Warfare B.E 2.071 Re-Balanced for GON

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

Unread postby Baskerville » 5 Mar 12, 12:14 pm

That's because we where playing vanilla warfare... but don't tell them that they won't believe you.
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 » 5 Mar 12, 1:00 pm

Guys, if you want to discuss the other modified Warfare versions (ie. "_nowalls" and "Berk edition") please use this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=207&t=192921

AFAIK those versions are modified by Sky Monster and others (Baskerville or PlacidBox maybe). Either way keep discussions about existing mission edits elsewhere please.


I did not remove the magazines from the "HMMV_Avenger" and it worked, so just removing the weapon seems enough.
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 » 5 Mar 12, 1:13 pm

When you do it in the editor it works so it must be something to do with Benny's

Is there a file that only deals with vanilla objects because I know he splits his version according to what the server is using.

Edit: I tried turning off EASA which didn't help
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 » 5 Mar 12, 2:31 pm

I've made a draft of some major changes to price of AT and AA. Would like some feedback on these.

Jav and Metis ammo bumped to $600, and the launchers made 2-3 times more expensive. Ammo is cheaper than the launchers, so it's economical to stock up on spare ammo, and not just respawn to get more ammo (as you then have to pay the higher price of the launcher).

Remember, bounty is 35% so you still earn a good reward for killing tanks despite the higher AT prices. Using a Metis on a GPK will result in $220 loss instead of only -$8, but used on a T34/M1A1 would net $240/$1370 profit (and that's assuming tank prices are not increased which they probably will be).

Bounty examples to compare against the AT prices (including crew kills):
GPK = $1090 x 0.35 = $380
BDRM = $1340 x 0.35 = $465
T34 (Res) = $2540 x 0.35 = $965
M1A1 = $6010 x 0.35 = $2130
T72 = $5260 x 0.35 = $1840
T90 = $6610 x 0.35 = $2310

Image
This should discourage everyone from running around with heavy AT and over-supply of ammo and using weapons like the Metis as an all-in-one solution for everything from GPK's to Tusks. When attacking towns, camps will need to be captured to allow for AT resupply, or other methods used to neutralize tanks like static launchers, or your own tanks.


If people strongly oppose these changes please let me know why, and what kind of balance would be better.


Basker, AFAIK the version.sqf defines what version of Warfare you use and it is set to CombinedOps. I haven't used the
Code: Select all
if (WF_A2_Vanilla) then {
either but maybe I'll try something different like
Code: Select all
if (WF_A2_CombinedOps) then {
instead of no If statement.
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 » 6 Mar 12, 12:13 am

Make Jav and Metis much more expensive.

E.g. the ammo not the launcher because people will just buy more.
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 » 6 Mar 12, 10:01 am

Hmm, after careful consideration I think you're right. I thought it was a legit tactic that players stock up on ammo and put in an Ambulance, but at $300 a pop, it means the Metis is still an affordable all-in-one solution against GPK's, M2A2's and Tusks (as the reward for killing either of these exceeds $300).

I guess the launcher/ammo prices should be reversed. Without ammo any launcher is useless (excluding INKO).

Metis Launcher/Ammo = $300/$1200
Javelin Launcher/Ammo = $300/$1000

What's the DMG difference between a Metis and Javelin, compared to the armour values of their primary targets (Metis vs Tusk)? Ammo price needs to reflect your chances of scoring instant kills and getting the bounty award. If you have 100% chance of getting the bounty the ammo price must be high. If it only causes delayed explosions, meaning you miss out on the bounty the ammo price must be lower.


OK, revised prices.
AT Launchers = cheaper
AT Ammo = expensive
HE Ammo = cheap'ish
This should result in ammo types being used more selectively against their appropriate targets, instead of using AT against everything from light cars to heavy tanks, as killing a UAZ with a MAAW HEAT will hurt you financially. Launchers are relatively cheap so players can buy 1 or 2 ammo rounds, without it being poor value. If the launchers were expensive you would need to buy several AT rounds to justify the expense.
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 » 6 Mar 12, 12:57 pm

Full health TUSK, First metis will cause a track or both to red, gun will red, hull will probably be dark orange. Second Metis will cause it to explode and give a bounty. So basically 2xmetis missile vs bounty of TUSK

Javelin has a 50:50 chance of popping a T90 in one hit.

Metis should always cost more than Jav because of the ease of use. Javelin can be a pain in the arse as we all know. Those damn OPFOR shrubs and small rocks getting in the way of a lock.
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 » 15 Mar 12, 9:08 am

I'm almost ready to release this if I can get UnitBalancing changes working. I'm sure my code is correct, but it's not working for some units, when I go to test.

I just cannot make any changes on the following units:
"HMMV_Avenger_DES_EP1" (US, Arrowhead)
"AH1Z" (USMC, ArmA2)
"AH64D_EP1" (US, Arrowhead)
"F35B" (USMC, ArmA2)
"A10" (USMC, ArmA2)
"A10_US_EP1" (US, Arrowhead, I added this in Core configs as it was missing)

Yet I've managed to make changes on these:
HMMWV_Avenger (USMC, ArmA2)
Stinger_Pod (US/USMC, ArmA2/Arrowhead)
M6_EP1 (Linebacker, US, Arrowhead)

So I can make changes to both A2 and OA units, so it shouldn't be an issue with Vanilla vs Combined Ops. The units are also from combination of US and USMC config files.

Any help would be appreciated. I've also added summary of changes to the mission Notes section so people can see the changes in-game.

P.S: Metis price changed again, as they are just too damn awesome for their low price. Point and click like an NLAW, with double the damage and 5x the range.

EDIT: OKAY I FOUND PROBLEM. JUST NEED TO TEST AND CONFIRM IT WORKS

In common\init\init_commonconstants.sqf it looks like I need to add extra entries to the default:
Code: Select all
['WFBE_BALANCEDUNITS',['HMMV_Avenger, etc etc']...
Last edited by Freeborne on 15 Mar 12, 2:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 Freeborne » 15 Mar 12, 12:37 pm

Let's be honest. Vehicle prices are pretty whacked in Warfare B.E.

For example, we all know a BMP3 trumps a T34, yet it's cheaper. M2A2's are also over-priced with their slow rate-of-fire and speed. As they are primarily IFV's, at $5000 (with crew) it's a lot when you were only getting about $50-$80 per infantry kill.

Image

If you have Google account, feel free to add your comments, or just post them here with what prices you think would be best.
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 Freeborne » 20 Mar 12, 1:19 pm

First post updated with lots of changes.

If you want to test for bugs and pricing errors, etc you can download latest beta here

There's several variations to Benny's Warfare out there, which we haven't tried. That makes me think I'm wasting my time with this as no-one will want to try anything different. Most of the problems with Warfare are exploits and weighed in OPFOR's favour, which is why most regulars stack this team and haven't been interested in other versions (or really fixing OPFOR's biased assets).

Other variants of Warfare we could try include:
ZGM, Gossamers, WASP and Qazmod

All of these share a few common changes, such as increased bounties, less 'free' income and more expensive AT. The only thing that really makes my version different is I've made assets LESS powerful to balance the game, and they've made assets MORE powerful to balance it.

The main problem my version faces is getting OPFOR regulars to accept it, knowing it has removed most of their exploits and advantages.
  • M113 Ambo before anything from BLUFOR and cheaper Vodnik's.
  • Better AT. Metis easily trumps Javelin and can easily kill $7000 tanks for $280.
  • Cheap tanks early on (T34, T55, BMP2, BMP3).
  • Very effective aircraft with AA and AT missiles.
  • Better AA (IGLA vs Stinger)
  • Much better mobile AA (Tunguska)
  • Fast & powerful light (BPPU, BTR90)

Just look at the previous post for example, where a BMP2 is $2600 but M2A2 is $4450!!! Even arguments about how much better a Tusk is (which really isn't much) is negated by OPFOR's Metis which offers cheap and easy tank kills.

So I believe I've addressed most of the above 'issues', without any bias to making BLUFOR better. Many of these changes will be seen as 'negative' by OPFOR players (even if they admit they are 'fair' changes). To counter that, if you enjoy base hunting, there is $3000 bounty for each factory you kill, and killing enemy players earns you $500 bounty, and not the measly $40$-$120 as before. So you don't have to rape Resistance AI to earn cash. Also, you generally get higher bounty for killing enemy units as the prices are higher than Resistance equivalents. So you earn a bit more for taking an enemy-held town compared to a Resistance town.
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 » 20 Mar 12, 2:50 pm

Is giving rewards to base hunters really a good idea considering most people on the server have a heart attack when you do it early. !?!?
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 SnatchReamer » 20 Mar 12, 6:08 pm

Freeborne wrote:Most of the problems with Warfare are exploits and weighed in OPFOR's favour, which is why most regulars stack this team and haven't been interested in other versions


What a load of tripe.

Blufor is usually full of knobheads, base hunting n00bs and children.
Opfor generally attracts a more professional type of team player.
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 » 20 Mar 12, 9:00 pm

Yeah might need to make satchels and ammo crates available at Gear 2?
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 » 21 Mar 12, 4:15 am

Yeah because the way it is now anyone can kit out for it as soon as the game starts.
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 PlacidBox » 23 Mar 12, 9:31 am

SnatchReamer wrote:Opfor generally attracts a more professional type of team player.


As a professional opfor player, I demand a professional level salary, something blufor won't provide.
PlacidBox

User avatar
Padawan
 
Offline
Posts: 253
Joined: 1 Aug 10, 12:02 am

PreviousNext

Return to ArmA

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: RHIN@ and 1 guest

cron