Eagle-Eye

Though I don't think it ever hit the 60 like EU1, I&A2.x on Tanao had plenty of days with at least 30, and often even 40-50 players on simultaneously, so that can't be the reason. Unless I&A3 made them ask for an Apex refund, of course...

Though I don't think it ever hit the 60 like EU1, I&A2.x on Tanao had plenty of days with at least 30, and often even 40-50 players on simultaneously, so that can't be the reason. Unless I&A3 made them ask for an Apex refund, of course...

According to Gametracker, the average amount of players over a month dropped from 15 to 7, but I have the impression activity seems to be picking up again, with 3 consecutive days (past week) gathering approximately 25 players at the same time. We also have more pilots nowadays, in some cases even recreating the "issue" we had in I&A2 that pilots outnumbered infantry.
 
 
I too have noticed a few bugs with AI. A lot of them seem to be glitching, either:
- standing completely still despite there being a designated waypoint, or under direct fire
- jumping front and back, as if they're lagging immensely
- being stuck inside buildings or rocks
 
The only way I've found to fix this so far is to select, copy, delete and paste them. 
 
 
What do you think is wrong with the artillery mission? Aside from the task showing as completed from the moment it spawns, and the long time for it to actually despawn once the Sochors are destroyed, I don't think I've noticed anything odd about it?

Thanks for the feedback so far.
 
 
 
 
So as I suspected, transport and accessibility are the main problems then? Though I have no say in the matter, I like the idea of paradropping in (more realistic than teleporting poles, which I thought about too as a temporary solution) but wouldn't that require that everyone takes a chute instead of a backpack? If there aren't any pilots to bring in supplies or take you back to base, you'll run out of bullets pretty quickly and you'll have to respawn just to get rearmed. Doesn't seem very fun either...
 
 
 
In the past week, I've made 4 bases and some adjustments to make Tanoa as a whole more lively, which I then suggested to / discussed with @BACONMOP. Initial response was positive imo, so I'm now waiting for news on if / how / when he'll use them in a public release. I can say already that St. George Airport is a no-go, though, because FOB Fin is already there.

I know we have this topic to talk about I&A3 in general, but seeing how EU2 really seems to be struggling nowadays, I think it deserves its own topic to hopefully find out why it has become so deserted. If not, admins/mods are free to join the topics, or remove this one entirely.
 
In order to knows what's going on, as many as possible should write here why they can't, don't want or maybe even refuse to connect to EU2 anymore, and if possible, what and how you would change to make EU2 more crowded again. Doesn't matter if you have already replied in the mentioned topic above. You can repeat or quote what you said there, here, to gather it all in one place.
 
To give you a few examples of what you could comment about:
- Tanoa: Lost interest in the map, is the high amount of objects causing performance issues, ...?
- Server: Ping too high, server load causing performance issues, ...?
- Base: Wrong design or location, does it not have certain things you'd expect there, ...?
- Missions: Too hard AI, not enough difference between different AO's, ...?
- Environment: Too much fog, too often nighttime when you want to/can play, ...?
- Players*: Don't play as you'd like them to enough, annoying / TK'ing too much, ...?
- Spartans / admins: Not doing enough to enhance gameplay, often not or too present, ...?
- ...
 
* Small note about a "special case", in my opinion: Absence of players, while a valid reason in itself, is a chicken-or-egg situation, in my opinion. Someone has to be the first to connect and stay there for a minimum amount of time to allow others to notice someone's on, so if that's your main reason for not logging on, I do hope you change your mind soon. 
 
 
To start off, the problem according to me:
Personally, I think it's in large part because of the base location. The current situation is that the base is in one the corners of the map on a disconnected island, while it used to be almost smack-down the middle of the map, on the main island. As a result, having a pilot has become almost a must to get to any AO after the first 3 or 4. It seems that for some reason people aren't as eager to take the pilot slot anymore (I don't see why, it wasn't uncommon before to see 1 or 2 rookie pilots online in the past. Maybe because we only have a Ghosthawk to fly now?), meaning you're in for a pretty long boat trip + drive (if you actually manage to find a vehicle) instead. Add to that, that AI has become more lethal (especially when enemy artillery is active) and it isn't too uncommon to get the feeling you're spending more time ferrying than fighting. This results in a low fun factor, and if the server is up for a long time, the AO's are further out, which makes the problem even worse.
 
Possible fix:
- I'm working on a few ideas for alternative bases, which I will present to the powers that be once I have something worth showing.
- As Spartan, I'm not a wishing well that will grant your every request, but if I'm online and you need something, ask nicely and I may be able to help you out.
 
 
 
Now, on to you.

Thanks for the feedback so far.
 
 
 
 
So as I suspected, transport and accessibility are the main problems then? Though I have no say in the matter, I like the idea of paradropping in (more realistic than teleporting poles, which I thought about too as a temporary solution) but wouldn't that require that everyone takes a chute instead of a backpack? If there aren't any pilots to bring in supplies or take you back to base, you'll run out of bullets pretty quickly and you'll have to respawn just to get rearmed. Doesn't seem very fun either...
 
 
 
In the past week, I've made 4 bases and some adjustments to make Tanoa as a whole more lively, which I then suggested to / discussed with @BACONMOP. Initial response was positive imo, so I'm now waiting for news on if / how / when he'll use them in a public release. I can say already that St. George Airport is a no-go, though, because FOB Fin is already there.

Thanks for the feedback so far.
 
 
 
 
So as I suspected, transport and accessibility are the main problems then? Though I have no say in the matter, I like the idea of paradropping in (more realistic than teleporting poles, which I thought about too as a temporary solution) but wouldn't that require that everyone takes a chute instead of a backpack? If there aren't any pilots to bring in supplies or take you back to base, you'll run out of bullets pretty quickly and you'll have to respawn just to get rearmed. Doesn't seem very fun either...
 
 
 
In the past week, I've made 4 bases and some adjustments to make Tanoa as a whole more lively, which I then suggested to / discussed with @BACONMOP. Initial response was positive imo, so I'm now waiting for news on if / how / when he'll use them in a public release. I can say already that St. George Airport is a no-go, though, because FOB Fin is already there.

I know we have this topic to talk about I&A3 in general, but seeing how EU2 really seems to be struggling nowadays, I think it deserves its own topic to hopefully find out why it has become so deserted. If not, admins/mods are free to join the topics, or remove this one entirely.
 
In order to knows what's going on, as many as possible should write here why they can't, don't want or maybe even refuse to connect to EU2 anymore, and if possible, what and how you would change to make EU2 more crowded again. Doesn't matter if you have already replied in the mentioned topic above. You can repeat or quote what you said there, here, to gather it all in one place.
 
To give you a few examples of what you could comment about:
- Tanoa: Lost interest in the map, is the high amount of objects causing performance issues, ...?
- Server: Ping too high, server load causing performance issues, ...?
- Base: Wrong design or location, does it not have certain things you'd expect there, ...?
- Missions: Too hard AI, not enough difference between different AO's, ...?
- Environment: Too much fog, too often nighttime when you want to/can play, ...?
- Players*: Don't play as you'd like them to enough, annoying / TK'ing too much, ...?
- Spartans / admins: Not doing enough to enhance gameplay, often not or too present, ...?
- ...
 
* Small note about a "special case", in my opinion: Absence of players, while a valid reason in itself, is a chicken-or-egg situation, in my opinion. Someone has to be the first to connect and stay there for a minimum amount of time to allow others to notice someone's on, so if that's your main reason for not logging on, I do hope you change your mind soon. 
 
 
To start off, the problem according to me:
Personally, I think it's in large part because of the base location. The current situation is that the base is in one the corners of the map on a disconnected island, while it used to be almost smack-down the middle of the map, on the main island. As a result, having a pilot has become almost a must to get to any AO after the first 3 or 4. It seems that for some reason people aren't as eager to take the pilot slot anymore (I don't see why, it wasn't uncommon before to see 1 or 2 rookie pilots online in the past. Maybe because we only have a Ghosthawk to fly now?), meaning you're in for a pretty long boat trip + drive (if you actually manage to find a vehicle) instead. Add to that, that AI has become more lethal (especially when enemy artillery is active) and it isn't too uncommon to get the feeling you're spending more time ferrying than fighting. This results in a low fun factor, and if the server is up for a long time, the AO's are further out, which makes the problem even worse.
 
Possible fix:
- I'm working on a few ideas for alternative bases, which I will present to the powers that be once I have something worth showing.
- As Spartan, I'm not a wishing well that will grant your every request, but if I'm online and you need something, ask nicely and I may be able to help you out.
 
 
 
Now, on to you.

I know we have this topic to talk about I&A3 in general, but seeing how EU2 really seems to be struggling nowadays, I think it deserves its own topic to hopefully find out why it has become so deserted. If not, admins/mods are free to join the topics, or remove this one entirely.
 
In order to knows what's going on, as many as possible should write here why they can't, don't want or maybe even refuse to connect to EU2 anymore, and if possible, what and how you would change to make EU2 more crowded again. Doesn't matter if you have already replied in the mentioned topic above. You can repeat or quote what you said there, here, to gather it all in one place.
 
To give you a few examples of what you could comment about:
- Tanoa: Lost interest in the map, is the high amount of objects causing performance issues, ...?
- Server: Ping too high, server load causing performance issues, ...?
- Base: Wrong design or location, does it not have certain things you'd expect there, ...?
- Missions: Too hard AI, not enough difference between different AO's, ...?
- Environment: Too much fog, too often nighttime when you want to/can play, ...?
- Players*: Don't play as you'd like them to enough, annoying / TK'ing too much, ...?
- Spartans / admins: Not doing enough to enhance gameplay, often not or too present, ...?
- ...
 
* Small note about a "special case", in my opinion: Absence of players, while a valid reason in itself, is a chicken-or-egg situation, in my opinion. Someone has to be the first to connect and stay there for a minimum amount of time to allow others to notice someone's on, so if that's your main reason for not logging on, I do hope you change your mind soon. 
 
 
To start off, the problem according to me:
Personally, I think it's in large part because of the base location. The current situation is that the base is in one the corners of the map on a disconnected island, while it used to be almost smack-down the middle of the map, on the main island. As a result, having a pilot has become almost a must to get to any AO after the first 3 or 4. It seems that for some reason people aren't as eager to take the pilot slot anymore (I don't see why, it wasn't uncommon before to see 1 or 2 rookie pilots online in the past. Maybe because we only have a Ghosthawk to fly now?), meaning you're in for a pretty long boat trip + drive (if you actually manage to find a vehicle) instead. Add to that, that AI has become more lethal (especially when enemy artillery is active) and it isn't too uncommon to get the feeling you're spending more time ferrying than fighting. This results in a low fun factor, and if the server is up for a long time, the AO's are further out, which makes the problem even worse.
 
Possible fix:
- I'm working on a few ideas for alternative bases, which I will present to the powers that be once I have something worth showing.
- As Spartan, I'm not a wishing well that will grant your every request, but if I'm online and you need something, ask nicely and I may be able to help you out.
 
 
 
Now, on to you.

I know we have this topic to talk about I&A3 in general, but seeing how EU2 really seems to be struggling nowadays, I think it deserves its own topic to hopefully find out why it has become so deserted. If not, admins/mods are free to join the topics, or remove this one entirely.
 
In order to knows what's going on, as many as possible should write here why they can't, don't want or maybe even refuse to connect to EU2 anymore, and if possible, what and how you would change to make EU2 more crowded again. Doesn't matter if you have already replied in the mentioned topic above. You can repeat or quote what you said there, here, to gather it all in one place.
 
To give you a few examples of what you could comment about:
- Tanoa: Lost interest in the map, is the high amount of objects causing performance issues, ...?
- Server: Ping too high, server load causing performance issues, ...?
- Base: Wrong design or location, does it not have certain things you'd expect there, ...?
- Missions: Too hard AI, not enough difference between different AO's, ...?
- Environment: Too much fog, too often nighttime when you want to/can play, ...?
- Players*: Don't play as you'd like them to enough, annoying / TK'ing too much, ...?
- Spartans / admins: Not doing enough to enhance gameplay, often not or too present, ...?
- ...
 
* Small note about a "special case", in my opinion: Absence of players, while a valid reason in itself, is a chicken-or-egg situation, in my opinion. Someone has to be the first to connect and stay there for a minimum amount of time to allow others to notice someone's on, so if that's your main reason for not logging on, I do hope you change your mind soon. 
 
 
To start off, the problem according to me:
Personally, I think it's in large part because of the base location. The current situation is that the base is in one the corners of the map on a disconnected island, while it used to be almost smack-down the middle of the map, on the main island. As a result, having a pilot has become almost a must to get to any AO after the first 3 or 4. It seems that for some reason people aren't as eager to take the pilot slot anymore (I don't see why, it wasn't uncommon before to see 1 or 2 rookie pilots online in the past. Maybe because we only have a Ghosthawk to fly now?), meaning you're in for a pretty long boat trip + drive (if you actually manage to find a vehicle) instead. Add to that, that AI has become more lethal (especially when enemy artillery is active) and it isn't too uncommon to get the feeling you're spending more time ferrying than fighting. This results in a low fun factor, and if the server is up for a long time, the AO's are further out, which makes the problem even worse.
 
Possible fix:
- I'm working on a few ideas for alternative bases, which I will present to the powers that be once I have something worth showing.
- As Spartan, I'm not a wishing well that will grant your every request, but if I'm online and you need something, ask nicely and I may be able to help you out.
 
 
 
Now, on to you.

Longer post than I had anticipated incoming...
A few things I noticed in 3.0.0.4 or 3.0.0.5. I'll state where I saw them, though most were spotted on EU2. Some may be present on both servers. No particular order of importance or chronology.
 
- During spawning of a PRIO artillery mission on EU1, Crater informed me that enemy infantry units spawned about 10-15m above the ground, and just fell to their death. Apart from the 2 Sochors, Ammo HEMMT and protective H-barriers, nothing survived spawning in. So far, I haven't seen this on EU2 yet, though I have noticed a few Artillery side missions spawn in with the objective map marker only covering water. (units spawn on the nearest beach, however)
 
 
- I don't know if I&A 3 has a direct impact, but EU2 activity has taken a hit and went down hard. It was never as crowded as EU1, but on a normal weekday evening, you could still have 20 - 30 players enjoying 2.86, while now, on a Friday evening between 2030-2200Z, there were at most 3 people on.
 
- On EU2, "Take Yanukka" is way too close to base, in my opinion. Squads are patrolling on the street alongside the runway, in the forests just south of base and enemy armour (Tigris / Kamysh / Marid) will drive over the runway every few minutes. Even getting your head out of base may be tricky if your timing is a bit off, so I've seen a lot of people just leave base on foot or in a Prowler, die, respawn, leave base, die, respawn, leave base...
As I connected to EU2 a few minutes ago, I noticed that the active AO was still (or again?) at Yanukka. A comment by the only player on there was that he saw a few people join, but leaving soon, probably not liking the odds of this particular AO.
 
- AO activation on EU2 might still be a bit buggy. Last night, for example, AO 1 was completed, and AO 2 spawned in. After a few minutes, however, AO 2 tasks disappeared, and AO 1 was reactivated. Hostile units from both AO's remained active though.
 
- AO's on both servers seem to be filled with a lot more hostile troops now. While this should provide a bigger challenge and longer lasting AO's, it may also result in troops "bunching up" unintentionally. Last night, I've seen a UAV operator drop a single GBU-12 on a crossroad, thereby taking out 2 armoured vehicles, an Ifrit and about 10 infantry units... (won't share AO name to avoid abuse, but staff can request by PM, if they want)
 
- On EU2 (untested on EU1), there is no respawn timer on Greyhawks. With the previous point in mind, the UAV is currently very overpowered, and there's almost no incentive to not crash it into enemy units / radio tower or dodge incoming missiles.
 
- Could be an ArmA bug, but on EU2, I've noticed that a main AO can not be completed, even if all enemy units are taken care off, if a side mission has spawned inside it. The only way to complete main AO is to also complete side mission.
 
- In the event of previous remark, I discovered that the side mission in question (Destroy Ammo Cache, spawned inside Yanukka) was bugged. Nobody could find the ammo cache, so I checked via Zeus interface and discovered it had spawned very deep underground. Had to manually bring it to surface level, but after doing that, there was no option to set charge. Detonating a placed charge didn't do anything either, so I had to destroy and delete it as Zeus to complete the mission.
 
- (Side) Missions on EU2 seem to take very long before they are recognised as complete. For example, after destroying 2 Sochors of the PRIO artillery, it took at least 5 minutes until the mission was validated as successful.
 
- In some AO's, both on EU1 and EU2, Neophrons spawn. In general, I like that change, as they move more than the Orca / Kajman (obviously) yet are a bit less lethal than the Xi'an, but the way they're implemented would benefit from some revision. The biggest issue at this moment is that you can't really do anything about them. If you shoot one down, another will spawn no more than 2 minutes later. As such, people don't seem to bother shooting it down, and just seem to accept the airstrike hitting them, even if there are 3 flying over the AO (experienced on EU1).
 
- With initial AO's close to base, Neophrons tend to leave AO and use base for target practice quite a lot. I've seen it more than once now that a Neophron seems to have forgotten all about the AO and is fully dedicated on destroying the base, until it was shot down or diverted by Zeus.
 
- With I&A 3 being so new, I expect a lot of updates will be released in the upcoming days, weeks, maybe months. This requires a server reset, which in I&A 2 had practically zero impact, but in I&A3, a lot of progress can be lost because of this. Hence, I would suggest that for the time being (until update frequency slows down), the admin checks the active AO before doing a reset, and after restart manually "fast forwards" to a similar point to keep the players motivated and not have them play inside the same 5km around base all the time.
 
 
My two cents,
Eagle-Eye
 

May I be so free to ask what you would consider a "constructive reply" then? If I now reread your opening post, you seem to be expressing your disappointment about the way 1 or more (new) Spartans handle things. The discussion that follows helps (new) Zeus operators see where they went wrong, so they can learn from their mistakes by sharing experiences, tips and tricks, feedback from several people on what they expect from and as a Zeus, and most importantly, a clear-cut list of Do's and Don'ts provided by the staff. To that effect, I see plenty of useful and constructive replies, and I can not see clearly how we are missing the point of the opening post, unless you had a totally different direction for this topic in mind?
 
 
 
This I don't get. I could be (very) wrong, but all the things you say are giving me the impression that you want I&A to be a walk in the park on a sunny day, and in your eyes, the only purpose of Zeus's presence is to pester you by putting a small stone in your shoe again and again, no matter how many times you take it out. The way I understand it, you are open to the concept, albeit hesitantly and if you had any say in it, you would actually prefer to see Zeus removed from public I&A?
 
That being said, the examples of Zeus interaction you provided might indeed be over the top, but in reality, as said before, no sensible opposing force would just let you stroll through an AO they control, or have you decimate it from kilometres away without retaliation, or have their VIP / officer taken prisoner / questioned just like that, or ... As such, wouldn't "various ways of being stopped in your effort" be a normal thing to expect, and thus be an integral and basic part of your plan and mission execution? Obviously, you shouldn't expect a full-on assault force at all ranges, but within 2km from objective, it doesn't seem too far-fetched that you would switch to tactical mode and expect a few patrols, forward observers, checkpoints, ...
 
The unfortunate truth, however, is that ArmA AI is often too stupid or the AO resources too limited to do what would be realistic, which is why all of the above works, so sometimes Zeus has to take their hand to send them on their way of being a worthy opponent. Although, based on the short time I spent on I&A3 today, I feel like Zeus might actually need to tune down AI a bit now.  (not saying I will, just noticed AI is A LOT more lethal nowadays)

May I be so free to ask what you would consider a "constructive reply" then? If I now reread your opening post, you seem to be expressing your disappointment about the way 1 or more (new) Spartans handle things. The discussion that follows helps (new) Zeus operators see where they went wrong, so they can learn from their mistakes by sharing experiences, tips and tricks, feedback from several people on what they expect from and as a Zeus, and most importantly, a clear-cut list of Do's and Don'ts provided by the staff. To that effect, I see plenty of useful and constructive replies, and I can not see clearly how we are missing the point of the opening post, unless you had a totally different direction for this topic in mind?
 
 
 
This I don't get. I could be (very) wrong, but all the things you say are giving me the impression that you want I&A to be a walk in the park on a sunny day, and in your eyes, the only purpose of Zeus's presence is to pester you by putting a small stone in your shoe again and again, no matter how many times you take it out. The way I understand it, you are open to the concept, albeit hesitantly and if you had any say in it, you would actually prefer to see Zeus removed from public I&A?
 
That being said, the examples of Zeus interaction you provided might indeed be over the top, but in reality, as said before, no sensible opposing force would just let you stroll through an AO they control, or have you decimate it from kilometres away without retaliation, or have their VIP / officer taken prisoner / questioned just like that, or ... As such, wouldn't "various ways of being stopped in your effort" be a normal thing to expect, and thus be an integral and basic part of your plan and mission execution? Obviously, you shouldn't expect a full-on assault force at all ranges, but within 2km from objective, it doesn't seem too far-fetched that you would switch to tactical mode and expect a few patrols, forward observers, checkpoints, ...
 
The unfortunate truth, however, is that ArmA AI is often too stupid or the AO resources too limited to do what would be realistic, which is why all of the above works, so sometimes Zeus has to take their hand to send them on their way of being a worthy opponent. Although, based on the short time I spent on I&A3 today, I feel like Zeus might actually need to tune down AI a bit now.  (not saying I will, just noticed AI is A LOT more lethal nowadays)

Apart from an hour of playtime during the event launch, I haven't had the pleasure of starting ArmA the past days, so can't really comment on the new I&A just yet, but am following this topic.
 
I noticed nobody really mentions whether his feedback here is about EU1 or 2, however, so I would advise that everyone adds that bit of information to his posts. This will probably make the dev team's job a bit easier.
 
Separate threads for each server is also an option, maybe even better?

Question:
I can imagine that quite a lot of people will want to try this at event start (maybe even more than the 120 that EU1/2 combined can gather?), so when all try to connect simultaneously when you say 'server is up', I'm pretty sure things could go (very) wrong with or on the server. As such, how will access to the server be regulated? Is there a special picking order, other than the normal AW hierarchy, or will it be first-come first-served?

Valid points, Liru, hence why Zeus should aim to include as many as possible and the must to inform applicants properly. It's also a matter of knowing your player base, of course. I know I said "hardcore mil-sim", but I think we all know and agree we won't find many players like that in EU 1 / 2, definitely not enough to fill an event, and creating an event mainly for EU 3 / 6 players isn't a smart move (or possible, AFAIK) for the new Spartans.

Counter: If you make the zeus ops too difficult, your players won't come back. I've seen it waaaaaaaaaay too many times to a large range of players, both noobs and pros. people come to Zeus ops to be entertained and a thrill, and a challenge second. Trust me... your playerbase is everything when it comes for zeus ops...

You get more leeway as a zeus for a public server because the playerbase is already there for the server's I and A, but again, don't ever, EVER be a reason why people LEAVE the server...that's a no no... (of course I don't have the authority to say that here but in my opinion that's common sense...)

I'd say it depends on the mission...
 
1) When enhancing an AO, either by controlling AI or by using "sub-missions", Zeus should completely fold to players, in order to enhance their experience and/or help them complete the AO.
 
2) When stand-alone missions are created on EU #1 and #2, I think they should ideally meet somewhere in the middle, though leaning more towards the players.
As Zeus, you should be able to estimate what your audience is capable of and create your mission accordingly, while as player, you should be aware that most Zeus-missions require a bit more teamwork and/or finesse than a regular AO...
 
3) During special Zeus events, e.g. on EU4, Zeus should aim to include as many as possible, but should also have the option to make the mission the way he wants it. Difficulty could range from "rookie hour on EU #1" to "hardcore mil-sim", but his event announcement must properly inform what is expected from the players that join up.
 
 
 
As for the reward, aside from a good time (which I hope they have, but is very subjective), it is the only way Zeus can show appreciation for joining his mission and bringing up the extra effort that was (likely) required. On EU #1 and #2, it could also be used to "balance" the former side mission rewards (e.g. if Zeus has been online for a while, and noticed mainly pilots have received rewards from previous side missions, he can give something that better benefits ground troops, or vice versa).
 
In my opinion, Zeus should also apply finesse to his rewards, blend them in the story of his mission or his feel to how the AO progresses.
For example:
- An enemy helicopter over the main AO is a PITA to many players over an extended period of time. When it's finally shot down, Zeus can create a scenario where instead of it being destroyed, it was able to crash-land somewhere, and if players can secure it before the enemy retrieves the pilots and blows up the heli, they can recover it for personal use.
- An attack on an enemy installation, or just disabling a vehicle until units leave instead of destroying it could provide a map or folder with some intel on a current or future AO.
- If players are having a tough time with an AO, Zeus could leave 1 or more damaged or "abandoned" enemy vehicles at random places in the AO, where they may or may not be found.

As background for those who don't know: earlier this week, 4 guys (incl. myself) have been accepted as Spartans, and thus given Zeus powers on the AW servers. This is why you will probably see a bit more Zeus presence in the upcoming weeks.
 
As for my personal background and goals as Spartan, if anyone's interested:
First of all, I should say that before Wednesday, I had zero experience with Zeus in multiplayer. What I DO have, is a lot of time spent in the editor and a vivid imagination. :) As such, expect a few crazy ideas and hick-ups here and there while I discover what I can and cannot do with my new powers. As of 2012, however, I've been responsible for flight ops, training and creating realistic missions for a mil-sim F-16 squadron in BMS, so I should know a thing or two about setting a scenario.
 

My initial aim as Spartan is to discover the functionalities and possibilities by enhancing AI to a more realistic level. What this could mean is that I will put in more defences to protect a VIP or strategic location(s); place units in overwatch or forward observing positions; have OPFOR scout, flank or pincer a position where they would realistically suspect or know BLUFOR units to be located etc. Once I get the hang of things, and find a proper balance, I will probably start creating separate events.
 
While I am Zeus, I will take positive control of AI that does not do what I think a real person would do (opinions will undoubtedly vary on this matter), in which case, I will from time to time actively engage BLUFOR. Though I usually give a warning about my presence when I'm remotely controlling a unit (e.g. popping a smoke grenade, missing the first shots intentionally), BLUFOR units may get hit and/or killed by my fire occasionally. If someone gets killed, the way how and reason why he died will decide my further actions. After a stray hit, I'll apologize, heal / revive you if I can, or teleport you back after you respawn. Land a Ghosthawk in clear line of sight of an Ifrit GMG, however, and remorse won't strike me as much...

Aside from the mission enhancing/creating. I will do what you say a Zeus should do: assist wherever I can, while keeping an eye out for any questionable actions. Have a question or need help? Ask, and I'll give you the answer if I know it. Destroy BLUFOR assets (players and vehicles alike), and I will call you out on it. If it has an impact on the AO's progress (e.g. crashing a UAV or heli into the Radio Tower to destroy it), I will act accordingly. This may include the "Wrath of Zeus", so to speak.
 
 
All that being said, I am aware I will have to find a balance between what I aim to do and intervening too much. I try to be firm, but fair. If you feel that is not the case, please call me out on it (in-game chat, Teamspeak or PM here) so we can discuss and I can learn.  I think, though I can not be certain of course, that this is true for the others as well, and things should settle soon enough.

Finding a good mission balance is #1 PRIO on the to-do list.
 
 
Being fair is a matter of perspective (unfortunately). What is normal to the spider, is chaos for the fly... I remember Luetin also had a lot conflicts about whether or not it was okay to engage a unit. Personally, I'm a sucker for realism, so each time I do something as Zeus, I run through a mental checklist if it would be realistic for a certain unit to behave like that. I try not to have my knowledge as Zeus impact that, and I sincerely hope it doesn't. Like Amentes says, however, if "a player exposes himself in a royally stupid way", I don't think it's unreasonable to fire at him, even if Zeus has to do it himself due to AI limitations.
 
As for the GH, I don't see how taking the driver position and have AI shoot is better, or keeps Zeus's hands clean? It's still Zeus taking control over a situation where AI is too stupid on its own... In fact, the end result would be the same, or worse. Once AI does have his eye on you, he will always shoot to kill, in which case the GH would most definitely be destroyed. If Zeus takes the gunner position, at least he can choose to fire on the unit directly (kill), his projected LZ if he's still in the air (possibly disable or kill), or just close to him (possibly damage).
 
 
 
This, in my opinion, is a bit twofold. Real life equipment nowadays has the ability to engage beyond 1km. For that reason, I don't think you should impose artificial crutches like limited view distance settings on players using them. Fog could theoretically be used in some situations, but in most, it wouldn't be realistic at all.
 
On the other hand, however, I've noticed many people park a Marshall or Slammer at very long ranges, and then send dozens of tracer rounds towards the enemy before hitting anything. On the receiving end of those rounds, AI won't react AT ALL, except maybe walk around a bit with their gun held up, while obviously, in real life, they would flee for cover, locate the source and set up a counter attack.
Same for intercepting a squad with small arms fire. Kill one from 100-200m out and his teammates will become "suspicious". If you just take cover, however, they'll become "safe" again after a few minutes and resume their normal routine. This animated video of Skyrim's stealth attack shows it brilliantly.
 
In my opinion, operating like that is merely taking advantage of the AI limitations, and I feel it's Zeus's job to raise the AI skill level just a bit above a headless chicken (the level of a trained monkey would already be a dream come true for some AI, so let's save that for later).
 
 
Thank you.

Finding a good mission balance is #1 PRIO on the to-do list.
 
 
Being fair is a matter of perspective (unfortunately). What is normal to the spider, is chaos for the fly... I remember Luetin also had a lot conflicts about whether or not it was okay to engage a unit. Personally, I'm a sucker for realism, so each time I do something as Zeus, I run through a mental checklist if it would be realistic for a certain unit to behave like that. I try not to have my knowledge as Zeus impact that, and I sincerely hope it doesn't. Like Amentes says, however, if "a player exposes himself in a royally stupid way", I don't think it's unreasonable to fire at him, even if Zeus has to do it himself due to AI limitations.
 
As for the GH, I don't see how taking the driver position and have AI shoot is better, or keeps Zeus's hands clean? It's still Zeus taking control over a situation where AI is too stupid on its own... In fact, the end result would be the same, or worse. Once AI does have his eye on you, he will always shoot to kill, in which case the GH would most definitely be destroyed. If Zeus takes the gunner position, at least he can choose to fire on the unit directly (kill), his projected LZ if he's still in the air (possibly disable or kill), or just close to him (possibly damage).
 
 
 
This, in my opinion, is a bit twofold. Real life equipment nowadays has the ability to engage beyond 1km. For that reason, I don't think you should impose artificial crutches like limited view distance settings on players using them. Fog could theoretically be used in some situations, but in most, it wouldn't be realistic at all.
 
On the other hand, however, I've noticed many people park a Marshall or Slammer at very long ranges, and then send dozens of tracer rounds towards the enemy before hitting anything. On the receiving end of those rounds, AI won't react AT ALL, except maybe walk around a bit with their gun held up, while obviously, in real life, they would flee for cover, locate the source and set up a counter attack.
Same for intercepting a squad with small arms fire. Kill one from 100-200m out and his teammates will become "suspicious". If you just take cover, however, they'll become "safe" again after a few minutes and resume their normal routine. This animated video of Skyrim's stealth attack shows it brilliantly.
 
In my opinion, operating like that is merely taking advantage of the AI limitations, and I feel it's Zeus's job to raise the AI skill level just a bit above a headless chicken (the level of a trained monkey would already be a dream come true for some AI, so let's save that for later).
 
 
Thank you.

From what I was told, the objective of the Spartans is to create custom tasks and to spice up AOs if deemed appropriate.
 
I'm of the opinion that the use of Zeus remote control can extend to killing players under the right circumstances, such as when a player exposes himself in a royally stupid way, and there's a medic around to get him back up. Used sparingly, it's just another tool in the box in trying to impart some human brains into the opposition.
 
In the same vein, if players take advantage of the AI's "view distance", shooting them with Titan AT and AP from 3500 meters, safe from any retaliation, I'd personally have no qualms about shooting back.
 
Zeus is there to enhance the experience for the players, but also to make the AI a bit smarter, more human.

You Sir,definatly must be kidding me ...
There s a few things to say about your reply imo:
 
 the Spartans are pretty new to MP well,the phrase Quality over Quantity comes to mind here - if you cannot ensure to have all your ZEUS being schooled properly on the "how to" make a proper ZEUS mission/action you maybe shouldnt let em act over hours as ZEUS without being overwatched - also a "After Action Debriefing" might come in usefull.
Certainly i dont think a Spartan is made in 2 weeks,it takes at least a few weeks to prepare them for actions on public servers (imo).
Its like in my job,i dont train my pupils to to be Master of Chimney Sweeping in 2 weeks and let em run alone doing MY buisness - i let them run with me for quite a time,to gain experience before i let em hunt alone for customers. I also keep in short range when they r working on their own,so in any case of "emergency" i can ASAP give assistence if needed.
Basic point is that you need quite some time to get proper schooled ZEUS that are aware of doings and limitations in a MP enviroment.
 
 
 
feel free to engage in a debate with the Spartan in question Do you really think i didnt made any effort to "inform" the ZEUS´s in action to check their actions more properly or to leave their hands out of things no one asked em for?
Im specifically talking side missions,not any ZEUS mission i took part in and got my ass handed to myself by doing so?
I´ve "informed" all 4 ZEUS´s in question directly about my disliking and guess what happend?
Excatly,nothing ...
 
 
 
Don't go around the person and put up a public topic proving your point and how the other person is wrong, that only escalates the situation.
No,No,No
I m taking this shit over the time of propably 6 weeks,this isnt the first time i felt the need to open this discussion - but i held myself back for quite some time,always in the hope this certain "attitude" would change.
Sadly,it hasnt - therefor this topic.
Cant take blame,dont take responsibility.
 
 
 
going behind the person's back to prove your point And what point do i prove here?
That the actings of some Spartans is quite off to their real duty?
That AW does not school their Spartans proper?
Or just that some "new" ZEUS never should been getting acess to the program in the first place?
Go figure ...
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For the moment,thank you all for sharing your opinion in this threat in a constructive way.
 

Right,over the past weeks on my playtime i notice a increase of ZEUS missions (which isnt necessarily a bad thing) but also a rapidly change in ZEUS actions!
Back when this ZEUS thing came to A3 the gods focused on creating custom missions for a certain part of the community,helped out players and enforced server rules (to a limit) as a "right hand of admin".
Nowadays tho,i witness a certain "overconfidence" on the (newer) ZEUS´s.
In example,i got several screens of occasions a ZEUS thougt to "improve" side missions which turn out to either make the mission way longer and stressy than it used to be,up to a point where they complety fuck up any motivation on continueing the begone mission.
 
Background INTEL:
 
 
So,what does this leads to?
 
Firstly,i wanna quote this
 
 
Imo this above mentioned examples do perfectly qualify for this.
ZEUS´s are here to improve gameplay,enhance gameplay and help securing the server (to a extend).
There s is absolutly no need to ZEUS on anybody when said players do not wish to be conflicted with any ZEUS creations,hence even keeping way off ZEUS missions to not get involved.
Improving a mission just because you can is not the wished behaviour for a ZEUS (imo) and i m eagerly waiting for a HQ response to the abov mentioned events.
 
This is not how i want my I+A to turn out,you got "special" ZEUS servers,if you feel the need to play the overconfident ZEUS,fel free to play on EU4 and dont take your god given shit to EU1 if you cannot accept simple borders of creation!
EU1 is a "beginner/starter" server,imo 1-2 ZEUS missions per 24h is doable,but i applaude for cutting down their actions by a lot because its simply put "tiresome" to face "mission beginners and their crazy thinking of how a MP mission should work on  daily basis.
 
 
There sure is more to say,but this is ok to get a discussion started.
Raise your opinions,critic,suggestions and even improvements here - i m expecting a shitload of response by the usual naabs here too,so i ll bite back.
And lets see how HQ thinks about the actions of their created gods!
 
Cause this is certainly NOT my AHOY anymore if this continues!

Out of curiosity: why not? (provided Zeus sticks to the AO area of course)
 
 
 
While I agree with what you say, I think you can see how it's easier to scale a mission for <10 units than it is for 30+ players, as you can impose hardware restrictions and set up a few basic guidelines to better suit your operation? I've built a few Zeus missions from scratch now, and like Chuck says, the hardest decisions I had to make were: do I have enough or too many units? Should I add more armour, maybe AA, or actually take some away?
It doesn't help that it's a public server .. If there are 20 players on the server now, I check the mission and it looks perfect to me, that may all change when a few minutes later, a few guys leave and the mission is suddenly too hard. Likewise, if more people join or someone rolls into the AO with a tank, it's far too easy. Personally, I'm against just spawning or deleting units to accommodate the current number of players, because I would not be able to do anything else if that were the case.
 
 
There is one rule I like to discuss a bit more, as it is the most controversial one... Killing players as Zeus: Do or don't? (maybe worthy of its own topic, if there isn't one already?)
 
In my opinion, as said before, I don't see the harm in it IF done fairly... The way I see it, first shots should always be harmless (smoke, or missing shots very wide). It's main purpose is really to make the player aware he was spotted, and in case of direct fire maybe to highlight the Zeus position, to give the player a fighting chance. After the warning, wide shots should begin closing in. If the player still doesn't run away or look for (sensible) cover, I see no harm in aiming to injure / kill. Most likely, regardless of age or skill level, next time that player takes a shot, he'll duck...
 
There are exceptions to the above, however. If players make stupid decisions, Zeus should be allowed to punish them, because that's just how combat works... Even in real air combat training, the "aggressors" are often meant to be nothing more than an opposing force (note: not threat) to be "shot down", but they can and will abuse every single mistake a rookie pilot makes. If that gets the rookie pilot "killed", he can use the debriefing and experience to avoid making the same mistake the next time, which may save his life some day.
Coming back on the example I used above, which did really happen just the other day.. A Ghosthawk pilot needs to pick up a few units and lands his helicopter on the beach, completely oblivious to the Ifrit GMG that is standing just 100m further, even though it was still firing at the units requesting pick up. If, for whatever reason, the AI is too stupid to notice or do anything about the big black metal bird coming down into his line of sight (which was the case), why wouldn't Zeus be allowed to step in and do it himself?