[Arma 4 Wishlist?]

An advanced flight model for the planes would be fantastic

 

Also, I would really like an overhaul in the medical system to the point where it's at an ACE level, or even higher. But where it isn't so time-consuming either. 

 

Also, AI could always use some improvements; More realistic behaviors such as investigating gunfire would be nice. 

 

Also, I feel like the mission making could do with some tweaking. Triggers and modules are still quite a hassle even with the new editor. Though I guess this could all be implemented in core Arma 3.

[Zhenylas]

This is usually a instant Permanent ban without warning, racism is not tolerated at all in this community, however i gave you a 1 month ban because of the fact that you did attempt to "Censor" the word. But still the fact is that everyone knew what word it was. 

 

 

The decision on what happens next i leave to PERO, i have given him the exact message that you posted in sidechat. 

That's a fair resolution I must respect. To be honest, sometimes I forget certain slurs aren't as tolerated outside my local community. Haha, I guess it's what I get for letting my mouth (or fingers in this case) get ahead of me. Well, see you in a month I guess. Again, sincere apology as I didn't mean for a personal affront. Cheers.

[Zhenylas]

Ingame Name*: Zhenylas

 

Why do you think you were banned?: The server says I was banned for Racism, although I don't recall saying anything that would be considered racist. However, I was on EU2 admittedly doing some friendly bantering which might have been mistaken for hate speech.

 

Why (in your personal opinion) should your ban be lifted?*: My main argument for being repealed is I was not given a clear warning for my actions. Although there's a chance I was given a warning over the chat and I didn't see it, if I were to have been given a kick or thunder bolt, I would have given a sincere apology and probably shut my mouth for the rest of the night. I consider a permanent ban to be very extreme relative to my actions. I had no intention of actually putting down anyone. If I did, I deeply apologize. I have the highest admiration for the Ahoyworld Staff and community, and would not want to be severed from that because of a misunderstanding.

 

Which administrator banned you (ArmA 3 only)?: John McClane

 

When were you banned?*: 3/27/2016, roughly 2:00AM GMT

[Luetin's PVP ZEUS Friday 29 [23:00 GMT - 18:00 EST]]

I've been forward to another Zeus PvP with you Luetin. Count me in!

[Zeus PvP w/Luetin: What did you think? (Feedback)]

Mission 1:

For this mission i'm glad we didn't get any statics, we already were heaviliy fortified in terms of entry points and cover. However our team did push out quite far out the town, which pinned the NATO forces for a long time of the mission. Distance wise I don't think there were any unfair advantages. Both were decently close. Overall quite balanced and a great mission to play.

Possible improvements for this mission :

• If further than ... KM from attackers base, use of FOB (eg. sleeping bag + transport vehicles)
• Sleeping bags for defenders to strong
• Limited area of Operation for defenders

 

Thanks for the reply, it was nice to read. I agree with what you said on this. Defending missions should be closer to the Attacker's base, unless is supposed to be some sort of siege. The idea of an FOB where players can rearm and respawn is also a good idea. A limited AO size for defenders is something I haven't thought of. I would support that as long as the AO gave some extra room for scouts and such.

 

Possible improvements for this mission :

• one or two ATV's to give the teams some more options in term of chase / defending the objective

 

More light-weight vehicles sounds like a good idea.

 

Tiebreaker:

Last team standing, sounds promising but turned out to be a campfest (myself included). It's understandable, both teams wanting to win this and thus staying back a bit. Marking the playable area is a great idea, which might be used in Mission 1 + 3 for defenders aswell. Making the zone smaller was inevitable and a good choice to keep the action going.

Possible improvements for this mission :

 

• give people an objective to prevent prolonged camping periods.

For example: Place down a Box or vehicle on each side 1 per team, in this box you put a side specific item (oficers baret etc.). This will act as a Flag. First team to bring the enemy specific item to his side wins.

 

I thought the same thing during the TDM. I was surprised that Luetin didn't have to force the players to move. A objective sounds like a good idea to reduce the camping. I thought perhaps allowing respawns in the TDM zone would also make it more fun, but of course throwing out any sort of tatics and realism with it. CTF in a small zone with 20 players does sound like fun.

 

----

 

This was one of the most fun experiences i have had in arma! i was the pilot on the csat team and it was super fun being on the csat team beacuse the comunication in the team was great. everybody fixed fireteams and only the group leader would call in CAS/heli pickups. but i noticed at the same time that the team were just a bunch of random people that had joined the event, especialy on the last mission i participated in (could't sadly be there for the whole event. it got waaay to late) which was the third mission. the problem was that the mission was really far away from the base so people didn't really want to drive and our the got their asses kicked by the mortar, so i wanted to get in as a CAS but i allways got pressure from the team to RTB and do pickups. so i had a hard time as a single pilot to get a balance between CAS and pickups. buy i liked  the missions overall. it had it's flawes but it was a test run so it was expected

 

You did a great job as a pilot for CSAT. I really enjoyed watching your helicopter battle on the stream recording. I understand the issue with the pressure from being the only pilot, it probably would've been better with more pilots or a close FOB. Overall I agree, the PvP was one of my most fun experiences too, and it went really well for an experimental run.

 

 

---

 

Some ideas I thought of for future PvP missions is to sort of recreate some of Luetin's best Zeus missions for PvP, such as the Fortress assault or the CSAT campaign thing. Also, incorportation of AAF would be cool to have as well.

 

Thanks,

Zhenylas

[Zeus PvP w/Luetin: What did you think? (Feedback)]

It's very nice to read all the responses and see what others had to say about their experience and what they thought of the Zeus night. It seems everyone had a lot of fun, and we're all looking forward to the next one.

 

Overall the event went really well for a test run, and hopefully, a few kinks can be worked out for even more enjoyment next time. There are a couple other things I would like to see in the next one:

 

• Command: It'd be cool if each side a sort of commander, just to make sure all the teams are well informed of any important intel, and that communication and coordination are intact throughout the event. It would also be better if this role was assigned.
• FOB: For missions that are a longer ways away, a commander should be able to set a FOB point, where players can respawn and rearm.

 

All in all, I look forward to the next; and as always, great job Luetin

Also, thanks for the staff for doing a great job managing the event.

[Zeus PvP w/Luetin: What did you think? (Feedback)]

Hey guys! Luetin's stream ended a couple hours ago, but I thought I'd put the discussion up anyways. Tonight was a lot of fun for me, and went fairly well for a first time doing PvP. I thought I would tell you guys some of my experiences during it. I must apologize beforehand if my typing seems fairly low-level, as it is not one of my strong suits.

 

Joining: After managing to seize a slot on CSAT, it was a nice welcome to see the different teams organizing and having a sense of coordination, as opposed to regular Zeus missions on EU2. The limited gear options was also a plus, because it made the squads more role-dependent, and everyone understanding the importance of their designated role. Of course, you can easily find this on EU3, but that's expected. 

 

Another thing I found myself disliking but somehow enjoying was the forced first person. I'm in the bad habit of using third-person a lot, but having it forced sort of introduced me to some parts of ArmA I haven't experienced really. Being in a vehicle and not knowing on the outside was pretty exciting, and so was tactically checking your corners because you didn't have third-person view to save you from the risk. This made driving armored vehicles a pain, but luckily I didn't have to experience that much. 

 

Mission 1: NATO Attack/CSAT Defend

 

I enjoyed this mission a lot. I found the staging and planning done by my team quite impressive. We had possession over a Kamysh, and we discussed many possible locations and the benefits of putting it there. Eventually, we settled on hiding it behind a ridge. This plan went south after being flanked from the East by large numbers of NATO. Fortunately, I managed to gun a few down before the Kamysh was blown by a PCML missile. This led to an intense firefight between my team and several NATO soldiers. This went on for a while until my computer crashed, ending my experience in the first mission. Overall, the mission was great.

 

Mission 2: Experimental weapon

I had managed to rejoin the CSAT team in time for this mission, although I was part of another team (led by RoyalSertr). Although my team lead the CSAT victory, I myself found myself in a tower with a teammate sniping scattered NATO soldiers. After CSAT gained possession of the truck, I regrouped with the rest of team and escorted the Objective Vehicle back to base, only encountering very small resistance. Overall, the mission was great.

 

Mission 3: CSAT Attack/NATO Defend

 

This mission is where things started to go south for my team and the rest of CSAT. A Helicopter transported the entirety of CSAT forces and was dropped off in different locations, all far from the objective. Due to lack of communication, my team was split off. While traveling large distances in an attempt to regroup, my area was heavily shelled by mortar fire. I had managed to take down an enemy spotter, which lead to me being shelled and shot in return. Returning to the AO was an issue. It was a length distance away, and my team leader insisted we waited for Heli. This took quite some time, as I later found out our friendly heli was grounded, and my team and many others waited quite some time for a ride. After a helicopter was finally available, space was limited and our team was split once again. We finally managed to get to the AO with 5 minutes left on the clock just to be mowed down by a static HMG at an extreme range. 

 

I did not enjoy this mission as much for obvious reasons, and would like to point out some of the unfair differences as opposed to the first mission.

• No respawn tents/sleeping bags. The first mission had these available, allowing for a more sustained flow of troops.
• Long distance. The AO was about 12km away from the CSAT base, and in order to get there by land, a detour around the ocean was required, even increasing the distance more. A trip in a faster vehicle would've taken roughly 10-15 minutes, and our team leader wouldn't stand for that. This wouldn't have been so bad if our side wasn't only limited to one pilot.
• Static weapons. In the first mission, CSAT did not have this available. Static weapons in the hands of real players fighting against non-aimbot AI is extremely powerful, and NATO had an abundance of these weapons. Also, the numerous mortars were also very deadly to CSAT forces.
• Terrain advantage. The steep mountains and thick trees gave NATO a perfect defensive position, making it hard to be spotted but easy to spot. This made using heavier vehicles harder, especially with the forced first-person.

However, I still had fun during the mission, and it was overall okay.

 

Mission 4: Experimental weapon

 

I found this mission experience similar to that of the second mission, but there were a few things I disliked about it. For the most part, he fact that you only had to get in the vehicle and not successfully get it back to base was very disappointing. This basically removed the dynamics of the mission and turned it more into a race. I didn't even reach the compound before the mission was over and didn't see a single enemy. This overall mission for me was fair.

 

Mission 5: Team deathmatch

 

This mission was a sort of comedy hour for my side as well had the brilliant idea of taking off our uniforms and going in our undergarments. After the mission started, our team took defensive positions in a large house to the west side of the town. We spent most of our time suppressive enemies and launching grenades. This was short went on for quite some time until we were flanked and poor communication lead to our team being massacred. Overall, it was still enjoyable for myself, and I consider the mission went great.

 

Overall:

 

These Zeus missions were very enjoyable, even more so than some of the recent ones I've participated in. I haven't played ArmA for long, and this was the first time I have ever done PvP. I got to experience some of the things about ArmA I haven't done before. Luetin did a wonderful job with the missions, and I anxiously wait for the next one. There were a few things I recommend go into the next PvP event.

• More slots per team. A 25v25 would be more exciting, but 20v20 is good still.
• More roles, such as Explosive Specialist or Medic would be cool to add.
• Assigned roles ahead of time, for certain slots such as Team Leader and Pilot.
• Different mission types only available for PvP would also be cool to have.

 

So tell me guys, how did the event go for you? And what did you think of it? I would love to hear the NATO perspective. 

 

Thanks!