Heavy Armament Abuses -Denied-

[Pickle]

Hello, I will be pointing out a problem that I'm disturbed with in I&A and I will suggest two different solutions in this post. PLEASE read everything and respond to the two suggestions separately.

 

In my opinion there is a big gap in server rules which is leading players to abuse overpowered weapons unwittingly or on purpose. Those "overpowered weapons" are Heavy AT launchers and armored vehicles with long range heavy arms. There are/was/will be players spending their morning on side missions and getting a powerful armored vehicle, then proceeding with using this armor to kill everything in main objectives until end of the day. Leaving nothing but just 10 – 20 EI stuck in buildings to rest of the server. I don’t even want to talk about the days where there are several players with armors. They just leave others no choice but jogging between objectives.  Please do not give me “I&A is infantry focused” as an answer. Just because it is focused on infantry does not mean that someone can abuse OP weapons and ruin the fun for others including other “focused” infantry. And also, with Heavy ATs, people just fill up vehicles, drive up to hills and destroy armors. Everything is fine for me until this part but: I see the exact same abuse that is being done with armors. They use their HE or AP missiles to kill Every EI they can see or destroy every building in objective area.

 

1. GROUND RULES

I am suggesting to have a new rule that forbids armors (including APC and SPAA), HMG GMG MRAPs, Static weapons and heavy ATs from engaging enemy infantries that does not have AT/AA weapons. Furthermore, mentioned units should not be allowed to destroy any buildings.

 

This rule should be only valid for main objectives (AOs), and players should be free to use these weapons on anything that are outside of main objectives. Also, the rule should only be enforced strictly when there are enough players to form a solid infantry force that can eliminate enemy.

 

An example statement added to in-game rules list:

Spoiler

 

-Play your mission as intended.

-If you are operating a heavy armament like armored vehicles, armed MRAPs or static weapons at main objectives, you are not allowed to destroy civilian buildings and you are not allowed to kill enemy infantry that is NOT carrying AT or AA launchers. This is a Co-Op server, leave other players something to fight with.

-Heavy armaments can be used without any restriction at side and priority missions.

 

 

An example statement added to rules on forum:

Spoiler

 

4.2       Play the mission as intended.

Notes:

4.2.X. If you are operating a heavy armament like armored vehicles, armed MRAPs, Heavy ATs or static weapons at main objective, you are not allowed to destroy civilian buildings and you are not allowed to kill enemy infantry that is NOT carrying AT or AA launchers. This is a Co-Op server, leave other players something to fight with.

4.2.X. Heavy armaments can be used without any restriction at side and priority missions.

 

 

 

2. TIMED REWARDS SCRIPT

First of all, I support first suggestion over this one. I don’t agree with the idea of nerfing systems because of potential undesired situations. Additionally, adding new scripts affecting server and client-side FPS. I am suggesting this in case the first idea has an unacceptable flaw.

 

Rewards with a time limit will at least prevent people from sitting on hills and destroying everything for a day. They will have to regularly visit side missions and keep earning new rewards. In my opinion, A limit like 3 – 4 hours should be enough or maybe variated time limits for different rewards. Although this won’t stop players from abusing their heavy ATs or FOB reward vehicles.

 

Now, I can’t even name myself as “entry level programmer” and I don’t know anything about ArmA’s programming language but I do know countdown scripts are affecting performance significantly. So, if it is possible to have a script that updates each reward’s remaining time as (remaining hours - 1hour) hourly. Maybe It could be possible to have almost no effect on game performance. Or I could be just wrong about it.

 

 

Note: I do not target nor blame any specific player for abusing stated game tools. Furthermore, I don't have any right to blame anyone since I was the one that ruined game for others (sometimes even on purpose) when I was a newbie in server. I believe most of the players that are 'nuking' AOs did not even realize they are disrupting gameplay for others so they can't be blamed for anything at all.

[Norris]

Hello Pickle,

 

Thank you for your feedback. In regards about the heavy man portable launchers and heavy vehicles like main battle tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers. The assets used in I&A3 are all vanilla or DLC assets that are to be used to complete AOs and further the mission. 

 

Without these heavy assets many AOs, for example the salt flats would be very challenging to complete. The very flat ground of the Salt flats will let AI spot enemies from afar due to the very clear lines of sight. If all the heavy assets were to be removed, areas like the Salt flats would slow down to a crawl and negatively impact the enjoyment of the mission for a great number of players. I&A has been developed by keeping the players and a balance of the available classes in mind. Changing or removing assets and classes will naturally have an impact on the rest of the classes and the assets at their disposal.

 

The ground rules that you have suggested will not be implemented. The ground rules you have suggested are seen as moving I&A3 more to a direction our AWE/Liberation/MSO-servers which is not the way we want to develop I&A. AWE and MSO is there to serve the players that want more organized game play and a touch of realism.

 

The timed reward script is also off the table. I&A has Main AOs, Priority targets and Side missions to provide our players a variety of different missions to enjoy. Which mission the player decides to play is up to each player. Normal AOs reward the players by advancing the missions and giving access to new FOBs. Priority targets pose a threat to the entire team and thus are important to take out. The side missions, while a little smaller often have a more complex nature and give out reward vehicles. Quite often these rewards are quite small, aside from the heavy vehicles or CAS assets. We feel that this balance is quite good and will not implement new scripts to I&A, especially when the demand for the said script is very low.

 

If a player is rewarded with a heavy asset, then they are rewarded for the effort they have put into the side missions. They have worked for the reward and it should be theirs and they should be free to use them within the current rules of I&A. As long as they are helping the team we are not going to punish them for doing so unless it goes against the Rules of Ahoyworld.

 

Staff Team

[Stanhope]

I'm not making any comment about whether the points you raise are actual problems or if the proposed solutions are good or bad, I just have a few technical remarks:

For your first suggestion: how can it be enforced?  Making new rules is great but they need to be enforceable.  The only way I see it being enforced is by moderators and spartans basically not playing anymore and just spending their time observing the usual suspects. 

For your second suggestion, this can be implemented in such a way that it has a negligible impact on performance. 

[Pickle]

17 minutes ago, Stanhope said:

I'm not making any comment about whether the points you raise are actual problems or if the proposed solutions are good or bad, I just have a few technical remarks:

For your first suggestion: how can it be enforced?  Making new rules is great but they need to be enforceable.  The only way I see it being enforced is by moderators and spartans basically not playing anymore and just spending their time observing the usual suspects. 

Why would Spartan has to spend their whole time observing "the suspects"? This rule is almost identical to UAV CAS call rules, are Spartan spending their time focusing on UAV operators or CAS jet pilots whole time? I think they only interfere when they encounter with the act or someone reports it.

 

Thus I do not want to drag people in this post but there are definitly spartan members who are also disturbed about it, since most of the zeus operations has a "INFANTRY ONLY" written in briefing section.

[Stanhope]

There's one UAV op that's hardly ever taken, there's hardly ever anything that pilots can use for cas and it's really apparat when people are doing uncalled cas.  It's not so apparent when people are shooting Anti personnel missiles from a titan at infantry.  Also, enforcing infantry only at a zeus mission is also easy, you see if there's a vehicle or not. You don't have to monitor what the vehicle is shooting at. 

[Pickle]

Well yeah I do see your point, it may require a high traffic of tracking people. So there are two things I can suggest over this:

 

1. Not strictly enforcing the rule. Zeus does not interfere with any players unless they are not dragging up the power abuses.

 

2. Keeping the common heavy armaments (like armed MRAPs, Heavy ATs) out of this rule. which will lower the potential number of people breaking the rule and will decrease amount of tracking.

 

 

Apart from that Im happy to hear the second suggestion is possible to implement. But I hate seeing systems being nerfed as much as everyone. As I said in the post, if there is anything making my first suggestion unacceptable, I am suggesting this script.

50 minutes ago, Stanhope said:

For your second suggestion, this can be implemented in such a way that it has a negligible impact on performance. 

 

[Lindi]

How would you enforce a tank shooting HE at the enemy with an AT launcher taking out several enemies in a go?

I'm going to guess the counter argument here is that they are playing their role by going out to the AO and completing the mission. Armour makes it quite easy, loading the Hunter a bit less so, mostly due to limitations of the AI. Both these strategies still require some effort and knowledge of the game, neither is really breaking CAS rules nor the rule to play ones role as I see it. I've quite often also seen AA-titans carried in the Hunters. These have been used quite effectively against air threats that would otherwise take longer to handle, thus supporting the pilots in their transport duties as well.

I will happily step in when someone is say camping an infantry factory from 1,5 km away. That I see as an clear abuse of game mechanic. Just like using the ammo truck to have an infinite ammo mortar.

 

These strategies are available to everyone, if they so choose to play. I won't but if I wanted to I could, this is all in line with the openness that is EU1. EU1 is to me an open sandbox where you are allowed to quite freely do what you like with a low bar of entry, I would not want EU1 to move to a more milsimmy experience, we got AWE and MSO for that.

 

If you feel that it is impeding your fun in the main AO, you can always move to a side or primary mission, perhaps select a support role that does not require you to run around the AO?

[Art3misZA]

I am going to be quite frank here. As Spartan, I really don't want to sit and watch out for more things that could be seen as "disruption" or "breaking the rules". There is already plenty to keep busy with.

 

I also feel that the handful of players who do engage in this sort of thing as, Lindi has already commented, have gained the knowledge and experience to do so. It is impressive to keep a tank alive for so long. Plus, if a player has hit side missions until the dice has rolled for the tank he prefers, kudos to him. He deserves that tank and this usually results in a lot of other rewards sitting in the reward pool for general use. The same applies to Zeus Ops. If people get a reward and take care of it, props to them.

 

In my opinion, while no doubt this is frustrating at times for infantry, I have yet to see it be so extreme that most of an AO is cleared and people on the ground have little to do. The converse also happens where there is little to no AT and AOs stay up for far longer than normal as people struggle to take care of the armor. This is just dependent on the specific day and the players active.

 

At the end of the day, you cannot police everything and it will create a rigid environment where players will stop having fun being able to do what they do. 

[Art3misZA]

1 hour ago, Pickle said:

Why would Spartan has to spend their whole time observing "the suspects"? This rule is almost identical to UAV CAS call rules, are Spartan spending their time focusing on UAV operators or CAS jet pilots whole time? I think they only interfere when they encounter with the act or someone reports it.

 

Thus I do not want to drag people in this post but there are definitly spartan members who are also disturbed about it, since most of the zeus operations has a "INFANTRY ONLY" written in briefing section.

 

In relation my my missions, I only do this because I design my missions for infantry as the players seem to get the most fun out of this and it also prevents questions or policing of players who think Zeus Ops work the same as other missions on the server. I could, for example, put together something that requires armor or mortar but this is just due to my personal preference. 

[Art3misZA]

I also have to ask a question here, Piccle.  Do you not think that perhaps these things are bothering you more because you have been enjoying the more structured gameplay that EU3 offers lately and now get frustrated at the casual nature of EU1? Once you step across that line, it does become apparent how different the two environments are. 

[Pickle]

1 hour ago, Lindi said:

How would you enforce a tank shooting HE at the enemy with an AT launcher taking out several enemies in a go?

It is obvious they dont have to be warned for killing more enemies while only engaging AT inf.

1 hour ago, Lindi said:

I'm going to guess the counter argument here is that they are playing their role by going out to the AO and completing the mission. Armour makes it quite easy, loading the Hunter a bit less so, mostly due to limitations of the AI. Both these strategies still require some effort and knowledge of the game, neither is really breaking CAS rules nor the rule to play ones role as I see it.

Yes, I respect the effort and dedication too. But should people be allowed to claim all targets for themself, just because they have knowledge of game and they are showing effort? Im not asking to ban all heavy armaments from main objectives, I am asking to make them atleast share the enemy infantry with players who are playing with light arms.

 

1 hour ago, Lindi said:

These strategies are available to everyone, if they so choose to play. I won't but if I wanted to I could, this is all in line with the openness that is EU1. EU1 is to me an open sandbox where you are allowed to quite freely do what you like with a low bar of entry, I would not want EU1 to move to a more milsimmy experience, we got AWE and MSO for that.

With all respect, there is a discrepancy here. If server tries to give people open sandbox experience, Why support roles can't benefit from it? What is the difference between an UAV operator with 6 GBUs and a MBT with 40+ shells? If support roles are limited with milsim rules that are literally saying "you are not allowed to kill the entire AO" why can't other roles be limited?

 

1 hour ago, Lindi said:

If you feel that it is impeding your fun in the main AO, you can always move to a side or primary mission, perhaps select a support role that does not require you to run around the AO?

It is not only impending my fun in the main AO, I am having same problem at side and priority missions aswell. If only we could have a rule that will prevent such abuses in atleast main objectives, I could have stick to there and not get annoyed by endless HE fires destroying everything.

[Pickle]

48 minutes ago, Art3misZA said:

I am going to be quite frank here. As Spartan, I really don't want to sit and watch out for more things that could be seen as "disruption" or "breaking the rules". There is already plenty to keep busy with.

I see your concerns and incase you missed my response to Stanhope, I am even happy to see a rule that is only enforced when someone really really abuses the heavy armaments. 

 

50 minutes ago, Art3misZA said:

I also feel that the handful of players who do engage in this sort of thing as, Lindi has already commented, have gained the knowledge and experience to do so. It is impressive to keep a tank alive for so long. Plus, if a player has hit side missions until the dice has rolled for the tank he prefers, kudos to him. He deserves that tank and this usually results in a lot of other rewards sitting in the reward pool for general use. The same applies to Zeus Ops. If people get a reward and take care of it, props to them.

As I answered Lindi, does being experienced, dedicated, skilled and etc excuses people from ruining fun for others? Shouldn't there be a limit to that?

55 minutes ago, Art3misZA said:

At the end of the day, you cannot police everything and it will create a rigid environment where players will stop having fun being able to do what they do

Again as I answered Lindi, Im not asking to ban MBTs from Main Objectives. Im just asking to have a rule that makes them leave some targets (which are not a danger for them) for us.

 

33 minutes ago, Art3misZA said:

I also have to ask a question here, Piccle.  Do you not think that perhaps these things are bothering you more because you have been enjoying the more structured gameplay that EU3 offers lately and now get frustrated at the casual nature of EU1? Once you step across that line, it does become apparent how different the two environments are. 

Unfortunately I would want it to be just a shitty suggestion because of an instant anger but no, as you can see from the structure of my suggestion. This is something I was thinking for a really long time.

[Havoc]

I think it's better if you design the rule-set in such a way that doesn't necessarily restrict armored vehicle usage, but reinforces the co-op and combined arms aspect of I&A and the role of the vehicle.

 

- No solo crewing.

Vehicles like MBT's and APC's are to be used by a crew of two or more.

 

- APC's are also to be used as transport.

In a situation like where a new AO has spawned within driving distance, APC's in the area can be requested to provide transport.

[Lindi]

@Pickle 

I don't think we would benefit much from a rule that is enforced partially or not at all. 

"Claiming all targets" so you mean kill stealing? One of the big realisations for me in Arma was, the score board really means nothing. Pilots don't get points for transporting people in I&A3, their impact on the server is still hugely important. Their importance is not diminished at all by the lack of points, more over people will start recognizing good pilots over time.

Again UAV and CAS isn't directly comparable to the issue you have described. There is only one UAV slot and 5 pilot slots. All six of these slots are scrutinized more closely than any infantry role due to their specialized and limited nature thus I don't think you can draw a direct line between those roles and say AT or repair specialists.

In your initial suggestion you mentioned limiting the use of Armour in the main objectives, hence the suggestion to play other objectives.

[Murph]

Definition:

Abuse (Subjectively defined in gaming) is taking a mechanic that offers an unintended advantage and using it to gain an unfair advantage.  As Lindi said ammo truck = infinite mortar.

 

Issues regards Class:

“And also, with Heavy ATs, people just fill up vehicles, drive up to hills and destroy armors.” You know that is literally the job of LATs and RATs (Light and Rifleman Anti-Tank) right?  In this case you are suggesting penalising a player for playing their role in such a way to maximise their own safety.

 

You can’t use a titan up close, and we don’t have a light disposable AT tube like a AT4 or M72 for point blank work.  Forcing LATs and RATs to get up close when engaging vehicles is a nonstarter because the vehicle has all the advantages.

 

Now if RATs are carrying AA, they need to be in standoff positions (usually hills) to maximise their sight lines to track a fast mover.

 

As for filling up vehicles with missiles/rockets, I can only comment for myself here, I don’t want to be reduced to walking pace, and I don’t want to be unable to perform my role after 3/4 shots.

 

Imagine if a pilot did 1 insert run to an AO and that was it? Or a Medic who only carried first aid kits or only revived people in their little squad? Refusing to play your role comes to mind.

 

Full disclosure I play RAT most of the time so I may be biased on this particular point.

 

Issues Regards Vehicles:

“getting a powerful armored vehicle, then proceeding with using this armor to kill everything in main objectives”.  That is the point.  You get a reward that is a force multiplier and then use that asset to be more efficient in killing the enemy in the AO and progressing the mission gaining more assets.  Snowballing is a common game feature.

 

Also Players can only use one vehicle at a time so the more rewards earned, is more assets for the other players to use and the opportunity to try something different.

 

Issue Regards Infantry:

“They just leave others no choice but jogging between objectives.” If the AO is less than 1.5km away then yeah you’re walking because you will be in the AO within 3 minutes and able to engage with a rifle in roughly 5 (and yes I have worked out how long it takes to cover 1km at combat pace).

 

Also what do you think vortex is for?  Their primary role is transport, if you require IFVs and other vehicles with transport capacity to carry players you are depriving them of a chunk of their gameplay and game time.

 

Part 1 – Ground Rules:

You state an issue is “Leaving nothing but just 10 – 20 EI stuck in buildings”.  This is exactly what you are advocating for with this rule, certain vehicles and classes being relegated to engagement of specific targets only.

 

“Furthermore, mentioned units should not be allowed to destroy any buildings”.  Seriously think about that for a moment.  You’re in a Marshall, under your rules we are not allowed to take up an overwatch position, so you move into town without an infantry screen (It’s EU 1), and take an rpg 42 hit from a garrisoned building, but are not allowed to return fire with GP-T or you’ll be kicked.

 

Let me tell you now as someone who has specialised in IHL (Laws of War) real world, any gunner would be well within their rights to plant a half dozen 30mm shells into that building due to the immediacy of threat (and therefore unable to switch to 7.62 co-ax), the necessity to engage the target because of the threat it poses, and the proportionality because if you don’t make sure he’s dead you lose the vehicle crew and figure 11s (mounted infantry, if present and the requirement to provide transport is enforced). 

 

I appreciate what you are saying, it just does not make sense.  If you are not familiar with the role please ask someone who is before submitting a request that will impacting that person’s enjoyment.  I believe this would count as an “unacceptable flaw”.

 

Part 2 – Timed Rewards:

How many rewards are kept alive for more than a few hours, Scars MBTs and Xians in the hands of certain pilots are the only one’s that come to mind.  Everyone knows that most reward vehicles are dead within 3 hours of spawning tops.

 

The server also restarts everyday so it’s not like there is a clutter of rewards from one day to the next.

 

As for “'nuking' AOs”  Norris doesn’t do that many regular Zeus Ops... but in all serious when was the last time we blasted through AO after AO completing each one in succession in less than 20 mins.  I have never seen that occur more than once.

 

Subsequent Responses:

What Stan said, you want a rule, you need a way to enforce it, I would add that it should be one that doesn’t impact on another player’s (in this case Spartan and above) enjoyment.

 

“claim all targets for themself, just because they have knowledge of game and they are showing effort”.  Simply yes, if you are that competent in your role (AT/AA or Vehicle Crew) that you can rack a high body count, more power to you.  Also claiming kills isn’t a thing, most players work off the police dog report approach “Saw bad man, bit [shot] bad man, end of report”.

 

“What is the difference between an UAV operator with 6 GBUs and a MBT with 40+ shells?”;

• If a UAV operator loses one he has spares, MBTs don’t.
• UAVs are more precision weapons so can more accurately target enemies via laser des, MBTs use Mk1 eyeball.
• Laser des promotes teamplay with very low risk to the UAV operator, failure means you don't get to blow up some bad dudes.  Failure of teamplay in armour usually results in loss of asset.
•  GBUs are more effective than 120mm shells.
• Risk Vs Reward.  Both have similar levels of reward, UAV however carries little risk in comparison to MBT.

[Pickle]

21 minutes ago, Murph said:

“And also, with Heavy ATs, people just fill up vehicles, drive up to hills and destroy armors.” You know that is literally the job of LATs and RATs (Light and Rifleman Anti-Tank) right?  In this case you are suggesting penalising a player for playing their role in such a way to maximise their own safety.

 

You can’t use a titan up close, and we don’t have a light disposable AT tube like a AT4 or M72 for point blank work.  Forcing LATs and RATs to get up close when engaging vehicles is a nonstarter because the vehicle has all the advantages.

 

Now if RATs are carrying AA, they need to be in standoff positions (usually hills) to maximise their sight lines to track a fast mover.

 

As for filling up vehicles with missiles/rockets, I can only comment for myself here, I don’t want to be reduced to walking pace, and I don’t want to be unable to perform my role after 3/4 shots.

 

Imagine if a pilot did 1 insert run to an AO and that was it? Or a Medic who only carried first aid kits or only revived people in their little squad? Refusing to play your role comes to mind.

 

Full disclosure I play RAT most of the time so I may be biased on this particular point.

 

Again with all respect, there is a confirmation bias here, I literally wrote " Everything is fine for me until this part but: I see the exact same abuse that is being done with armors. They use their HE or AP missiles to kill Every EI they can see or destroy every building in objective area." just after that sentence. Please carefully read.

 

 

 

24 minutes ago, Murph said:

“getting a powerful armored vehicle, then proceeding with using this armor to kill everything in main objectives”.  That is the point.  You get a reward that is a force multiplier and then use that asset to be more efficient in killing the enemy in the AO and progressing the mission gaining more assets.  Snowballing is a common game feature.

 

This is where my question refers to. Should players use their overpowered tools until the last drop where it begins to steal fun from their "Co-Op" Team members?

 

 

 

33 minutes ago, Murph said:

You state an issue is “Leaving nothing but just 10 – 20 EI stuck in buildings”.  This is exactly what you are advocating for with this rule, certain vehicles and classes being relegated to engagement of specific targets only.

 

“Furthermore, mentioned units should not be allowed to destroy any buildings”.  Seriously think about that for a moment.  You’re in a Marshall, under your rules we are not allowed to take up an overwatch position, so you move into town without an infantry screen (It’s EU 1), and take an rpg 42 hit from a garrisoned building, but are not allowed to return fire with GP-T or you’ll be kicked.

 

Let me tell you now as someone who has specialised in IHL (Laws of War) real world, any gunner would be well within their rights to plant a half dozen 30mm shells into that building due to the immediacy of threat (and therefore unable to switch to 7.62 co-ax), the necessity to engage the target because of the threat it poses, and the proportionality because if you don’t make sure he’s dead you lose the vehicle crew and figure 11s (mounted infantry, if present and the requirement to provide transport is enforced). 

 

I appreciate what you are saying, it just does not make sense.  If you are not familiar with the role please ask someone who is before submitting a request that will impacting that person’s enjoyment.  I believe this would count as an “unacceptable flaw”.

 

Please, Please pretty Please. Read it again clearly. I have literally stated they should be allowed to engage infantry who are carrying AT. I respect the fact that you served in military, But again that is not the case I am referring to.

 

 

 

37 minutes ago, Murph said:

I appreciate what you are saying, it just does not make sense.  If you are not familiar with the role please ask someone who is before submitting a request that will impacting that person’s enjoyment.  I believe this would count as an “unacceptable flaw”.

 

I felt the need of clarifying this part particularly. I believe I do not have enough reputation within old members of AW. It has been around ONE whole year that I am one of the most active players of 2020, in EU1. I do know every system, every script, every slot, every bugs that a player played in 2020 can ever know. I can even memorize how much and what types of enemies will spawn in which side mission or any kind of mission. Call me a nerd, lifeless etc. I don't care, but you can't deny the fact that I had a very long time to observe current state of game.

 

 

 

49 minutes ago, Murph said:

How many rewards are kept alive for more than a few hours, Scars MBTs and Xians in the hands of certain pilots are the only one’s that come to mind.  Everyone knows that most reward vehicles are dead within 3 hours of spawning tops.

 

The server also restarts everyday so it’s not like there is a clutter of rewards from one day to the next.

 

As for “'nuking' AOs”  Norris doesn’t do that many regular Zeus Ops... but in all serious when was the last time we blasted through AO after AO completing each one in succession in less than 20 mins.  I have never seen that occur more than once.

 

 

I have seen it more than enough. There is nothing that can kill those MBTs once they reach the number of two or three. Also I don't know if you are satire here but I meant "Shooting everything" by "Nuking AOs" I dont talk about the nuclear bomb animation in game. And duration of AO is irrelevant here, that 20 mins is usually wasted on searching the last 2 teams of enemies that was out of abusers' visual...

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Murph said:

What Stan said, you want a rule, you need a way to enforce it, I would add that it should be one that doesn’t impact on another player’s (in this case Spartan and above) enjoyment.

 

“claim all targets for themself, just because they have knowledge of game and they are showing effort”.  Simply yes, if you are that competent in your role (AT/AA or Vehicle Crew) that you can rack a high body count, more power to you.  Also claiming kills isn’t a thing, most players work off the police dog report approach “Saw bad man, bit [shot] bad man, end of report”.

 

Yes I didn't realize he was talking about spartans at first, but if you seek for my second respond, you will see I have suggestions for that too.

 

If I am allowed to annoy others by showing off my skills, I am capable of annoying them so bad that server population will decrease to 3 - 4. Should I really be allowed to do that?

 

 

I respect if you don't have time or will to respond to my suggestions. But please do not make any irrelevant allegations about this post.

 

 

 

 

[Pickle]

1 hour ago, Lindi said:

"Claiming all targets" so you mean kill stealing? One of the big realisations for me in Arma was, the score board really means nothing. Pilots don't get points for transporting people in I&A3, their impact on the server is still hugely important. Their importance is not diminished at all by the lack of points, more over people will start recognizing good pilots over time.

No it was just another way for me to say "Killing everything, leaving nothing to others" I do not care about the scoreboard either, if I did I wouldnt play in support roles at all, but there is a fact that scoreboard is a reason for some people to abuse these tools. 

 

By the way, it may seem like I am targeting TheScar here but it is the opposite. His behavior of not shooting enemy infantry which don't have AT equipments at main objectives is the source of my first suggestion's inspiration. So the most active player, known as playing only with AT launchers and Tanks, can do it without getting bored. Everyone should be able to do it, right?

[WinterMute]

There is no way of enforcing this kind of rule that doesn't involve significant human intervention, as automating is it not feasible.

 

There are people (anyone with Zeus) who can tweak the balance of gameplay, without making it a formal rule, by providing a threat to tanks etc that normal AI won't do. (Though if they are crafting a mission somewhere, they may not do so, but you will have access to a handcrafted mission very soon after so it's swings and roundabouts )

 

An organised infantry squad (hell, organised individuals even) on-server can also choose to communicate with heavy-weapons users to help them target things that are preventing the organised infantry from advancing into positions that force the heavy weapons user to cease fire.

[Murph]

5 hours ago, Pickle said:

Just because it is focused on infantry does not mean that someone can abuse OP weapons and ruin the fun for others including other “focused” infantry. And also, with Heavy ATs, people just fill up vehicles, drive up to hills and destroy armors. Everything is fine for me until this part but: I see the exact same abuse that is being done with armors. They use their HE or AP missiles to kill Every EI they can see or destroy every building in objective area.

 

That's your full context Pickle... You specifically state that the mission being infantry based can be spoiled by the usage of these weapons in such a manner as to start targeting Infantry or other targets that you don't feel it is appropriate to use those weapon systems on.  A titan has the anti-personnel (AP) capability in the same manner as the MAAWS, however most people (I have encountered and I know one exception) won't take AP as it's a waste of an AT or AA missile slot, and the vehicle/airframe is often the bigger threat.

 

What comes over is you are not playing the game my way so therefore it is wrong.  The capability for LAT/RAT to function in stand off infantry killer is in the game by default (HE missile/rockets) and therefore is meant to be used in that role.  The same is applicable to armour in that they have anti infantry weapons (usually a co-ax 7.62) and some form of HE munition, this is default and the intent of the game for these assets to have a degree of tactical flexibility.

 

Specifically in this limited frame it's not abuse by players, it's design by Bohemia.

 

1 hour ago, Pickle said:

This is where my question refers to. Should players use their overpowered tools until the last drop where it begins to steal fun from their "Co-Op" Team members?

 

Yes.  It's a force multiplier, use it.  Some of the best sessions, and my screenshot library, are filled with times when we got a squad in a platoon of vis and just wrecked face... because it's fun.

 

When I'm on the ground and see a vic opening up I'm usually the one cheering and saying "[insert expletive] get some sunshine!", because it is cool watching vehicles going at it in gunnery duels whilst infantry duck and weave advancing onto an AO.  That disappointment and panic when the vic on overwatch goes boom, and suddenly you are trying to find where the shot came from, was it a vic was it infantry.  This is why I keep coming back to EU 1, it's combined arms and more importantly it's balanced.

 

Trust me, a coordinated mechanised platoon (4x APCs) supported by an element of attack helos is overpowered and destroys anything in it's path before infantry sections even get a chance to dismount.  This is EU 1, you will always lack cohesion to fully exploit the advantage of the asset,  A single MBT is not going to steal all your action in an AO.

 

At first glance it seems like your saying your fun is more important than the vehicle crews or even people who play ARMA for the Michael Bay moments. You're a spartan so I know that's not the case.

 

1 hour ago, Pickle said:

Please, Please pretty Please. Read it again clearly. I have literally stated they should be allowed to engage infantry who are carrying AT. I respect the fact that you served in military, But again that is not the case I am referring to.

 

I'm not military current or past.  You are wanting to introduce a rule to say vehicles can not engage non launcher equipped infantry.  You also want to introduce a rule about not engaging buildings directly.  If there is a guy in a building with a launcher firing at you, there will be ambiguity about whether a vehicle crew can engage.  If people don't know the rule then they can't follow it, if there needs to be a list of situational exceptions it's a bad rule.

 

This is why uncalled CAS works.  Was it an air to ground strike yes/no.  If no, it's not CAS so don't worry.  If yes was it called in in a public way so the players could avoid casualties yes/no.  If yes it's not uncalled, if no it's uncalled CAS.  There is no Grey Area, the rules you propose leave a lot of room for interpretation.  Hence my example of a player being worried about being kicked for engaging a building than having fun and potentially impacting on the other players in the vehicle too.

 

There has to be a motivation of is this going to foster teamwork and increase the fun for the players.  If the answer is no to either then we need to consider carefully about whether to implement it.  I think that this will not foster teamwork or be fun for players in those roles, and if we place restrictions on vehicle crews and people in LAT/RAT (and SL/TL slots, I believe they have access to the MAAWS/PCML, now I think about it) slots, it could potentially backfire in the long run with those slots being avoided or the player base finding other servers to play on where such restrictions are not imposed. I&A3 is public , not a uniquely AW, asset.

 

1 hour ago, Pickle said:

I believe I do not have enough reputation within old members of AW.

 

It's not about rep with members of the community.  It's about experience within the role that will be affected by the proposed changes.  My background for ARMA is infantry and mechanised because that's what I love doing in game.  If I were to propose a change to a vehicle role I would talk to Patrick_Swe, JJ Cakes, Norris, because they are the ones who I know have a lot of time and experience in that role and are people with whom I know I can have a conversation with.  That's all I'm saying get a few points of view of people who will be affected before going out on a limb and requesting a significant change.

 

1 hour ago, Pickle said:

I do know every system, every script, every slot, every bugs that a player played in 2020 can ever know.

 

I will take this as English not being your first language, it comes over really poorly mate.

 

1 hour ago, Pickle said:

Also I don't know if you are satire here but I meant "Shooting everything" by "Nuking AOs"

 

Pure humour bud.

 

1 hour ago, Pickle said:

here is nothing that can kill those MBTs once they reach the number of two or three.

 

It's an MBT, they can be killed very easily.

 

The Merkava especially as it has the shell trap on it's front, lost more than enough slammers with Patrick to that weak spot so I needed to start bringing barbecue sauce.  T-140 is the turret, Kuma is the rear half of the side plates and top armour.  The threat from an MBT is it's guns and movement, neutralise them its a moving pillbox or fixed gun position.

 

1 hour ago, Pickle said:

that was out of abusers' visual...

 

Not a good idea to refer to the player base like that... they keep the server going... referring to them (even in part) as abusers is bad form at the least and open to misinterpretation.

 

2 hours ago, Pickle said:

I am even happy to see a rule that is only enforced when someone really really abuses the heavy armaments. 

 

That was your suggestion for application of the rule.  Selective enforcement.  Either we enforce the rules or we don't there can be no ambiguity, especially over stuff that can result in kick.

 

1 hour ago, Pickle said:

If I am allowed to annoy others by showing off my skills, I am capable of annoying them so bad that server population will decrease to 3 - 4. Should I really be allowed to do that?

 

"HOLD ME BACK BRAH!!!! HOLD ME BACK!"  No Pickle, just don't.

 

1 hour ago, Pickle said:

But please do not make any irrelevant allegations about this post.

 

So you believe in selective enforcement and application of rules, I'm curious are you also selective about which parts of the Spartan's rules to follow as well? - That's an allegation, as I have not produced anything in support of it, and one that I in no way intend other than to prove a point.

 

I'm a former criminal investigator and prosecutor.  I don't allege.  I state facts. 

[Pickle]

@Murph For your information, corestaff reached me and they informed me that this suggestion is denied. So you do not have to reply this post.

 

Now I do not understand why you are so hostile against a suggestion here but remember you are a spartan, please behave like one.

[Lindi]

Murph is free to express his view as are you Pickle. There is no need for you to be rude or to "put Murph" in his place as a spartan.