Join our Discord Channels!
Join our Steam Groups! Image TacBF Mod & TacBF Event Notifications.
@CBA_A3 & TacBF updated. | Get TacBF Launcher!
Recent updates applied: @CBA_A3 3.3.1-170504, @TacBF 3.24.10. (13 May 2017)
Image $ Please donate a little, to keep server. - Read more...

TB A&S [M-24] Dragon Ridge (Takistan)

Missions (which are accepted as official) are held here, for feedback.
Gunther.S
Admin
Admin
Posts: 2352
Joined: 14 Oct 2013, 02:12
In-game Name:

TB A&S [M-24] Dragon Ridge (Takistan)

Postby Gunther.S » 22 Jul 2014, 15:32

Mission Download: ftp://31.210.129.135:21

Last tested with TacBF version: 3.8

Blufor Assets: Armament Box, Static Weapons, Light Vehs, FO container, Light Cas/Trans

Opfor/FIA Assets: Armament Box, Light Vehs, Statics, Suicide Vests

NOTE: CAF_Aggressors pack is a little buggy so I made two versions using OPFOR CAF and one using default FIA.

REQUIRES A3MP (also for the Taliban version, requires CAF_Agressors)
Required Mods:

Image


Map Overview(Image):
Image


Image


Image


Image


Image


Image

BLUFOR MAIN:
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

OPFOR MAIN:
Image


CHANGELOG:
=================================

Date: 7/22/2014 (introduction)

=================================
Date: 7/28/2014

r3: Adjusted cap time, fixed missing "_" as derped on other missions too for loading name, and lastly adjusted tickets.

=================================
Date: 8/12/2014

r4:
  • Opened up main base as suggested.
  • Created LARGE_FBSPAWN type FARP for helo's, should be far enough to prevent players grieving about their ears during startup. However, not so secluded to feel unrealistic.
  • Reduced FO build radius
  • Placed FO container
  • Added more vehicles both for smaller counts and larger counts
Image

User avatar
mad rabbit
Community God
Community God
Posts: 2155
Joined: 24 Jan 2013, 12:39
In-game Name:
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: TB A&S [M-24] Dragon Ridge r1 (Takistan)

Postby mad rabbit » 27 Jul 2014, 09:47

I really liked this mission!

Great region for some nice infantry firefights with slow sloping hills and some nice low brick walls for cover. Seemed well balanced as well.

You mentioned something about fixing the tickets for BLUFOR, but being RES I didn't notice this.

Gunther.S
Admin
Admin
Posts: 2352
Joined: 14 Oct 2013, 02:12
In-game Name:

Re: TB A&S [M-24] Dragon Ridge r1 (Takistan)

Postby Gunther.S » 27 Jul 2014, 17:18

mad rabbit wrote:I really liked this mission!

Great region for some nice infantry firefights with slow sloping hills and some nice low brick walls for cover. Seemed well balanced as well.

You mentioned something about fixing the tickets for BLUFOR, but being RES I didn't notice this.


Right now RES get extra tickets over Blufor because they get access to extra assets as well. However, RES has the high ground and with the new fatigue system also the fact that with this mission BLU's assets arent extremely overpowered. It is fairly balanced so tickets will be raised to match that of RES.
Image

User avatar
mad rabbit
Community God
Community God
Posts: 2155
Joined: 24 Jan 2013, 12:39
In-game Name:
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: TB A&S [M-24] Dragon Ridge r3 (Takistan)

Postby mad rabbit » 03 Aug 2014, 12:01

mad rabbit's feedback on r3: + = good, - = bad

AO & settings:
  • +++ This is my most favourite area of Takistan that you have chosen. The gentle slope and low stone walls with scattered buildings has made for some excellent fire-fights on two occassions (I'll try post a video soon).
  • +/- I was concerned that like Rasman, RES would be too restricted to the valley's for HO deployment and also not be able to move around the front line due to the reliance of RES captured zone proximity. However the default 400m 'friendly deployment area' seems be suitable.

FBs & FOs: At lot of this will be copied feedback from tb_Green Valley r4.
  • +/- I'm not a fan of having FBs inside zones although it seems to work here (and in Green Valley r4) and indeed makes 'sense' for the final zone capture to be a 'base fight'. Certainly the Alpha-FB fight-back to Bravo against RES was fun today!
  • ++ This being said, the loss of the second last zone for the before these FB-objective hybrids seems to work well and beneficially promotes the pacing of the mission i.e. less spawn points to deploy.
  • ? In fact you can even have pre-placed FOs to help BLUFOR further help them 'get started' and remove unnecessary initial logistics. They are under "TB: spawn points > Editor: FO (MG) (faction)". These are FO crates that will automatically deploy when the mission starts, but make sure you check that this is occurring properly.
  • ? A lot of possibly unnecessary 'grass cutter' objects at Alpha-FB. Whilst it does look good, I also have a concern about these objects which aren't really 'objects' as such. Anyway, remind me to research the performance impact of these later.

Bases:
  • ---BLUFOR main base layout is poor! At lot of this will be copied feedback from tb_Green Valley r4.
    • Given the space available, there's never good reason to have any main base this cramped. This base was copied from Rasman Province r2 and have I have major problems with it.
    • It's bearable for the 'trickle of players' joining a server but you need to take 'what if 20+ players joined all at once'. You also need to take into account that the added noise from vehicles in such close proximity to the armaments crate and the initial player spawn, prevent SLs from organizing their squads effectively during BattlePrep.
    • In particular, when the MH-6 landed right next to the armaments crate at the start of the mission. You need to organize the helo LZs to make it easy for infantry to run a short distance to the helo, without the need for the helo to come to them at the armaments crate area (see below RE: min. two base exits). This practice needs to be discouraged especially given the extra objects/crap that you put in your main bases. What if the helo clips the cargo net, military HQ buildings or antennae in the SW corner = crashes on-top of all the players! (see tb_Oppression for what I like to see for a main base helo LZ)
    • The HESCOs may give a better feeling of a base, but they also restrict exit, pick-up etc. As a general rule for missions, main bases should at least 2 exits to prevent griefing.
    • This automatically puts BLUFOR as a logistical disadvantage to RES, given their reliance on FOs + RPs. Given the limited visibility of when driving in first person in ArmA vehicle, you've given no 'turning circle' room for any of the vehicles at BLUFOR main.
    • Placing VSPs and possibly vehicles inside a base seems pointless. VSPs are rarely used and if they are, they are going to be for vehicles that have already gone-out, been damaged and need to return for a repair i.e. APCs. Therefore they should be placed away from player spawns to allow quick and easy repair. Think 'motor pool'.
    • BLUFOR mounted weapon supply crates are too close to the HEMTT. Give them enough room to "swing a cat" ...or crate in this example, especially given the blockage of perspective when carrying.
  • + This all being said, I like that the BLUFOR main base is perpendicular to the mid-way point of the valley. I think this aids the BLUFOR logistics nicely although I might be slightly concerned about biasing their approach to the AO from the east only.
  • ++ Also, BLUFOR Alpha-FB is layout is really nice! I love the HESCO forts and a had a great time shooting out of them with the MG onto the Bravo zone approach. There's also no vehicles to cause the 'squashing' problems I had in tb_Green Valley r4.
  • ++ RES main base layout is good i.e. nice and open.
  • - However, I would move the RES mounted weapons away from the RES armaments crate. There's a enough going on around the armaments crate during a mission and it should be near the vehicles for loading anyway.
  • - Also remove the suicide bomb backpacks map editor objects given their availability to all RES rifleman anyway via armaments (just reminder as we've discussed this already).


Summary statement: Fun mission, good AO. BLUFOR main needs a lot of work.
Recommendation: Dragon Ridge r3 is fun but I would like to see BLUFOR main base reworked a lot before I can give it my vote to become official.

Gunther.S
Admin
Admin
Posts: 2352
Joined: 14 Oct 2013, 02:12
In-game Name:

Re: TB A&S [M-24] Dragon Ridge r4 (Takistan)

Postby Gunther.S » 12 Aug 2014, 06:06

@ Rabbit, r4 is up. I made most of your changes. See changelog for ones I didn't dispute here.

Placing VSP's and vehicles inside a main base is pretty common sense for a military veteran as far as 'realism' goes... Motor Pools are always inside the fence. No way would any battlefield CO leave their assets outside of a secure area in a combat zone. However, realism aside. You will find it is much much much more open.. As I do agree people drive worse in arma 3 then they do in NYC which is holy s*** mode.

Blufor mounted weapon supply crates are too close to swing a cat? ... LoL? Fyi though this actually makes it 10x easier. I am always afraid of physically carrying my crates and weapons INTO the vehicles also but it wont damage the vehicle and is much easier to load things in this way.

I left the suicide bomb backpacks in the map just for the ultra newbie players that have NO clue how to do anything just so they realize there are actually suicide bomb backpacks in TacBF. I am willing to bet 75% of the player base have no idea about suicide vests. Probably even VBIED'S.. I never see anyone using these and I would like the public player base to educate on it so I dont only see only the team's body pieces flying everywhere :twisted: Also, I doubt two?? or three backpacks cause any performance or init issues? Is this really a - to you or just one of those things where you just like being tidy.. Also, with this in mind. I put a FO crate outside of the FO container :P just to help prevent the server start FO Crate population lag + grieving.

Screenshots updated.
Image

User avatar
mad rabbit
Community God
Community God
Posts: 2155
Joined: 24 Jan 2013, 12:39
In-game Name:
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: TB A&S [M-24] Dragon Ridge r4 (Takistan)

Postby mad rabbit » 12 Aug 2014, 11:10

Gunther.S wrote:You will find it is much much much more open.. As I do agree people drive worse in arma 3 then they do in NYC which is holy s*** mode.


My comments on the VSP were purely from a gameplay perspective which should take precedence over realism when it comes to communal assets.

Blufor mounted weapon supply crates are too close to swing a cat? ... LoL? Fyi though this actually makes it 10x easier. I am always afraid of physically carrying my crates and weapons INTO the vehicles also but it wont damage the vehicle and is much easier to load things in this way.


It only really mattered if the base was kept as a cramped as it was i.e. small space in a small space. As the base is more opened-up now, space is less of a commodity and thus the proximity shouldn't matter if not help now as you've suggested.

I left the suicide bomb backpacks in the map just for the ultra newbie players that have NO clue how to do anything just so they realize there are actually suicide bomb backpacks in TacBF. I am willing to bet 75% of the player base have no idea about suicide vests. Probably even VBIED'S.. I never see anyone using these and I would like the public player base to educate on it so I dont only see only the team's body pieces flying everywhere :twisted: Also, I doubt two?? or three backpacks cause any performance or init issues? Is this really a - to you or just one of those things where you just like being tidy.. Also, with this in mind. I put a FO crate outside of the FO container :P just to help prevent the server start FO Crate population lag + grieving.


Wasn't anything to do with performance at all and you do make a good point about 'advertising their use' by placement. I personally think a gameplay/tutorial video is the better method but we can address that in the future.

The primary reason is that all armaments are regulated through the armaments supply when possible. Also think of the alternate scenario when a player thinks they're only allowed 3 x suicide vests because that's all that was supplied when you've actually allowed all rifleman access, which is against the default settings of RES engineer only for most other missions. So in this setting it would be a mis-advertisement of a the availability of an asset. But it's really a minor matter and one that we should try to address outside of the mission space.

Screenshots updated.


I still have concerns about the helo LZ proximity from these screenshots ...maybe I'm just a crap pilot... but the motor pool and infantry areas look good. Can't wait to try this out on the next A3MP cycle.

User avatar
CharlieTwoFive
Community Member
Community Member
Posts: 196
Joined: 14 Sep 2013, 21:08
In-game Name: CharlieTwoFive
Location: Aachen, Germany
Contact:

Re: TB A&S [M-24] Dragon Ridge r4 (Takistan)

Postby CharlieTwoFive » 16 Mar 2016, 16:51

Removed
Last edited by CharlieTwoFive on 17 Mar 2016, 02:35, edited 1 time in total.
Image

Schadler17
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 1180
Joined: 16 May 2015, 13:26
In-game Name: Schadler17

Re: TB A&S [M-24] Dragon Ridge r4 (Takistan)

Postby Schadler17 » 17 Mar 2016, 00:40

CharlieTwoFive wrote:Mission requires revision. The mission does not end when attacking team reaches 0 tickets. There must be a little error in the script.


TacBF issue, already posted in bug reports. Something to do with attackingSide parameter in tb_settings.
Do I care if you hate me? Do you wanna know the truth?
C'est la vie, adios, good riddance, f*** you.

User avatar
CharlieTwoFive
Community Member
Community Member
Posts: 196
Joined: 14 Sep 2013, 21:08
In-game Name: CharlieTwoFive
Location: Aachen, Germany
Contact:

Re: TB A&S [M-24] Dragon Ridge r4 (Takistan)

Postby CharlieTwoFive » 17 Mar 2016, 02:35

Wasn't aware of that. nvm then.
Image


Return to “Mission Feedback”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest