I&A 4 Beta Test Feedback

[Stanhope]

The civies seem to not like the mission

 

[Minipily]

58 minutes ago, Stanhope said:

The civies seem to not like the mission

 

 

 

[Ryko]

They know what happens if they stay in the AO

[Mad Eye Moody]

First time back in AW for a while yesterday, spent 4 hours as Vortex and thoroughly enjoyed it especially when Gas Mark came on as Crossroads. I would like to swap out an armed MH-9 for a UH -80 to balance the options for stealth insertions and evac but that’s being picky. Or even go retro and put in an HH-6? I thought it worked well, good work.  

[Stanhope]

The capture UAV side mission is missing something:

 

 

Additionally its spawn location is less then ideal:

 

And finally the wreck of that slammer between the black and red lines is a player who got shot by an enemy neophron, without any warning of any kind, after driving that entire distance and having his final destination basically in sight.  No warning, no means of self-defence:

[Art3misZA]

I am going to be frank and hope that you see my honesty as constructive and not complaining for the sake of it.

 

If you keep I&A 4 in it’s current iteration, it will change the climate of EU1. I started playing Arma on EU1 and stayed because I enjoyed the relative freedom it gave me to pick and learn a role and also squad up with whomever I wanted to and have my friends in roles that they wanted to play as well. I enjoyed being able to earn reward vehicles and drove them without needing to change slots to do so. 
 

It was also simple and fairly idiot-proof. A great place where new players can learn and also feel welcome in the AW community. 
 

I feel that while I&A4 does have positives to it, I just am not motivated to play it. I feel restricted and overwhelmed . I do not like the map and that I cannot see all the objective markers at all times. i don’t want to grind a few hours just to get the loadout I enjoy playing with. It is changing what was a casual server into something less so. You have AWE to offer a more serious experience for those wanting it.
 

I also wonder if you, Ryko, have spent much time on I&A3 and seen what makes it so special and also the sort of players who regularly play there and how they approach the game. I wonder if the changes are even being made with the current player base in mind or if these are taken simply from the perspective of experienced and more serious players.

 

So I ask that you conduct a little experiment while the beta is up. See how long your regular players are on server for compared to I&A3. Look at guys like TheScar and Pickle who easily log some of the most hours on EU1. Players that are the backbone of your current community.

 

I personally average seven hours a day playing Arma and had the best weekend this past weekend with a lot of fun and bullshittery. I have made friends and feel part of a great community. I fear these changes will take a lot of that away and it makes me incredibly sad.

 

I am sorry if this comes across in any way badly as that’s not my intention. I hope you will see this as coming from a passionate player who is invested in not just the game but the community too.
 

 

 

 

[Gustis40g]

On 11/5/2020 at 8:34 PM, Ryko said:

Are you talking about an "armor commander" in your group doing this?  I mean, I can't possibly regulate how players choose to play their roles.  I think the only thing I can suggest here is that you offer some kind of suggestion for how to alleviate this situation.

In my opinion the armor crews aren't really fit for I&A, alot of newbies play it and it's a casual game mode, it's not AWE. For me, I&A is a game mode you can jump on and play solo or with a group depending what you want, that includes playing armor solo. In I&A 3 I can do a sides until i get an MBT and enjoy solo crewing it. In I&A 4 if I want to play armor, I'm forced to join an armor crew and people that I might not know/ like, or simply never play armor, because I prefer and many others do prefer to play solo. Not forced into a group. If I wanted to play with crew/ in a group, I'd join a group in I&A, or play AWE. If the reason for armor crews is to limit the amount of armor pieces, just limit the amount of tanks allowed at the same time. Also, I believe this would make APCs be played more. Since choosing a specific role for playing armor and then choosing the Marshall isn't very common.

 

On 11/5/2020 at 8:34 PM, Ryko said:

Right now, any group leader can lock their vehicle, as long as it's a land vehicle; air vehicles can't be locked as you could create problems transporting players, and attack vehicles don't have enough seats to justify locking.

Everyone in the group can buy vehicles, so why can't everyone in the group lock them? The owner of the vehicle should be able to lock it, not the SL. The Orca, Hellcat, Kajman and Xi'an all have transport seats, and it could be annoying when you land at base and someone rushes towards the chopper, gets in and starts asking for transport.

 

That is, of course, what I prefer and my opinion is.

[Art3misZA]

25 minutes ago, Gustis40g said:

In my opinion the armor crews aren't really fit for I&A, alot of newbies play it and it's a casual game mode, it's not AWE. For me, I&A is a game mode you can jump on and play solo or with a group depending what you want, that includes playing armor solo. In I&A 3 I can do a sides until i get an MBT and enjoy solo crewing it. In I&A 4 if I want to play armor, I'm forced to join an armor crew and people that I might not know/ like, or simply never play armor, because I prefer and many others do prefer to play solo. Not forced into a group. If I wanted to play with crew/ in a group, I'd join a group in I&A, or play AWE. If the reason for armor crews is to limit the amount of armor pieces, just limit the amount of tanks allowed at the same time. Also, I believe this would make APCs be played more. Since choosing a specific role for playing armor and then choosing the Marshall isn't very common.

 

Everyone in the group can buy vehicles, so why can't everyone in the group lock them? The owner of the vehicle should be able to lock it, not the SL. The Orca, Hellcat, Kajman and Xi'an all have transport seats, and it could be annoying when you land at base and someone rushes towards the chopper, gets in and starts asking for transport.

 

That is, of course, what I prefer and my opinion is.

If I join the armor crew in I&A4 and use my points to get, say, a Varsuk, I am then forced to share that vehicle with whomever else is in my crew because I cannot lock it for just me nor can I leave the squad and still be able to use it. I don’t want other random people in a vehicle I have earned as I simply do not trust just anyone to be competent enough to keep the thing alive. Others are also in the habit of sitting in the commander seat and stealing kills. My killcount is mine and I don’t want someone just sitting there and taking the points. Or someone driving the thing right into ao and getting us killed.

 

I like being solo in my armor or tank. I don’t want to be forced into a slot and squad to do this because I cannot just use a reward I buy without doing so.

[Cammobi]

15 hours ago, Art3misZA said:

I also wonder if you, Ryko, have spent much time on I&A3 and seen what makes it so special and also the sort of players who regularly play there and how they approach the game. I wonder if the changes are even being made with the current player base in mind or if these are taken simply from the perspective of experienced and more serious players.

whilst I had maybe <1hour on beta so far (will try more to get a proper opinion, promise), my instant reaction was it seemed very much steered more towards the ACE/advanced level of Arma, less flexibility on roles or what you squad up with. I can't speak for everyone in EU1 playerbase but I've always seen it as "casual sim", people want to have squads and kinda be organised but not to the point you can be in the more realistic/military sim type servers, which is why I play on ahoy over the other more sim like/advanced servers. I guess the point I'm trying to make is, is I&A4 an upgrade for I&A3, or a server in its own right in a same way Ahoy has other servers with more realism built in?

 

Disclaimer: not trying to offend, just trying to provide some first impressions feedback

[Pukamafin]

I got an idea about kicking pilots that crash too much. 

 

Since it's quite easy to die/crash couple of times while flying transport, the two airframe limit seems a bit tight at times.  Perhaps it's possible to separate pilots that need more practice from those that had a small streak of bad luck.

 

Here's what I propose: when pilot loses the airframe, his reward points are fined. If there's not enough points for the fine, then he'd need to leave the slot.

 

I see that there might be an issue with players who might have accumulated a lot of points before getting into pilot seat. But perhaps there's a way to make this work anyway.

[Ryko]

Thank you all for providing your feedback.  I appreciate that you took the time and effort.

 

18 hours ago, Art3misZA said:

If you keep I&A 4 in it’s current iteration, it will change the climate of EU1. I started playing Arma on EU1 and stayed because I enjoyed the relative freedom it gave me to pick and learn a role and also squad up with whomever I wanted to and have my friends in roles that they wanted to play as well. I enjoyed being able to earn reward vehicles and drove them without needing to change slots to do so. 
 

It was also simple and fairly idiot-proof. A great place where new players can learn and also feel welcome in the AW community. 

 

This is something we're consistently talking about: what are the desires of the average Ahoyworld Arma player, and is the mission a fun place for them to spend their time.

 

That said, trying to define the "average" player is an exercise in futility.  Generally, you have players that gravitate to the "milsim" style, where things are regimented and meticulous with a chain of command; on the other side, you have extremely casual players who want the exact opposite of this.  Trying to find a balance is particularly difficult.

 

I contend that you have to have some practical limits to what players can and cannot do for a very important reason; mission balance.  If you have a squad full of players armed with Titan launchers, machine guns and classed as medics and engineers, they can pretty much wipe out an entire AO from a hillside by themselves, and other players will complain that they just spend 30 minutes getting to the AO only to have it finish.  Over and over again.

 

Further, if a player can take any vehicle, then you run into situations where seven tanks are dismantling the AO.  And again, other players complain that these players are ruining the game.

 

It certainly isn't my intention to prevent players from playing with their friends, and I will gladly concede that the IA4 dynamic groups system, especially concerning custom groups, isn't currently friendly when it comes to making that happen.  It's one of the last things that needs to be refined and improved before launch - but it's also one of the things that has the most bugs, and those need to be fixed first.

 

18 hours ago, Art3misZA said:

I do not like the map and that I cannot see all the objective markers at all times.

This is a server difficulty setting that we can look at changing; right now, the setting is that the markers appear when the player's GUI is refreshed (for example, going to the map and then exiting it and then they fade over some seconds.  We could set it so that the task markers are constantly on the screen, but you will potentially have up to 7 task markers on the screen (primary and sub objectives - all clustered together, secondary mission, personal waypoint).

 

Feedback from previous beta tests is that this is overwhelming and that the fade model is preferred.  If a majority of players tell me that this is no longer the case, I'm certainly open to changing it.  The workaround for you would be to double-tap J, which will bring up tasks and send them away again, which will show your task markers in the game world.

 

Quote

(Discussion re armor crews, soloing, playing with other players in armor group you don't know)

 

You're all completely correct in what you've mentioned.  The challenge is to make a system which balances the usefulness of the asset and makes it fair for all players to have access to.

 

I think we can (as a baseline) agree that there is a distinction between pilots and non-pilots.  IA4 tries to make a further distinction by segregating heavy armor out from all other vehicles, purely because the vehicles have the capacity to completely wreck an AO, similarly to how a CAS airframe can do.

 

As another baseline I've put a hard limit on four heavy armored vehicles (ie., Marshall, Slammer) that can be used by the two dedicated armor groups.  If you don't think 4 of these vehicles is enough to tackle an AO then that's another conversation.  Early testing didn't have these limits and we say cases of 6+ heavy vics going into an AO and wiping it clean within 2-3 minutes.  So if we can start by agreeing that this isn't desirable behaviour, then we have to work backwards from that and decide how to regulate those vehicles.

 

What you're asking me to do in looking for a solo-vehicle scenario is create a situation where you can have groups you can exclude players from.  For jets and helis this isn't a problem because they are functionally solo vehicles.  But for tanks, which can (and probably should) accommodate up to 3 players, it seems you want a system where you can have a small group of players who are your friends, but also lock out players who are not your friends.  This is tricky because if you by definition want a casual play system, you can't then start creating barriers for these same casual players from playing.

 

This is made further complicated by situations where a player solo's a Slammer, gets it killed within 5 minutes, and is then chastised by the server for taking it out alone.

 

I welcome suggestions on what the perfect solution is on this front, because I hope you can see there are a number of issues at play here, and I haven't yet found a balanced solution which accommodates them all (at least, in the Gambler/Hitman context).  I could allow for something like the Armor Commander can lock the squad and prevent other players from joining (or allow the AC to invite other players specifically) but then we run into other issues as I've enumerated.

 

18 hours ago, Art3misZA said:

i don’t want to grind a few hours just to get the loadout I enjoy playing with

I've also heard it from players that they enjoy having goals to accumulate points towards, but I don't think there's a clear majority on this issue.  I could easily be persuaded that the default setting for EU1 is that all weapons and gear are essentially pre-purchased and available in the arsenal, but I think that touches on another discussion point - whether people are chafing at role-related restrictions ("why can't I have a machine gun as a medic").

 

3 hours ago, Cammobi said:

I&A4 an upgrade for I&A3, or a server in its own right in a same way Ahoy has other servers with more realism built in?

 

IA4 is trying to be a lot of different things, and I think what we're trying to aim for is what the "general/casual" settings will be - this is an extremely important discussion and I welcome it

 

59 minutes ago, Pukamafin said:

I got an idea about kicking pilots that crash too much. 

 

It's an interesting idea Pukamafin, but as you say there's going to be an issue if, say, we make the "Fine" 500 points and your infantry player comes into the role with 4,500 points.  If they accumulate points while flying, it could be over a dozen choppers have to get destroyed before they're forced to leave the role, and in an IA3 environment one of the things the mods love doing is having to tell inexperienced/bad pilots to leave the role.  This system automates that process.  I recognize that it is at times vastly unfair (arma physics, Tigris spawned underneath you, etc) but remember that the system is at its heart designed to accommodate the fact that the pilot role is one of the most popular, and we're trying to let every player have a fair shot at the role.  Plus, it's only a 30 minute timeout.

[LH5]

Small bug report:

- Vehicle respawn still bugged. (vics spawning in each other) I noticed it was working fine last night before the second FOB was taken so my guess is it has something to do with that.

[Ryko]

Tomorrow morning when the server restarts the beta test will be using version 087:

 

Spoiler

087 change log
---
FIXES
-----
1. CAS aircraft spawned was not flying properly and crashing. fixed.
2. Blackfoot (VIPER) was overzealous in its anti-solo protection. fixed.
3. Potential fix for tracking pilot movement and counter idle detection.
4. Killed infantry no longer shows up with black markers; destroyed vehicles will show up as black markers.
5. Gave vehicle spawning / respawning some love, instances of bad spawns
6. Setting a default respawn location was causing problems if USS Freedom was selected, fixed
7. Quick fix on spotting, right now you have to be very specific on what you are targeting, fixes situations which were not working
8. User map markers not changing to LZ/disappearing over time - fixed

 

TWEAKS
------
1. Added TWS and Surfer cap to reward pool because I'm not a monster.
2. Added number of warnings in `shooting too much in base` condition.
3. Adjusted how zeus pings operate (this will need some testing).
4. Enemy vehicles will now spawn thermally hot.
5. Adjusted security settings to fix a variety of issues (cfgDisabledCommands)
6. Wipeout and Neophron default loadouts now includes 2x AGM

 

NEW
---
1. Added ability to load a saved loadout at arsenal via addaction.

 

[Art3misZA]

5 hours ago, Ryko said:

I contend that you have to have some practical limits to what players can and cannot do for a very important reason; mission balance.  If you have a squad full of players armed with Titan launchers, machine guns and classed as medics and engineers, they can pretty much wipe out an entire AO from a hillside by themselves, and other players will complain that they just spend 30 minutes getting to the AO only to have it finish.  Over and over again.

 

Well this scenario basically happened tonight with getting to a recently spawned side mission only to have a single player clear it so this point is moot. Players will find ways to get kills and points, especially as in the current iteration anyone can use anything they collect in the field regardless of role.

 

Another point. I wanted to join another squad as a sniper. But in order for me to do this, well I can't. Whereas in I&A3, I could just take the sniper slot of which there are 2 anyway, not upsetting the server balance, and therefore then create a new squad with others in their roles. There is no imbalance as these roles remain static and the server still only has so many of one kind.

 

So, if I want to play sniper for example, I am limited to being in a squad of two. 

 

Also, squads and squad creation are bugged presently. 

 

I want the fun clothing options in the arsenal, such as safety vests and paramedic outfit. It adds an extra layer of fun. I also didn't pay for DLC's to have limited things offered to me. 

 

I don't know. At this point, I will play because there is no option but I am not enjoying it and will welcome a server running I&A3 concurrently should this go live.

 

I will go back to my previous statement and add another thing. Spend time on I&A3 at peak hours. See what players do. What they enjoy. Join in and actually play with us and have fun. The good elements of I&A3 that players love should be preserved and not removed because ultimately you will have no players left and they will seek another server to play on that fills their need for casual fun. To be honest, the general mood in the community since beta has gone up has not been a positive one and you should heed this. 

 

And this is the last I will say on this at all. 

[RiverWolf]

Still getting the thing with the AI, They're still really bad when it comes to 1 shot, I haven't really noticed any change from the last version since I mentioned it.

[Jonas]

Maybe have the "Drag" option not only on the shoulder side of players but on their legs or feet aswell. Would help if someone gets downed in a doorway with his head next to enemies so you don't have to walk infront of them in order to get your comrade out of the way.

[JJ Cakes]

I took the grenadier role in a custom squad and the "Gear" part of the "U" menu was empty.  I don't know if that's a general bug, or because of the custom squad or shiz is really locked down.  If I selected "Show Restricted Gear" I saw it all.

 

FA Squad XML isn't working.

 

My opinion: The IR laser pointer should be in the arsenal and not a reward.  It's the closest thing we have to prevent blue-on-blue during night missions, I would even say it should be equipped by default.

 

 

[GhostDragon]

13 hours ago, JJ Cakes said:

FA Squad XML isn't working.

That is separate, is it working now?

 

[JJ Cakes]

I'll let you know next time I'm on EU1.

[JJ Cakes]

FA squad XML wasn't working on I&A3 last night and I made sure to check before I joined that I was using the ghoster XML URL.

[Admiralbumfluff]

I'm with pickle on the whole over spawning of enemy air presence. This is frankly slightly much. Last time I was on I sat in one place on a hill roughly 2km out of the AO and scored 10+ enemy CAS kills with a t-100 purely because they kept spawning already lined up on me and ready to drop Scalpels or whatever they had on me.

 

Also with the vehicle slot restrictions. Personally I don't think that "vehicle crew" slots are a good idea on a public server with many different and new people that often annoy the established playerbase by attempting to gain command of the reward vics or large vehicles such as armoured vehicles, CAS and CAP either as soon as they are available or by effectively allowing/promoting hijacking by making squads that legitimise a claim of "I need to be in that vehicle you have and ruin your enjoyment of the server by being loud/incompetent/an idiot/waste the asset by either shooting everything and anything or by plowing it directly into a new AO/use this thing in a way it is not intended to be used and get it destroyed.

 

Just my 2p on that front really.

 

I had to work out how to get around a few issues such as the persistence causing server issues such as spawning completed AO's on restart but it is doable with an admin on when server restarts, but this does kill the playerbase during this time or constant restarts and resets.

 

Good thing is that the framerate issue seems to have disappeared or at least become less noticeable so thumbs up to that. Love the new AI scripting to make them super snarky and better than previously so thumbs up there.

 

Great to have new FOB's and love the increased team play aspect of the squad system (aside from previously discussed Vic issues) maybe we should provide less assets at the start and slowly let it build towards the end ? Purely because with CAS, TONKS and loads of transportation we steamroll AO's super easily when there are fewer players on, dunno just a thought.

 

Overall this is (In my opinion) an absolutely MASSIVE improvement over the first few times I have played through I&A4 BETA tests. So hats off to you @Ryko
 anyone else involved in making this !

 

P.s. Sorry I'm such a good moaner and I'm sure you have already heard these complaints or suggestions but I thought I should list my only gripes so that you can refer back to them rather than hear me moan over TS or discord.

 

Keep up the great work !

[Admiralbumfluff]

I realise I opened up the armour debate again and would like to maybe out forward a solution for people to (rightly) tear into and try to improve upon as a community effort.

 

So please ignore who I am and what you think about me but tear into this as much as possible to try to find a solution to it.

 

Armour squads.

 

I&A 4 demands squads as it is centered around this. And around encouraging team play.

 

There may be many ways around this but my thought is this.

 

Too much armour tears everything appart. Even one man in one tank at the right range and vantage point with good aim and full ammo will clear out an AO. We have seen this multiple times.

 

People want freedom and to pilot what is rightfully theirs.

 

Only spawn powerful assets such as heavy armour with large caliber (or rapid fire) main cannons after a points threshold or an AO threshold is met first. So either buy them or wait until they are allowed to spawn.

 

Then scrap the armour squads. Make it so anyone can pilot ground vics. Enable more custom squads so that people can hop in said earned Vic with their friends that they have invited into their squads or play alone in. Make the custom squad lockable so that if you kick someone out the squad they cannot get into your squads vics. This solves the player problem.

 

Next is limit the amount of heavy vics on server at any time, include any heavy asset that can wreck AO's or solo stuff to maintain balance.

 

This is just my begining thoughts and I'm sure there are things I have not thought of or about and arcane scripting stuff I have no idea about but that is why I need input.

 

Any criticism welcome !

[Jonas]

Just an idea but maybe we could give CSAT their own little aircraft carrier somewhere in the ocean with on board AA (~ 5-8 km range) for their jets to spawn from ( spawn them above the carrier and have them fly to the target). That way they cant be "spawn camped" and don't just appear out of nowhere lined up on their target.

[Ryko]

5 hours ago, Jonas said:

Just an idea but maybe we could give CSAT their own little aircraft carrier somewhere in the ocean with on board AA (~ 5-8 km range) for their jets to spawn from ( spawn them above the carrier and have them fly to the target). That way they cant be "spawn camped" and don't just appear out of nowhere lined up on their target.

It is a good idea, except the Shikra can't land on an aircraft carrier (can the Neophron even?).  Not that I use a landing pattern for enemy CAS - they just fly back to the airport and despawn. So we could say that these are carrier-capable airframes... hmm... this ain't a bad idea.

[Toasted_Bread_Slice]

2 hours ago, Ryko said:

can the Neophron even?

no tailhook. NATO has the only aircraft with carrier landing capabilities, the F/A-181 blackwasp and the UCAV sentinel UAV.