Objective Timers

[Steveak44]

I'm not a big fan of the objective timer system. I don't think its very realistic and I think it promotes too much hide-and-seek.

I have a rough idea for an alternative but I'm no modder so I don't know what is possible or what effect it would have on server performance. So here it is...

Could it be made so that the objectives are defended by AI troops and change when all of the defending team's troops are cleared out and the objective is occupied by the attacking team?

Then say there is 5 min timer before the new owner's defensive AI spawn in at the newly captured objective. For realism's sake I'd rather have the new defensive AI have to come in from another flag but I worry about them never making it because their pathfinding is so effed up.

The number of defensive AI would be scaled to fit the objective. ie 1 squad for a farm, 1 squad and a APC for a bridge, multiple squads and vehicles for a major city. You get the idea.

Hopefully, the AI would randomly patrol their objective. The AI would not be under the control of the BFCO but the BFCO would get notification if they are engaged.

Opinions? :good: :td:

[[ATOW]BarmyArmy]

I have some misgivings about the timer system, in that players spend alot of time kicking their heels waiting for flags to change...

So I suppose some system where the speed of the clock varies with how much opposition is in town could be arranged.... the advantage being that if you kill an attacker/defender then it takes less time for you to cap the flag.

Conversly people would feel cheated if a bunch of defenders were killed by a well place helo-rocket run, before the enemy rushed the flag and capped it before the defenders got a chance to respawn and counter-attack.

BA

[Steveak44]

Originally posted by BarmyArmy@Mon, 3 Sep 2007 - 11:19
Conversly people would feel cheated if a bunch of defenders were killed by a well place helo-rocket run, before the enemy rushed the flag and capped it before the defenders got a chance to respawn and counter-attack.

BA

51378



Then they should have had air defense or their own helo in the area :) Could you put at least 1 AI AA soldier in the objective?

[[IRT]36th|PVT.H00t74]

Look ath all the action we had at the farm yesterday. I think the timer system will work better w/ the new linked objectives we have now. The next step I would like to see is that only "frontline" objectives be taken. This pushes all the action into the front of the war and no capping possible. You can still intradict the back lines but it will give guys a good idea of where to go to get in the action!!

[[8]72|Pvt.SnowMan]

Originally posted by BarmyArmy@Mon, 3 Sep 2007 - 12:19
Conversly people would feel cheated if a bunch of defenders were killed by a well place helo-rocket run, before the enemy rushed the flag and capped it before the defenders got a chance to respawn and counter-attack.

51378

Gee, sounds pretty close to a REAL LIFE situation too me....
First the area is cleared by rocket/mortor/bomb and then the ground pounders move in to clear any remaining defenders and occupy it.

SnowMan

[Raptor-6]

To be honest I don't think we have given the current setup enough play time to see if it needs to be changed or not. I for one would like to see more mod team emphasis on getting more content into the game, (new weapons, vehicles, and other capabilities), than to start revamping the way the objective systems is setup. If we determine that it's not working after some weeks of testing then we can look at tweaking it. Although I must admit, it was a hell of a lot of fun on Sunday. It's a major step forward from what we were using, don't you think?

[[8]72|Pvt.SnowMan]

Originally posted by Steveak44@Mon, 3 Sep 2007 - 12:10

Could it be made so that the objectives are defended by AI troops and change when all of the defending team's troops are cleared out and the objective is occupied by the attacking team?

Then say there is 5 min timer before the new owner's defensive AI spawn in at the newly captured objective. For realism's sake I'd rather have the new defensive AI have to come in from another flag but I worry about them never making it because their pathfinding is so effed up.

The number of defensive AI would be scaled to fit the objective. ie 1 squad for a farm, 1 squad and a APC for a bridge, multiple squads and vehicles for a major city. You get the idea.

Hopefully, the AI would randomly patrol their objective. The AI would not be under the control of the BFCO but the BFCO would get notification if they are engaged.

Opinions? :good: :td:

51376


I like this idea. With our short numbers and let's face it, nobody likes to sit and wait for the timer to run down. We are here to fight not watch the clock. Just think of the AIs as reinforcements.

SnowMan

[Nhor]

I don't like the Idea, It just seems like playing a co-op to me. All I have to do is hunt down the AI and the town is mine. I think this could get boring quicker then waiting for a flag to turn.

[[IRT]36th|PVT.H00t74]

With us starting with all flags but one already capped it will help as well. 1st battleday always stunk because we were just capping the initial flags. having them already set to a side already makes more sense.

[Steveak44]

Originally posted by Raptor-6@Mon, 3 Sep 2007 - 12:42
To be honest I don't think we have given the current setup enough play time to see if it needs to be changed or not. I for one would like to see more mod team emphasis on getting more content into the game, (new weapons, vehicles, and other capabilities), than to start revamping the way the objective systems is setup. If we determine that it's not working after some weeks of testing then we can look at tweaking it. Although I must admit, it was a hell of a lot of fun on Sunday. It's a major step forward from what we were using, don't you think?

51389



Yup, it is better but still a lot of hide-and-seek at a individual level. We are still playing a stealth game. If that is what our aim is - fine. If we are aiming for war...well hiding in a closet hoping nobody finds me while watching a timer is not what I had in mind.

I've never liked objective timers in any wargame. Seems weird that you get an objective because the stopwatch says so not because you eliminated all resistance and you are still alive to say, "this is mine 'cause you are all dead." If you like the timers go ahead and keep them just add the AI and make them spawn instantly on flag change. If we end up with 30vs30 :whistle: we can take the AI out later. I just want war with lots of targets.

[Steveak44]

Originally posted by Nhor@Mon, 3 Sep 2007 - 13:05
I don't like the Idea, It just seems like playing a co-op to me. All I have to doÂÂÂ* is hunt down the AI and the town is mine. I think this could get boring quicker then waiting for a flag to turn.

51392



We are playing a co-op.

As is all you have to do is hunt down the guys hiding in the closet or put more guys in a different closet on the other side of town. That to me is boring.

Having AI let the commander know they are engaged would let you rush human troops in as reinforcements.

[[UN]SGen.ViperMaul]

Steve you have very valid points here.
And for Campaign II before ArmaI forums got yanked, I had a thread that introduced the very same suggestion you had but the timers were still there.

The timers are there to simulate a couple of processes that are assumed to happen in real-life but do not happen in this game.

* Patrols of the entire area.
* Setting up a command post.
* and perhaps other things that happen when you take a town that I wouldn't know about.


Now again I am not a real-life soldier and I haven't interviewed one either. But removing the timers would say the following:

It takes less than 5 seconds for a 5-man team to simultaneously enter the south *edge* of city objective like Corazol.

Here is the question: In the event there are no enemy there (not even AI) should the town immediately changes color?

Before you say YES or NO you have to define what changing color means.

Does changing color mean, immediate Resource Points begins to flow? (well not in or first RSI campaign )

Does changing color mean, immediate ability to spawn closer to the frontlines? (yes it means that for now. Is this acceptable for our gameplay?)

Does changing color mean, area is secure? (if yes then is this ok for game play if this is all it means?)

Does changing color mean, area is secure and in 10+ minutes does resources immediately flow? (Well this is the plan for RSI campaign II, is this acceptable? And should it also mean AI will spawn in town or be dispatched from a near by forward spawn base?)

Let's discuss and explore what we want...
Remember that we have a mini-campaign to begin soon. But there is no reason why we cannot discuss our direction.

[Raptor-6]

Originally posted by Steveak44@Mon, 3 Sep 2007 - 14:31
I just want war with lots of targets.

51395


I know we have a difference of opinion on this and that's ok, but what you describe sounds a lot like BF2 to me. I don't want non stop die as you spawn action for 4 hours. I like the idea of a well thought out strategy and tactics to accomplish a goal. If that means I need to stay at a point for 10 mins to take an objective that's cool. If I have to hunt down defenders or repel an attack that's great too. To me it's all part of the game. The cat and mouse games we were playing at Bridge and Farm on Sunday were perfect game play to me. I really enjoyed it.

I'm sure there is a way for all of us to be able to have a little bit of what we want!!

[Steveak44]

Originally posted by ViperMaul+Mon, 3 Sep 2007 - 14:10--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ViperMaul &#064; Mon, 3 Sep 2007 - 14:10)</div><div class='quotemain'>Here is the question: In the event there are no enemy there (not even AI) should the town immediately changes color?
51401
[/b]yes



Originally posted by ViperMaul@Mon, 3 Sep 2007 - 14:10
Before you say YES or NO you have to define what changing color means.

Does changing color mean, immediate Resource Points begins to flow? (well not in or first RSI campaign )?
51401
I don&#39;t really care. Has it been decided how we are doing it currently?


Originally posted by ViperMaul@Mon, 3 Sep 2007 - 14:10
Does changing color mean, immediate ability to spawn closer to the frontlines? (yes it means that for now. Is this acceptable for our gameplay?)?
51401
yes and yes. Isn&#39;t that how it works now? Flag changes = spawn changes, right?


Originally posted by ViperMaul@Mon, 3 Sep 2007 - 14:10
Does changing color mean, area is secure? (if yes then is this ok for game play if this is all it means?)?
51401
Not really sure what you are asking. The color would only change if there are no enemy left in the zone and the attacker occupy the zone.

<!--QuoteBegin-ViperMaul@Mon, 3 Sep 2007 - 14:10
Does changing color mean, area is secure and in 10+ minutes does resources immediately flow? (Well this is the plan for RSI campaign II, is this acceptable? And should it also mean AI will spawn in town or be dispatched from a near by forward spawn base?)?
51401
[/quote] However the resources are decided I really don&#39;t have much opinion on.
Like I related in the thread starter. I would prefer the AI have to come in from a neighbor flag like reinforcements for realism&#39;s sake but I have concerns about the retarded AI pathfinding.

@Raptor-6
That&#39;s cool and I liked it as well but I pictured the stealthy stuff as more of a side thing in the campaign. Like one side sending out their SpecOps to track down the other SpecOps. I&#39;m not trying to say anyone is right or wrong, per se. Just that playing a solo hunting game is not really what I envisioned with ArmA or ArmAI. If a stealth game theme is what this tourny is going for then the status quo is fine.

[Steveak44]

Another thing I&#39;m trying to avoid is some unit having to sit on a flag and defend it when no one attacks it. It sucks to be those guys. Talk about boring. At least they could be out doing something and then come back to defend if the AI get engaged.

[[DI]I|Cpl.Dren]

Hmmm...
Could we put AI only in bigger towns? (not like farm)
and heres my ideas...
*when the AI has been shooted down, it takes [enter number here] to change and after that [enter number here] to spawn friendly AI in it?
*After AI is killed, BFCO gets message like "Enemy has attacked [enter city]&#33;"
that how they still have some time to put up defence before it changes.
*when town changes color, it would take some time from AI to "move" in town.

im not talking about hours, like half and half of normal capping time.
That would give us some job at "empty" flags, and also for Steve...
Rangers could go ahead from others and "clear" town before others enter it.

But i dont have idea if town far behind enemylines gets cleared, what about AI then? will it be empty to the end?

[Raptor-6]

Originally posted by Steveak44@Mon, 3 Sep 2007 - 15:49
Another thing I&#39;m trying to avoid is some unit having to sit on a flag and defend it when no one attacks it. It sucks to be those guys. Talk about boring. At least they could be out doing something and then come back to defend if the AI get engaged.

51411



Yup I agree with that one. I&#39;ve been in that position and that is definitely not much fun. I would say that there is a place for AI defending back points but I&#39;m not sure that they should be in ALL back points. I think one of the discussions I was in was to have more AI available to the BFCO so that they could be used for defense for a back point or 2. Which objective would be the discretion of the BFCO. That would still provide an uncertainty to any attacking unit whether a defensive force was there or not and take away the mundane task of a player company defending the objective that never got attacked.

Anyway I&#39;m sure we will sort out a viable solution.

[[ATOW]BarmyArmy]

Keep this up guys it is interesting and I hope we can produce a fun-test based on these discussions at some point in the future.

However I want to keep focus on using tried and tested code for the mini campain;
as we have stress tested the current objective system, but not actually run a full tour on it.

I would like to run the next tour on the current objective system, once the mini-Campain is underway, the mod team will have the time to play with new ideas. This is a good candidate.

BA

[Wolf]

I am with Steveak on most of these things, though I think that there must be a limit to the numbers of AI used, what happens when an AI is killed, does he respawn at the same location?

As to how they are deployed at a capped objective, I think that they should be deployed by human players, You got it right about their path finding ability&#33;

The human squad leader calls the BFCO requesting AI, he then spawns them into one of a number of possible fixed locations (a distance behind the front lines IMO) AVN chopper them in, or someone drives them in and gets a lift out, if the transport has to stay (if its M113), of the human &#39;leads&#39; the AI driver by making a &#39;get in formation&#39; order.

If we get fixed wing suitable, parachute them in, simple :)

The realistic part of this is that, you ain&#39;t gonna call in the reinforcements if the area is NOT secure, of you are going to loose them, and the value they cost.

The point is that command are going to have to work with the local commander on the scene, this is going to add a bit of scale to the campaign re: numbers of combatants on the field and maybe keep the strategists amongst us happy, plus officers will be doing &#39;officer&#39; things more in line with their rank, ie: Majors are currently running a squad, if they are lucky&#33;

What do you think?

[[DI]I|Cpl.Dren]

For AI patrolling try Urban Patrol Script (http://kronzky.info/ups/).
I think 7 and other who has tryed BootCamp maps AI area can agree with me if i say "that script makes AI humans"

But i/we should try out does it work if we transport the ai for that area.
If we spawn group of 5 AI and fly them to that area, will they start to patrol? i dont know. i can ask it from the script maker if you want?

edit...
now that i think... it wont work.
as AI patrols only the area marked and we have many different areas.
But if its possible to give BFCO option to spawn AI to army controlled city, and remove it when enemy controls it, that would work.
Lets say only in biggest objective of 3&#39;s chain. and you need to control whole chain of 3 to even spawn them,

[{AToW}Ghost33]

At first I was totally against having AI, they suck, it&#39;s true. whether they are one shotting you at 600m with a M16/AK-74 or trying to figure out how to cross that bridge in front of them for the past 28 minutes, I hated them. But from the experiences from ArmAI that I remember (and I am not trying to bash anyone here at all) it seemed that even with increased rules on who can be in the cap area and increased cap times the US still quickly gained a lot of ground. Almost within 2-3 weeks. Personally I thought that sucked and it made me rethink the AI possibility.

Why don&#39;t we put in a boat load of AI (as much as the server can handle) for most of the capture areas. I would be more than happy to have to recce an area to attack and collect as much info as possible to give to the guys that would be making an assault on such a highly populated area, if for anything to make it an all day thing capturing one town not knowing if someone you&#39;re shooting at or being shot at is an AI or a Human Player. For sure it would stop the one army plowing through the other at the start of a campaign.

[[UN]SGen.ViperMaul]

Originally posted by Dren@Tue, 4 Sep 2007 - 11:50
edit...
now that i think... it wont work.
as AI patrols only the area marked and we have many different areas.
But if its possible to give BFCO option to spawn AI to army controlled city, and remove it when enemy controls it, that would work.
Lets say only in biggest objective of 3&#39;s chain. and you need to control whole chain of 3 to even spawn them,

51456


No it will work.
The UPS combined with GL2 and AI Info Sharing (they actually call in reinforcements if they feel they are overwelmed). Especially with Sixth Sense AI-Manager MOD. Raptor-6 and I used these scripts for two weeks in practice each week. Other on our team didn&#39;t even bother because they felt they never met an AI they couldn&#39;t kill. But properly designed 5 man team can work. Anyways nothing is better than your human soldiers.

Again this will probably not make it in for the first mini-campaign. What I have always purposed to do was give the BFCO another 9 AI until the next full campaign where we have more time to do more.

[[DI]I|Cpl.Dren]

Nice Nice Nice&#33;
Could we put up some test mission for it?

"AI info Sharing"
* Could it be possible to make AI info BFCO when they spot enemy?
* Is it possible to kill AI without them spotting you and clear city of AI without info to BFCO?
* Or make it so that it takes about 5-10sec from group to info BFCO of enemy contact, so you have possibility clear group before the info contact forward
i know normal infantry gets novadays everytime action, but with these kind of AI&#39;s Rangers could be really dropped behind frontline to clear cityes with stealth (as steve wanted some stealth action)

[Steveak44]

Originally posted by Dren@Wed, 5 Sep 2007 - 3:09
(as steve wanted some stealth action)

51476


Huh?&#33; Not me, Dren. I want to kick in your door, throw in a frag, and shoot you in the face with shotgun....among other loud and destructive things. :shoot: Of course, not you personally Dren. :) Well, somtimes I do because your brown bunnie cousins are eating my landscaping but I digress.... :grin: I want WWIII smashmouth style. Stealth has a place I just don&#39;t want it to be the focus.

[Wolf]

Steveak, have you considered a job with the Postal Service?

[SnowBall]

Steve, I would like to politely disagree with you. Stealth should be your focus until contact is made. Once contact is made, please feel free to kick in doors and shoot as many people in the face as you&#39;d like. If you blow your cover before you can get to the door, your going to have a much harder time dispensing your method of death and dismemberment. I&#39;m all for the "Speed, Surprise, and Violence of action" deal, In fact I quite enjoy it. But, you need to be stealthy first, to fully exploit this method. After all, a decisive victory is what we&#39;re after, not just a huge battle with heavy losses on both sides.

[[DI]I|Cpl.Dren]

Viper, dont mind him. Steve just haves big mouth, last sunday on farm i saw him hiding behind bushes from enemy...

[[ATOW]BarmyArmy]

The only thing worse than the BF2 players....

.... are the Counterstike players.... :D->

:2ROFL:
BA

Originally posted by Steveak44@Wed, 5 Sep 2007 - 9:31
Huh?&#33; Not me, Dren. I want to kick in your door, throw in a frag, and shoot you in the face with shotgun....among other loud and destructive things. :shoot: Of course, not you personally Dren. :) Well, somtimes I do because your brown bunnie cousins are eating my landscaping but I digress.... :grin: I want WWIII smashmouth style. Stealth has a place I just don&#39;t want it to be the focus.

51480

[[DI]I|Cpl.Dren]

HAHAHA&#33;
(says man who has 561 hours of BF2)

[[IRT]Super64]

Originally posted by Dren@Wed, 5 Sep 2007 - 8:43
HAHAHA&#33;
(says man who has 561 hours of BF2)

51489


:2ROFL: Oh, the irony.

[[ATOW]BarmyArmy]

It seems you guys just like Alanis Morrisette have no concept of irony.

Irony would be 561 hours of CS:S...

<frag-out>

BA
CS:S =27 hours to save people looking

[[IRT]Super64]

Like Dren i just saw the humor when you said
The only thing worse than the BF2 players....

Then looking at your Xfire sig and the 561 BF2 hours. Not that there&#39;s anything wrong with that. :grin:

[Steveak44]

Originally posted by Wolf@Wed, 5 Sep 2007 - 4:35
Steveak, have you considered a job with the Postal Service?

51481



They don&#39;t pay enough. I have expensive tastes in weaponry. :tu:

[Steveak44]

Originally posted by Doyle@Wed, 5 Sep 2007 - 8:11
Steve, I would like to politely disagree with you. Stealth should be your focus until contact is made. Once contact is made, please feel free to kick in doors and shoot as many people in the face as you&#39;d like. If you blow your cover before you can get to the door, your going to have a much harder time dispensing your method of death and dismemberment. I&#39;m all for the "Speed, Surprise, and Violence of action" deal, In fact I quite enjoy it. But, you need to be stealthy first, to fully exploit this method. After all, a decisive victory is what we&#39;re after, not just a huge battle with heavy losses on both sides.

51486



Ok. I guess I gotta be extremely detailed on what I am interested in. I agreed somewhere that stealth has is place I just didn&#39;t want it to be the theme. Team or Unit stealth is great. 20-30% stealth fine. 90% solo stealth like ArmAI not for me, thanks. Solo stealth is fun but when I want that I get out the xbox and put in Splinter Cell. I would like to see something like what BIS promotes in their videos. Looks like units moving and fighting together. We didn&#39;t have that in ArmAI because we needed to cover too much ground and we were concerned with hiding so we could watch timers. I guess if you need to go to the potty, get a beer or whatever its great. It just bored the bejesus outta me. I have to fight for 5 hours of uninterrupted gaming on a weekend. I can watch the grass in my yard grow or hide in my closet watching a timer and probably not piss off the wife as much if I did it in RL. Anyway, I want my squadmates to be 20-50 meters from me (not 500) so we can play as units. I don&#39;t want to do solo hunting anymore. I want to play with you guys in game not just in TS. I&#39;ll expand on my previous example with 2 scenarios and hopefullly it will be a little more clear. Doyle, you assumed I wasn&#39;t stealthy. I never said I wasn&#39;t stealthy first...I just never said what I did before I got to the door :spiteful:

Scenario 1
My UNIT ghosts up to the building and stacks outside the door (continue now with the fragging and shotgunning as WE clear the building)

Scenario 2
Fireteams 1 and 2 ghost into pre-assault postions. Team 1 will provide MG and GL fire on the building while Team 2 moves on the door (continue now with the fragging and shotgunning as we clear the building).

I used to bash BF2 alot but I&#39;m sure I could go out by myself and find a pub with good squad play where I have my doubts about ArmA. At least in BF2 when some asshat decides to blow up all his own assets its not really the end of the game.


This is way all way off topic and I&#39;m ranting. I think this thread was about timers. Someone can lock it or delete it. It doesn&#39;t matter right now. Timers are in for the mini-campaign. Maybe it can be re-evaluated later.

[{AToW}Ghost33]

If we are going for a simulation aspect and not a game aspect then I would think getting rid of the timers would be more realistic. Areas should be captured on a occupied trigger not a timed occupied trigger. I&#39;m sure the when the Mexicans took the Alamo they didn&#39;t eliminate the Americans then wait 15 minutes to claim the area as won.

Just my opinion on the timers.

[[DI]I|Cpl.Dren]

yeah, but i dont think in RL objects would be so close to each others ;)
if we remove timers, it becomes playing cat and mouse.

Now that we have objects ALLREADY capped for start, it aint problem to wait if you have achived new object

[BazookaBoy]

Don&#39;t forget how things have evolved since ArmAI.

OK we still have timers but the majority of times have been reduced. It is now not enough to just have men in the zone for a certain amount of time you must have men over and above what the enemy has, this promotes the need to engage the enemy in order to reduce their numbers so you can take the zone.

Add to this the linked objective system meaning there will really only ever be a maximum of three objectives in play, the last objective you hold, the last objective the enemy holds and the contested one in between. So there is less chance you will get to just sit and hide without an enemy squad coming into the zone to look for you. Instead of just can you wait 10 minutes to complete a capture it should would more like can you move in, clear the enemy and then defend from the enemy for 10 minutes.

I certainly understand the concerns but I would agree with Barmy that we need to play the mini campaign with these two new changes (reduced times with a slightly tweaked capture numbers system) and the linked objectives, see how they work and if they do need to be reworked or replaced then of course we can look at other options.

[[UN]SGen.ViperMaul]

Originally posted by Dren@Wed, 5 Sep 2007 - 1:09
Nice Nice Nice&#33;
Could we put up some test mission for it?

"AI info Sharing"
* Could it be possible to make AI info BFCO when they spot enemy?
* Is it possible to kill AI without them spotting you and clear city of AI without info to BFCO?
* Or make it so that it takes about 5-10sec from group to info BFCO of enemy contact, so you have possibility clear group before the info contact forward
i know normal infantry gets novadays everytime action, but with these kind of AI&#39;s Rangers could be really dropped behind frontline to clear cityes with stealth (as steve wanted some stealth action)

51476

The answer is yes, yes but rare as the AI works as a team, and yes we can put a delay in of 5-10 seconds but if humans would not delay I am not sure we want to force AI to delay their communications. But we can do it.

[Steveak44]

Originally posted by Dren@Thu, 6 Sep 2007 - 2:28
yeah, but i dont think in RL objects would be so close to each others ;)
if we remove timers, it becomes playing cat and mouse.


51541



Good one. This thread topic really isn&#39;t about the proximity of objectives or RL but since you brought it up...neither would we have 8 guys in a division or MEU, MHQs, Zoom vision, 4 guys capturing a city, bla bla bla. Mr. RL, name me a bunch of RL objectives that were captured in a war or "Theatre of Operations" by sitting on them for a certain amount of time with one more man than the enemy had in the objective.

If you remove the timers it becomes kill the enemy not the current cat and mouse and stopwatch.

I&#39;m really done this time, I swear. :) Like I already said timers are in. Maybe it&#39;ll be re-evalulated later. I thought people didn&#39;t like &#39;em. I guess I&#39;m a bit out of touch with the people I&#39;m supposed to represent.

[[DI]I|Cpl.Dren]

And in RL you dont suck blue bunny shaped lollipos while you shoot.
I dont want argue or anything, just giving out my point of view.
i like timers personally, and we have made them ten times better since "2nd&#39;s hang around at hotel for 20mins and shoot butterlfyes".
i dont like to remove them, but ofc we can reduce times if they seem too long. Like if we notice after 3 battledays that we are still fighting over one object, because nether side havent got it capped.

[Raptor-6]

One other thing we haven&#39;t really thrown in here is the fact that the armies and companies/squads/platoons, whatever you want to call them, are not organized yet. We are not playing a real organized game yet. I think some of Steveak44 concerns may be put to rest once we define the armies structure and get into a real tourney mode. That will allow us to coordinate attacks with other units, move whole units as a group and bring out some of the game play that Steveak44 is looking for.

Let&#39;s keep an eye on this during the upcoming mini-campaign and determine whether we need to make adjustments. I&#39;m hoping if we get the organizational structure established, we can have a more realistic test of the setup.

[SnowBall]

Steve. I&#39;m with you. I understand, in RL you don&#39;t have the small amount of people we have assigned to a unit. I think at this point it would be unrealistic to expect 100,000 people to show up in our server. (Don&#39;t hate, I&#39;m being sarcastic.) The problem I, as well as others are having, is we want to play LARGE scale warfare. With 40 members total, Large scale is NOT possible. I think we need to scale down until we can grow to larger numbers. We can simulate larger numbers with AI, if AI was decent. At this point I think the AI is a little off. As far as working TOGETHER as a unit, I couldn&#39;t agree with you more. The old 504-2 was notorious for getting scattered, and not working together. I think there was some issues with command pulling us apart. "I need 2 of your guys to help in XXXX town." The post you placed before didn&#39;t mention anything of stealth in fact had quite the opposite of anything relating to stealth. Now I know where you stand, I would like to rescind my previous disapproval. I agree with you.

PS. Who is "Mr. RL?"

[[DI]I|Cpl.Dren]

Originally posted by Doyle@Thu, 6 Sep 2007 - 16:39

PS. Who is "Mr. RL?"

51554

i think he was sarcastic :)

[{AToW}Ghost33]

Originally posted by Dren@Thu, 6 Sep 2007 - 6:43
And in RL you dont suck blue bunny shaped lollipos while you shoot.



:huh: now I&#39;m worried about Dren.... that&#39;s all we need is our troops charging into war with suckers in their mouths and end up triping and choking on it&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; :bad:

[SnowBall]

Wait a minute... WE gave Dren a gun. Told him to go shoot at people. Told him it was OK to do it. And YOUR worried about him tripping and choking on his sucker? THIS is whats wrong with parenting today&#33;&#33;

PS. He also has hand grenades.