UAV Drones LD

[[PLEB] JayCloth]

Hi All.

I, like many, am a big fan of the UAVs in Arma 3. Having them without laser designators is something I would like to discuss as, to be able to use them effectively, you need to have a team/someone on the ground with a LD. I was speaking to a mod on the server today who suggested that I post this in the suggestions box. The mod was saying that the LDs were removed due to people abusing them but 'blowing up random shit without being called in'. While yes, the are a support vehicle, I think that for something like ahoy, which stands out to me as a relaxed server (i.e no milsims), they would be better off with the LDs. Even if the team don't need an enemy vehicle destroyed, there is no harm being done if they are destroyed by the UAV. It makes the mission quicker. I had never noticed anyone complaining about me when I used to play this way and I believe that it is only fair that it is added back into the game if there aren't any major objections or problems with it.

 

Jay

[Stanhope]

So I was the moderator that you talked with.  After rereading some of the discussions we had behind the screens before we removed the lasers from UAVs and jets (backpack carried drones still have lasers), it appears I was incomplete.  We've removed them for several reasons.  First of I&A is and (as far as i know) has always been focused on infantry.  Second it was being abused by both UAV operators and CAS pilots.  We also wanted to make I&A a bit more challenging.  And last we wanted to force people to work together a bit more.  

Let me explain all of those reasons a bit more in-depth:

 

I&A is infantry focused:

Spoiler

I&A has 60 slots, only 5 of them are pilots and 1 a UAV operator.  Armor is not always present and has huge respawn timers compared to soft skinned vehicles.  Any support assets we do implement, such as UAVs and attack helis/planes, should be there to support the infantry.  Infantry should call them in when needed and when they are not needed they should be on standby.  

Missions are build with this in mind.  Main AOs have a particularly high amount of AA to force people to do the main assault on the ground.  Several squads worth of infantry are garrisoned in buildings in the main AO to prevent clearing the AO out from the sky, ... 
Side missions are also designed to be played by infantry.  But because they are limited in size we cannot put as much AA in them as in main AOs.  Leaving them rather vulnerable to air assault.  Now if the infantry guys at that side mission decide to call air support in because the enemies threaten to overwhelm them, we have no problem with that.  We do have a problem with support assets taking out everything at a side missions. Leaving the infantry with the sole job of walking in, using a scroll wheel option and the job's done, let's go home.
This does not make us milsim-like.  It's still a relaxed server, just focused on infantry.

 

Support assets being abused: 

Spoiler

Although you might not have noticed, I often hear regulars complaining that a support asset has basically completed the mission leaving nothing for the infantry to do.  From the philosophy described above we cannot allow that.  Hence we made this rule:
"4.4.1. If you are operating a support asset like a mortar or a CAS plane/helicopter you are not allowed to kill the entire AO.  Support assets are there to support the infantry this means that infantry have to call these support assets in."
As people in support assets were still just going off and killing things without being called in we limited their ability to do so.  We removed lasers from jets, UAVs, attack helicopters, ...  in version 3.3.4 which was went live 20 december 2017.  Since this change the amount of complaints about support assets being abused have, for me at least, notably gone down.  Which leads me to believe that infantry is happier.  As people who play mostly infantry haven't complained yet about the laser being removed.

Making I&A more challenging: 

Spoiler

It used to take a minute or 2 before the radio tower was taken out.  This because a UAV operator could self designate it and take it out.  In our effort to make I&A more challenging, which was requested by players, we needed to find a way to stop this from happening.  We succeeded at this by removing the ability for a UAV operator, or any airborne asset for that matter, to autonomously, without help, designate targets.  It now takes time for the radio tower (and other objectives) to be taken out.  Giving infantry more to do.  And again, people who play mostly infantry don't seem to have a problem with it.

Force people to work together: 

Spoiler

Although we don't mind people lonewolfing, I myself do it regularly, we like to find small things that can force people to work together just a bit more.  Now if someone wants an effective bombstrike they'll have to bring a laser designator and talk to the UAV operator.  Similar to how people kinda have to talk to their pilot if they want to go to a specific destination.  One of the many reasons we don't have a teleporter.  

 

In the end I&A doesn't revolve around killing as many enemies as fast as possible.  Or completing the mission as quick as possible.  It is how you play it that brings most enjoyment. 

I personally find this a rather good quote:

“The journey, Not the destination matters...”
― T.S. Eliot

If the majority feels that we need to put laser designators back in UAVs, planes, attack helicopters, ...  or only UAVs, or only planes, ...  Then it will most likely happen in one of the future updates.  But as so many of these things, I can't call the shots on this alone and have to talk to other people from staff about it.  So i can't give you a definitive answer  

[[PLEB] JayCloth]

Would it be possible to get it in the works as I believe it keeps something in the game. It is a popular slot but has lost a major part of its functionality. It also makes UAVs useless for side missions unless you have teamwork and this step alone won't bring more teamwork to the game.

[Stanhope]

As I said in my previous reply, if a majority of players feels like the UAVs need lasers to improve everyone's experience we will in all likelihood re-add them.  And again I can't make that decision on my own.  

 

For those who don't know I really like short inspirational or funny quotes.  The background on my PC is basically a slideshow of a bunch of quotes.  This is one of them:
"The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step -lao tzu"

You are absolutely right in saying that just taking lasers away from UAVs won't magically bring teamwork to EU1.  But you've got to take a first step somewhere sometime.  By all means, show us what our second step should be  

[TheScar]

Well,good morning.

I´d like to adress some of the above too.

As i m playing 90% of my time as dedicated AT using a Prowler (loaded with AT,AA and explosives to be prepared for 99% of things that be imginable) and having to mostly travel via a fair part of the map to reach any of my destinations its a slap in the face coming to a AO/side/priority mission facing it being blown up in minutes by some overcompetent selflasing UAVop that sits in base without any fear of being harmed at all + operating a (respawning) arsenal of 2 Greyhawks and 1 Sentinel (6x GBU) by stock that are capable of being anywhere on the map in minutes ... is kind of meh.

I might got slighty offtopic here.

Another thing is UAVop focus on bombing shit and totally forget about the recon aspect of the job.

1 out of 10 slot users do mark the map with detected recon - altho giving info about the current situation of AO is vital to minimize casulties to ground and air forces.

 

 

 

12 hours ago, [PLEB] JayCloth said:

Even if the team don't need an enemy vehicle destroyed, there is no harm being done if they are destroyed by the UAV. It makes the mission quicker.

Even i can erase a whole AO easily with my loadout - it s kind of pointless to the motivation for the boots on the ground that are prepared for fighting armor and it erases a big part of the challenge for the "team" to complete the goal.

Hence i limited myself to kill armor only (ZSU > BTR > T100) and disable the MRAPs near LZs if i see fit on AO´s.

Leave some challenge for ground forces,the time it takes for a competent setup team (Pilots,UAV,AT teams,inf units) to erase the armor presence is about 2-8min after AO spawned at best.

And its a public server,dont forget that.

Not all people will have the knowledge or will to cooperate as a team in the first place.

 

 

 

10 hours ago, [PLEB] JayCloth said:

 It also makes UAVs useless for side missions unless you have teamwork and this step alone won't bring more teamwork to the game.

A UAVop shouldnt even work on side missions for the start of it.

Your job is intel and GBU support "on request" imo.

I m aware we got people playing EU1# that use UAVop and a Hunter to complete side´s up close,but that s a rare case.

And how many times i got a UAVop flying a Sentinel in 60m height over sides doing maneuvers to show off and drop GBUs as they see fit ruining the mission in the process.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TLTR#

the UAVop is a highly biased and OP slot in the first place and it ll be impossible to balance it right for all

[ansin11]

6 hours ago, TheScar said:

the UAVop is a highly biased and OP slot in the first place and it ll be impossible to balance it right for all

This man is right. People who know what they're doing will have a Greyhawk circle above AO at 2000m, pick any target, paint it and drop a GBU, all while on autopilot; you don't even have to care about AAA because, well, 2000m is just too far for I & A ZSU crews. The only downside to this pattern is waiting for the Greyhawk to climb to 2000m, the weak link in the chain is getting enough GBUs into AO airspace fast enough. OP is a bit of an understatement.

 

18 hours ago, Stanhope said:

It used to take a minute or 2 before the radio tower was taken out.  This because a UAV operator could self designate it and take it out.

What if we gave the UAVs missiles instead of GBUs? Scalpels, something of that size.

 

On a side note, why do we even have the Sentinel in I & A? I don't bother taking off with it because well, it's just another boring two GBU-12s with literally five minutes of fuel (that's BIS' fault though). Its enhanced stealth capabilities are of no use either, since, as I mentioned, the Greyhawks are already untouchable for OPFOR ground assets. If it had different weapon systems I could see why we have it, but like this...

[Stanhope]

3 minutes ago, ansin11 said:

What if we gave the UAVs missiles instead of GBUs? Scalpels, something of that size.

Uneles the AI in the UAV is specifically told not to fire it will automatically engage the first hostile target it comes across.  With GBUs this doesn't happen often as most people don't run around with their LD active and you need to be in a rather specific position to lock onto lasers with GBUs.  With missles that's a different story.  You don't need a laser, the positions from where you can effectively fire greatly increase.  The AI in the UAV will have used all of the missles to engage things in the AOs (unless the UAV op has told it not to) before even properly reaching the AO.  

 

5 minutes ago, ansin11 said:

On a side note, why do we even have the Sentinel in I & A? I don't bother taking off with it because well, it's just another boring two GBU-12s with literally five minutes of fuel (that's BIS' fault though). Its enhanced stealth capabilities are of no use either, since, as I mentioned, the Greyhawks are already untouchable for OPFOR ground assets. If it had different weapon systems I could see why we have it, but like this...

People wanted a carrier, we needed something on the carrier.  The sentinel was a new vehicle.  It's also fast compared to greyhawks.  When I play UAV i usually have it sitting on a catapult waiting for a target.  When I need it I launch it and it can be pretty much anywhere within 2 minutes (at 2000m up).  Downside is that it can only stay in the air for about 15-30 minutes. 

[[PLEB] JayCloth]

Could I suggest then that the sentinel is given back its laser? That way there is the best of both worlds?

[Valkyyr]

@[PLEB] JayCloth Hey man, I usually play EU3 AWE, but I do find myself coming to EU1 solely for UAV play as its the most fun role for me, as im sure it is for you from what it sounds. However, I must disagree with you about the armed UAV's needing LD's themselves, particularly the sentinel & here's why.

 

1) Currently on EU1 you can have 3 UAV's airborne, utilising a total of 6 GBU's at any one time which, if you were already stationed over the next active AO, would be sufficient to destroy almost all the armour present before any other pilot could even drop off troops. (If you were accurate of course). It's worth mentioning, that this is relatively still possible using the Darter if you strike lucky & are in said position over a new AO.

 

2) As mentioned previously, UAV op's can deploy the AR-2 Darter to mark targets with an LD whilst you switch to an armed drone and send a GBU. However the Darter is very slow in comparison, requiring a bit of flight time or even you actually driving or getting dropped closer to the AO & deploying there. This, combined with the commands you must give to armed drones getting to the AO increases the time available for other players on the server to get there and contribute to mission success. If armed drones, particularly the sentinel had LD's you'd have targets marked in an instant.

 

12 hours ago, TheScar said:

And its a public server, don't forget that.

Not all people will have the knowledge or will to cooperate as a team in the first place.

Seldom have I seen anyone specifically ask for UAV support, but such is the nature of the server. But this only means you can stay more relaxed yourself, and look to properly support ground forces as the role intends rather than steamrolling. 

12 hours ago, TheScar said:

Hence i limited myself to kill armor only (ZSU > BTR > T100) 

This should be the intention of a UAV OP, heavy armour causing issues for ground troops.

 

All in all I think the time it takes for armed drones to arrive, their limited GBU capacity, time taken to land, rearm and get a darter to the AO to mark targets is a sufficient counter to the need for armed drones having LD's. Otherwise you'd very easily steamroll AO's.

[[PLEB] JayCloth]

You win.