Warfare .71 now out

Re: Warfare .71 now out

Unread postby uncoitus interruptus » 31 Jan 12, 5:43 pm

A-10's dont dominate the game, only time i really see them used is by noobs that gets shot down in 5 seconds late in the game when there is AA everywhere.

Only time they would be useful is earlyish in the game when the enemy isn't expecting it, and as such they shouldn't be priced very high.
uncoitus interruptus

User avatar
Regular
 
Offline
Posts: 72
Joined: 1 Nov 11, 5:18 am

Re: Warfare .71 now out

Unread postby Sky Monster » 31 Jan 12, 6:08 pm

Aircraft are too expensive. People who can't use them effectively, therefore don't, are the ones who take the easy route and buy a tank or Mobile AA. Then complain about having their arses handed to them by a superior vehicle and/or superior player because they repeatedly try the same tactic (tank rushing) .

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. I guess warfare will stay the way it is until the next version where a UH60 will cost $100,000

MEH
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 .71 now out

Unread postby Freeborne » 31 Jan 12, 7:30 pm

Sky Monster, this is how I read your post:

"Aircraft are expensive, so noobs buy tanks and tunguska's instead!"
Why is this a bad thing?

"Noobs get owned in a tank, by a better player in another tank"
You think this is unfair?

If I take your statements, and reverse them to find out what goal you are implying would suit you, I get this:
"Aircraft should be cheaper, so noobs will buy them, knowing they won't get many kills before getting shot down, so they can afford another one without saving too much"

I'm seriously not trying to twist your words, but that's how your post reads. Please try again so you make some sense.

The funny thing is, you're just out to lower the price of aircraft, instead of raising the price of Tunguska's and Linebackers. I think that's pretty clear evidence where your priority and line of thinking are.
Image
Freeborne

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

Re: Warfare .71 now out

Unread postby Goshawk » 31 Jan 12, 8:51 pm

I'm not sure you realise just how little bounty kills play in the later stages of the game Freeborne. Its a teams income per minute that matters.
More often then not a player is not alive long enough to recoop the cost of their aircraft through kills. Even an M1 only yields around 1100 or so for a clean kill which if a plane costs 100,000 is going to take a **** load of tanks. The only decent bounty rewards are from killing higher value aircraft and even then its only a fraction of the cost.

The true frustration from jets seems to come from being killed by something you cannot fight back against unless youre setup specifically for that circumstance. this is something i definitely know that you hate from your previous posts on arty and guided AT.

What if AA pods were also given Tung missiles while aircrft prices were brought back down? Oh wait people still wouldnt like that because that would still require the fore thought of deploying the damn things and most players these days cant seem to think beyond "duuuh i haz tank!"
Goshawk

User avatar
1337 p0st3r
 
Offline
Posts: 1229
Joined: 8 Jul 07, 11:23 pm
Location: Canberra

Re: Warfare .71 now out

Unread postby Sky Monster » 31 Jan 12, 8:54 pm

I already said the mission wouldn't accept the changes to the Mobile AA...

And what I was trying to say, like I said before, if it's not one thing being spammed its another, cheaper thing, that one side has a huge advantage on. Whether it be a player on OPFOR spamming Metis (which my changes fix) or TUSK spam. Which is VERY HARD TO COUNTER WITH T90s
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 .71 now out

Unread postby Freeborne » 31 Jan 12, 10:28 pm

Imp, I'm very much aware of how little bounty counts towards income (as I've whinged about it plenty in the past). Where have I contradicted myself?

Sky Monster the T90's aren't nearly as bad as you make out. A player T90 will beat an AI Tusk any day! (unless your Tab key is stuck). Players can only buy 3-4 tanks based on 12 AI limit we play on, so I don't see how there can be a lot of 'tank spam' like you claim.

Anyway, you're bringing in T90's vs Tusks as justification for why aircraft should be cheaper, because you think it's the best chance OPFOR have of stopping the BLUFOR "Tusk Rushes". It seems a pretty weak case sorry.

Imp, yes that is frustrating but it is not the primary reason which is that with constant enemy air presence, ground vehicles cannot move anywhere (I stated this already). One player in a jet or chopper will just tab-lock and destroy any vehicle that comes up with a player tag, and ignore the light vehicles and low-threat targets.
So the frustration comes from.
1. Being singled-out and killed easily amongst dozens of AI, from an enemy that cannot be targeted.
2. The time it generally takes for ground vehicles to close the distance to the enemy, compared to how quicky air can cover that distance (and retreat to rearm/repair).
3. End result of the above, which results in stale-mate games.
Image
Freeborne

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

Re: Warfare .71 now out

Unread postby Goshawk » 1 Feb 12, 9:51 am

As opposed to games where TOW or METIS pods are spammed all over mountain tops so that vehicles cannot drive anywhere resulting in stalemates.

I still dont see why players cannot be more proactive with their tactics? Commanders especially. You know air will be coming eventually so do something about it now instead of when the bombs are raining down. Warfare isnt just about fighting the enemy in towns, the battle takes place across the entire map.


On another note if we're changing prices.of things can we see arty get some love? As in specifically the mortar? To me its no different sitting on a hill with a tank using therrmals than it is using a howie. And now with repair trucks at lf2 people cant even get them straight away anyhow.
Goshawk

User avatar
1337 p0st3r
 
Offline
Posts: 1229
Joined: 8 Jul 07, 11:23 pm
Location: Canberra

Re: Warfare .71 now out

Unread postby Xerxes17 » 1 Feb 12, 11:11 am

I like the idea of these changes in theory, Having been getting some quality time in DCS BS/A10 I can defiantly say it's the arcadey implementation of these systems that really causes the problem. With that in mind, the best way to do it with our limited tools is to make air expensive and AA cheap. This means air assets will be used as they should.. on call strike assets, not hunter killers. It always shat me to tears when a game that is supposed to be all about ground combat just ended up being "crappy flight sim shooting gallery" after a point. I'd really like to see some big **** tank battles in the vybor valley.

RE: Metis towers, that's what artillery is for.. to dig out inf hidden in places.

I wish we had the balcal still, it made artillery be a true teamwork asset, instead of "push button, receive explosions"
Image
Xerxes17

Padawan
 
Offline
Posts: 282
Joined: 28 May 10, 10:49 am
Location: In Chernarus

Re: Warfare .71 now out

Unread postby Baskerville » 1 Feb 12, 11:53 am

RE: Metis towers, that's what artillery is for.. to dig out inf hidden in places.

HUH? That's if you even know where they came from considering the have an unlimited range.

And you're very lucky Freeborne if you can kill a TUSK outright without taking a Sabot which will kill a T-90 in one single hit. Even the T-90's missle won't disable the gun on the TUSK in most cases which leads to the human player hoping in the gunners seat and finishing you off quick smart.
Baskerville

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

Re: Warfare .71 now out

Unread postby Freeborne » 1 Feb 12, 12:30 pm

Imp, the 'stalemate' caused by statics is not as severe or game-changing as air-dominance. Statics can only stalemate a certain area, whereas aircraft are mobile and can secure one area, then move to another, or advance and harass the enemy as they spawn. The practical difference is huge.


Xerxes, the "Metis Towers" are the new radio towers (20m high) that people mostly place at bases, send AI troops up them, and keep refilling them by purchasing Metis ammo from the Barracks. It's unlikely arty can target them unless they can reach the enemy base.


Player T90s can easily take out AI Tusks, because you get a 5 second (average) target acquisition head-start. I can tab-lock enemy before the radar blips appear on the screen (I'm a tab-tapping ****) and that is plenty of time to fire off a round, wound it, and force the AI to bail (before they fire off a shot). Done this more times than I can count.

Player T90 vs Player Tusk, it's often a draw. I'll get the first shot in, and they get about a 50% chance of returning fire and killing me. Your odds depend a lot on:
- If the tank is moving the AI will return fire before it comes to a halt.
- If stationary they will usually bail before they return fire.
- The odds that your hit landed on the turret and disabled it.
- If you are close you can fire off a rocket too and get an instant kill.

T90 is a very effective base killer too, as the sabot+rocket will destroy factories instantly.

I still prefer a Tusk because the loader position is very effective against AI infantry (they try to shoot him, and your AI easily acquire then and return fire. If I have no problem with either tank, and I'm a tank **** (and quite good at it), could I be on to something?
Image
Freeborne

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

Re: Warfare .71 now out

Unread postby Sky Monster » 1 Feb 12, 12:39 pm

Freeborne, a lot of what you say is just plain wrong. I don't think you're onto anything at all. You have little understanding of a lot of the hardware in the game, which is odd since you have years more experience in ArmA. It's a bit embarrassing really.
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 .71 now out

Unread postby UnderTow » 2 Feb 12, 3:33 pm

AS much as freeborne isnt my best m8 in the game and he may annoy the **** outta me at times, i have to agree with every statement he has said on this topic, as they are perfectly inline with my views.

Sky Monster wrote:Aircraft are too expensive. People who can't use them effectively, therefore don't, are the ones who take the easy route and buy a tank or Mobile AA. Then complain about having their arses handed to them by a superior vehicle and/or superior player because they repeatedly try the same tactic (tank rushing) .

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. I guess warfare will stay the way it is until the next version where a UH60 will cost $100,000

MEH



>Aircraft are only too expensive for Aircraft spammers,

Its been said 100 times why they are great at high prices ( the games dont end in aircraft spamming and teams just quitting)

>your point on people just then going into tanks coz they are cheaper.

exactly why tanks should be double the price 10-15k a piece.
that way they also are used for support and not as primary vehicles.
(ie specialisation)

Pricing of AA im not sure how it breaks the game, (unless u mean it stops people spamming aircraft), well if you are refering to tungs and linebacker well they should cost atleast $20k

but in reality an aircraft costs $130 million or so
not sure of tank prices but im guessing it nowhere near that.

the solutions are right in your face but you choose to ignore them.

pricing of units controls the use and abuse of them.

i think most people enjoy games to last 4- 6 hours with a good hard fought battle, evenly matched.

but i agree with freeborns point that jets should be only used as for killing bases (ei lazer marker) - Not that i consider this a priority but when OA was released it was epic fun using A10s to lazer bases as they had no other effective use.

Sky Monster

Freeborne, a lot of what you say is just plain wrong. I don't think you're onto anything at all. You have little understanding of a lot of the hardware in the game, which is odd since you have years more experience in ArmA. It's a bit embarrassing really.


i seriously suggest you stop abusing people for their ideas, input or suggestions..

its not good form on a forum, and isnt welcome.
Image
UnderTow

User avatar
Padawan
 
Offline
Posts: 151
Joined: 27 Aug 10, 4:27 pm
Location: the combustion chamber of me 192

Re: Warfare .71 now out

Unread postby uncoitus interruptus » 2 Feb 12, 3:52 pm

I still preferred the old pricing with half income cause it reduced spam across the board not just aircraft, if you used the half income param now you wont see any aircraft at all, not that many admins used to use the half income param for whatever reason i dont know.

Seems pointless that Benny would change the pricing so much when there was allready paramaters in place to control spam.
uncoitus interruptus

User avatar
Regular
 
Offline
Posts: 72
Joined: 1 Nov 11, 5:18 am

Re: Warfare .71 now out

Unread postby Baskerville » 2 Feb 12, 4:03 pm

Fun Fact: The M1A1 costs around $5,790,446.83 AUD per unit and the T-90 costs around $3,962,701.80 AUD per unit. (based on an average price I garnered off the internet)

If it's people getting raped by aircraft that people are worried about just remove all the tab lockable armaments off the jets and place GBU's on them instead. Mind you people are quite good at manual aiming with the bombs but it would mean that I can't fly at 5-8K in the air and drop TAB guided bombs.

When you speak about people spamming aircraft you actually mean one team has a hell of alot more money than your team does usually a result of teamstacking.

I used to love half income and really low supply games Coit. Some people don't have a much time to invest in games as I do though.

Can we see if we can get a picture of UHAX for that avatar Coit!
Baskerville

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

Re: Warfare .71 now out

Unread postby uncoitus interruptus » 2 Feb 12, 4:06 pm

Baskerville wrote:Can we see if we can get a picture of UHAX for that avatar Coit!


If i had a pic of him, he would be on it allready, LOL!
uncoitus interruptus

User avatar
Regular
 
Offline
Posts: 72
Joined: 1 Nov 11, 5:18 am

PreviousNext

Return to ArmA

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CakeFoundry and 2 guests