 pm

Do we really need WASP on the server as it keeps getting put on and it's really ****.

If you limit missiles to 2KM, then the Tunguska cannot counter BLUFOR aircraft as they're most effective when stationary (engine off) and catching them by surprise. They can't do that if they have to drive 1-3KM into the combat zone, as aircraft will spot them on radar, fly within missile range and shoot them (while dumping flares). Tunguska = Dead, aircraft = safe! Sky = still crying...

Hmm I'd wager that both the aircraft and the Tung would die especially late game when missiles shape shift every ware.
Baskerville

User avatar
1337 p0st3r
 
Offline
Posts: 1420
Joined: 15 May 10, 12:12 am

Re: Warfare B.E 2.071 Re-Balanced for GON

Unread postby Freeborne » 12 Apr 12, 11:10 am

What's wrong with WASP? Maybe it keeps getting put on because people like it?

I've only played it a few times and it seems better than default version (except for the stupid random starting vehicle that can be an M1A1). It's otherwise incorporated a lot of the ideas people on the forums have asked for.

Features:
- New woodland camo for M2A2 bradleys, hammers and strikers (Cherno map only);
- New desert camo for LAV-25, AAVP, BTR-90, BMP-3, T-90, Tunguska (Takistan map only);
- New armor mod for special forces (Opfor - MVD, Blufor - USMC specnaz);
- Ability to fortify any armor for additional payment;
- Added 4-th level of light factory for Opfor side;
- Ability to repeair ally base structures (For base com only);
- Vote menu shows the players who have voted for new commander;
- New balanced armor for T-90, T-72, Strykers, M113 and BMP-3;
- Reworked prices for all air vehicles;
- Added the dependency for AF upgrades. It's possible to update AF after HF 2 is done;
- Added the ability to fix wheels for light vehicles (Free option);
- Added the ability to use M136, RPG-18 and NLAW launchers only once;

Changed:
- reworked economy module for base commander. The max limit of taxes is - 20%;
- The prices on maws, smaw, metis, javeline were increased;
- The max fire range of metis is decreased to 1.5 km;
- The default parameter of grass is setted to 0 (the posibility to enable this parameter is saved in menu);

Plus, aircraft in WASP are even cheaper than Rebalanced prices.
Image
Freeborne

Jedi Upstart
 
Offline
Posts: 986
Joined: 29 Mar 10, 2:01 pm

Re: Warfare B.E 2.071 Re-Balanced for GON

Unread postby Baskerville » 12 Apr 12, 2:34 pm

The spamming of tank forts every ware and the fact we got an ATGM at the start just seems daft.

It doesn't even say WASP either it says [56]. I'd rather have your version or the stock standard one.
Baskerville

User avatar
1337 p0st3r
 
Offline
Posts: 1420
Joined: 15 May 10, 12:12 am

Re: Warfare B.E 2.071 Re-Balanced for GON

Unread postby Sky Monster » 17 Apr 12, 3:31 pm

Aw yeah WASP is a huge improvement with KA-52s costing $42,500 armed with 12 Atakas.... :58_40:

1.5km range limitation for Metis is overkill(underkill? :? ), should be 2km at the very least.


Please don't use this mission... GON can barely handle 32 players let alone 58, town initialisation bugs galore.
8-)

Freeborne wrote:Well said. I agree with Baskerville!


Image
Sky Monster

Padawan
 
Offline
Posts: 430
Joined: 27 Mar 11, 8:43 pm

Re: Warfare B.E 2.071 Re-Balanced for GON

Unread postby Drjft » 20 May 12, 11:14 pm

Excuse my ignorance, but did something change in Warfare that now makes towns respawn entirely if all of the attacking forces (i.e., BLUFOR/OPFOR) die?

My side hit a town today, we disabled three tanks, then all died and when we rolled back into town the tanks had entirely respawned and so had all of the AI defenders.
Image
Xbox LIVE: Drjft - Steam: drjftgaming - XFire: Coming Soon
CPU: AMD Phenom II 955 Black Edition 3.8Ghz | MoBo: ASUS M4A89 GTD PRO | RAM: 8GB G-Skill RipJaws X 1600Mhz DDR3 | GPU: NVIDIA GTX 580 | PSU: ThermalTake EVO Blue Gaming 650W |
Drjft

User avatar
Padawan
 
Offline
Posts: 335
Joined: 20 Jun 10, 8:05 pm

Re: Warfare B.E 2.071 Re-Balanced for GON

Unread postby Sky Monster » 21 May 12, 12:37 am

It's been like that for ages.

~10-15min with no player/player AI within 610m of the town depot and everything will despawn, then respawn fresh when someone goes back within the 610m
8-)

Freeborne wrote:Well said. I agree with Baskerville!


Image
Sky Monster

Padawan
 
Offline
Posts: 430
Joined: 27 Mar 11, 8:43 pm

Re: Warfare B.E 2.071 Re-Balanced for GON

Unread postby Drjft » 21 May 12, 1:36 am

We were literally away for less than a minute. Is that normal?
Image
Xbox LIVE: Drjft - Steam: drjftgaming - XFire: Coming Soon
CPU: AMD Phenom II 955 Black Edition 3.8Ghz | MoBo: ASUS M4A89 GTD PRO | RAM: 8GB G-Skill RipJaws X 1600Mhz DDR3 | GPU: NVIDIA GTX 580 | PSU: ThermalTake EVO Blue Gaming 650W |
Drjft

User avatar
Padawan
 
Offline
Posts: 335
Joined: 20 Jun 10, 8:05 pm

PreviousNext

Return to ArmA

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests