Suggestions that would make Arma II / AO more popular

[polar bear 10]

Generally when I look there are 1500 to 3000 people online playing ArmA II or AO. Need to add a zero to that.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss suggestions that would improve the accessibility of Arma II and make the game more popular while retaining the core proposition of a game based on a realistic military simulation.

1. Smooth the player movement, especially collision detection, around doors and walls and such

2. Develop more learning aids, the game is hard to learn, and mostly people are left to search forums to figure out what things do:

-- All key binding screens in the UI ought to come with a paragraph on screen explaining what the associated feature does, you should not have to search a forum to find out!

-- In "cadet" mode the game ought to pop up constant hints explaining features and suggesting things to try, e.g., "Did you know you can toggle the compas by pressing the K key?", etc.

-- The game really needs to come with a PDF manual that explains it all again, this manual should explain things like what the common multi-player modes are and some basic tactics, as well as a complete review of the UI

-- Make links to those youtube training tutorials available directly from within a training menu in the game and increase the number of them

3. Fix bugs. Fix bugs. Fix bugs. Fix bugs!

4. I've already mentioned that the game should automatically install addons required to join a server and completely manage that aspect of the experience

5. Implement some sort of multi-player achievement tracking system and combine it with some sort of public player profile. Anything from "kill 10 enemies" to "successfully transport troops". Motivate people to go online!

6. Create and promote some faster paced multiplayer modes, e.g., with respawn near squad, with action concentrated on key objectives. AAS fits the bill, but there needs to be more things like that.

7. Develop some game play modes and shared maps that consolidate Arma II and AO online so that players with either product can play online on the same server. This is so that the online community does not fracture.

8. Eliminate any regional problems that prevent players from joining the same server, such as problems around language/translation that keep German players off English servers and such.

9. Vigorously follow up on and fix especially those bugs that bite players in the early days of using the software: Install problems, configuration problems, map bugs in the training missions

I'm too tired to think of 10 right now--someone else's turn!

I realize some of these suggestions will get flak from people who say that n00bs ruin the game and they can't stand people who ever played COD and if you want to play ArmA you should be willing to troll forums for tidbits of information on how to play the game because that means you are a "thinking" person.

Well here's the news: You can retreat to some private password protected server and even if you do if there are 20000 people playing instead of 2000 you will quickly find that there are a lot more hardcore/serious players of the sort you enjoy playing with--a rising tide floats all boats.

So let's have it:

What's it going to take to see 20k players online?

[no use for a name 0]

Even with those things I don't think it will be as popular...it's a niche game/market, just like flight sims. I don't know how many forum posts I've seen from major game review sites (like Gamespot, IGN, escapist, etc.) where the people don't want realism because they don't think it's "fun".

The only way to get a lot more people is to dumb it down (both graphics and gameplay) to the console-ish level of OFP2 or GRAW

Edited August 10, 2010 by No Use For A Name

[That guy 10]

5. Implement some sort of multi-player achievement tracking system and combine it with some sort of public player profile. Anything from "kill 10 enemies" to "successfully transport troops". Motivate people to go online!

NO NO NO NO NO! FPDR NO!

NO! not only is that a TERRIBLE idea, there is no way to build such a system for they highly diverse arma online game. so we can rest assured that we will never be playing, and have a little '"bleep bloop" Achievement unlocked! shoot the bad guy!'

this game wont ever be a popular as other shooters simly because it is so hard. that difficulty is why alot of us are here

What's it going to take to see 20k players online?

honestly, there is very little that BIS can do to arma with out compromising it for us core fans. then you end up with a mediocre product like OFPDR that satisfies no one, where its too realistic for the arcade fans, but to silly for the realistic fans

such a shift would have to come from the people them selves. they have to want a more complex experience

alot of your idea simly are unfeasible. they seem to stem from some one who has little experience with the game, or little understanding about how it operates

most aspects of MP are controlled by the mission maker, and to a lower degree, the server.

a weakness of arma MP is simply there are way to many game types and variables. it simply is not COD with DM and CTF. there is hardcore coop, arcade coop, DMs, realistic DM, arcade dms, a 50 different flavors of warfare, RPG games, and more variants of them then you can shake a stick at. worse yet alot of the player made content has little or no documentation as to what it is or how to play.

the thing i hate about arma MP really has nothing to do with the game. its the fact that most servers only have freaking evo, dom or other rambo tastic runarounds set on cadet difficulty. those that dont have no players or more addons than is logical. or the assholes simply kick you because they dont recognize you or you have the ignorant gall to ask WTF is going on and how to play that particular MP scenario, and they dont have the time to explain to some noobie

arma MP is a complete mystery every time you log on (for us that dont have units and set friends and such). will there a be a server that has a mission you like, with difficulty setting you like, and that is not being hosted in russia off of an old shoe box full of string and rusty wire?

you know, maybe thats why arma public MP will never be super popular

Edited August 10, 2010 by That guy

[Inkompetent 0]

1 - Agreed that in some respects it needs to be more smooth. Like automatically switching between high ready and low ready when the weapon collides with walls, so that one actually can move and turn inside buildings.

2 - Better tutorials would indeed be nice. As I understood OA does that quite good though (although haven't played, so don't know first hand), and agreed that if nothing else the name in the key bindings menu might need to be more accurate/descriptive. Non the less, the vast majority of the key binds are already well described by their name.

3 - What do you think the bazillion beta patches, official patches, and continous patching even years after release are for? Duh. Reduntant request.

4 - Automatically and automatically. Agree though that addon management needs to be better. And BIS is already working on it. Redundant request.

5 - Disappear from these forums. Now. NOW. Achievements is the bane of all and everything that's good about this game series. Just attracts the ADHD-generation, and we do NOT want them to pollute our servers with their presence. They'll scare away the loyal customers. Even then it wouldn't work due to the free/editable nature of the game.

6 - Agreed that the default game could need some examples and framework for more action-based PvP missions. 99% of all missions played online are user-made though, so BIS shouldn't break too much of a sweat with this. On top of that missions are automatically downloaded when playing. Redundant request.

7 - Users are already doing this. Redundant request.

8 - The only regional problems afaik is the radio messages displayed in the chat when using in-game commands or spotting. Haven't heard anything else at least.

First and foremost ArmA is too niched to attract very many players. And even then That guy is spot on with his post. Either they attract the ADHD COD-kids with the attention span of a gold fish, and alienate their 9-year loyal fans, or they keep their fans.

ArmA can be improved - yes. But for the love of God, do NOT make it into something else.

[xeno 230]

I find it rather sad to read what some "veterans" write here.

Instead of having optional things like a ranking or achievement system and whanot you tell people that they should go away.

Way to go. And one of the reasons we will never see more than the few hundred people playing online

(sometimes/most of the time there are more servers than people actually playing, 6000 slots available, 500 players).

Having more choices wouldn't hurt, absolutely not.

Just tell anybody it is a niche game. It will stay this way. Sometimes I have the feeling that the "veterans" here

don't want to have new fresh blood that could find interest in other game modes too (and become valuable players

and maybe contributors to the game).

I would like to have 20k players too and choose whatever game mode I currently want instead of not playing online

because nobody is actually playing what I want at this moment.

:(

Xeno

[Pulverizer 1]

Making the game more accessible (ie, better-designed, not less-complex) wouldn't make any difference because you always need to play on closed servers to play serious MP anyway.

And FYI, Arma2:OA already has Steam achievements:

Quartermaster

Unlock all Armory items.

Marksman

Complete the Firing Range with 100% accuracy and at least 20 shots fired.

Speedfreak

Complete the Mobility Range in under 1:00.

Sky High

Get to 2000 meters altitude.

Hunter

Shoot down 100 seagulls.

But they arent implemented yet (or are broken by bugs).

[polar bear 10]

So those of you who have nothing bug negativity to offer, what's YOUR solution for getting to 20k?

And don't give me this garbage about it being a niche game. There is no reason whatsoever why ArmA should be a niche game.

If it's properly explained (which it's not) it's not THAT hard to learn to play a basic infantryman. The trouble is it's had to learn. Why? Because you're completely on your own trying to figure out even some pretty basic stuff about the game. So there's the tutorials point--not a redundant request. I'm a relatively new player, about a month in now. I eventually figured everything out but I had to scour forums to do that, and that's just wrong. Most of what I needed to know was really simple and straight-forward information that SHOULD have been presented to me in game somewhere.

As for your disparaging remarks about people who like faster paced games you know what? AAS is pretty fast paced. You can play fast paced ArmA or slow paced ArmA and if there were more players on line it would be to each his own. More players means more people playing modes YOU may not like, but also more people playing modes you do, easier to find a game, better for everyone.

So some people are motivated by achievements, and you're not? Why do you care? It doesn't change the gameplay any and if it attracts more people to the game it's a win for you too.

Yes I am demanding, but that's because I really like ArmA and I want to blow some fresh air in here and get rid of all the negative, self-defeating attitudes that the "veterans" around here seem to hold.

So step up: What's it going to take? 20k challenge. Constructive ideas only please.

---------- Post added at 01:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:32 PM ----------

I hear a lot of people say there are no severs online for the mode they want to play. Is everyone sitting around looking for the same thing? Is there a gap in the server offerings which if filled would result in a huge jump in online play by all these people sitting around waiting for something that isn't there?

I'd be curious to know. There's an argument for BIS to run a server with the most popular gameplay mode if for some reason the community is failing to do that, or perhaps for the community to identify the gap and fix it.

This is where sometimes a centrally run match-finder is of some benefit. Ordinarily I dislike that sort of thing and prefer to choose my own server--but in cases where there aren't enough people filling out servers then something like that can bring together a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't find one another.

Maybe some sort of interface where you can see the other people who are LOOKING for a certain type of game, rather than merely viewing the list of servers? Maybe even have some highly dynamic centrally managed servers that would then throw up the game everyone's looking for and provide a place to play running that type of game.

Just throwing some wild ideas out, let's get to 20k.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Polar Bear

[CarlGustaffa 4]

There is no reason whatsoever why ArmA should be a niche game.

Uhm, yes there is. The loyal fans over these years wants it to be a niche game. If I wanted fast paced action, there are other games (and in great numbers, both in terms of numbers of games and numbers of players) that give me that. I fully respect those who play CoD - I see nothing wrong in enjoying a different game, or even a different kind of game.

Arma is a niche product for two main reasons:

1) It's orientation towards realism.

2) Support for large scale coop with thinking AIs.

Go mainstream, and you'll lose one or both of these, and many of the current fanbase. Why go mainstream when there are other games around that support such fans? There would be no games around to support our kind of fans.

As for achievements; if BIS was a huge company, then sure, why not, frankly I could care less. Online games would have to state it though that it uses achievements to drive its mechanics, so I could shun away. But they're not a huge company, and such a thing would require time to make and keep updated. Cheating and hacking are major problems you know (not only in Arma). I'd rather have them spend time to fix problematic issues in the game engine or content rather than having to mess with a faulty achievements system. I don't think a single game exist without achievements being exploited in some ways. So, no thanks to achievements and achievement based game mechanics.

Maybe some sort of interface where you can see the other people who are LOOKING for a certain type of game, rather than merely viewing the list of servers? Maybe even have some highly dynamic centrally managed servers that would then throw up the game everyone's looking for and provide a place to play running that type of game.

Not a bad idea, but I would like to have this information available while I play a "temporary game" (maybe bugtesting my own which is not open for public) without exiting it. Similar to the server filter box. I.e. I could set filter to Dom (mission name) and Expert (difficulty). When I know there are enough people looking for such a game, I could join a server matching these specifications, and others could join in as well. But joining such a server when there is only one guy waiting and hoping, and the two of you play a co30 game for hours without anyone else showing up, gets boring after a while.

[Pulverizer 1]

Arma is a niche product for two main reasons:

1) It's orientation towards realism.

2) Support for large scale coop with thinking AIs.

I beg to differ. I think it's a niche product because of:

1) Unplayable performance on low to mid-range gaming PCs on most game situations

2) Bugs and CTDs

3) Warping units in MP

4) Stupid AI that has zero iniative for anything else but getting their ass smoked

5) Clunky and unintuitive controls

Absolutely NOT because it's too "realistic" or "hardcore". It isn't, unless you argue that CTDs and single digit framerates make the game more hardcore.

[polar bear 10]

5) Clunky and unintuitive controls

The controls aren't really THAT bad. The problem is mostly that the game UI makes no attempt to explain them and there are a lot of new ones that don't exist in other games so it's pretty hard to find out what they're for. In some cases you have to go search google to find something out the game could have explained by adding a one-line explanation to the key binding interface.

Examples:

-- Toggle weapons, misnamed because it's not really a toggle is it?

-- Switch weapon, I still have no idea what this is

-- Commanding mode, Command Fire, next target, select units, switch, etc., confusing at first because you might not realize immediately that part of the game is ordering other units around, cleared up in literally 2-3 words

-- Optics mode vs. optics

-- Tactival view, concept does not exist in many other games

-- Zeroing up/down, pretty obvoius once someone tells you it means your gun scope! Otherwise kind of a mystery.

-- Global/side/command/group/vehicle channel deserve a brief explanation

A lot of things are super obvious once you understand some of the game concepts but someone who is sitting down with the game for the first time is not going to understand the game concepts and as a result they will find all of this overwhelming and confusing--unnecessarily because in most cases the briefest of explanations would convey the concept and save you the feeling of being overwhelmed by it all.

The game UI really ought to include explanations, when you go into the controls in options and rebind stuff, or somewhere, it should tell you what these things are for.

I think a LOT of ArmA's reputation for being difficult boils down to inadequate explanation and not enough emphasis on training the user.

I highly recommend that anyone who hasn't grab a copy of Portal and turn on the developer commentary. Listen to the pains that Valve went to, to structure everything so that the user would learn, and the assumptions that they made about what you might NOT know.

Picking up a game initially is a learning experience and successful games bend over backwards to help you learn.

---------- Post added at 09:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:20 PM ----------

Having said that you are right that some of the controls are non-intuitive.

Here are some suggestions:

-- Swap C and space and make spacebar a combo of both stand-up or climb-over as required. It'll then be intuitively similar to "jump" in other games, people would probably find that they simply do the right thing without being told with this change: First time I got to an obstacle I tried to jump it by pressing space.

-- Crouch should be a push-toggle, release to stand up. Double tap to stay crouched until you press space.

There are a few other cases like that where ArmA is different than other games for no good reason both those are two actions you perform all day long and there isn't a good reason why they aren't more similar to what people are used to from other games.

Of course ArmA can be configured however you like so hardcore veterans can keep their current bindings it's an adjustment that should be made for n00bs.

Overall though the controls aren't THAT hard to learn--they're just not well explained in game.

[SPC.Spets 21]

I can say that the gamers of today only wants graphics, more graphics and more graphics, Huge explotions, clear textures, 3d models, and simplicity on the gameplay.

I hope devs never change the complexity of this game, (in fact, thanks to this comunity the game is even more complex) so those noobs never going to join this game, trying to play as rambo lonewolf terminators iwantboomheadshotlookmystatsbitch!

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

^ Amen.

I find it idiotic that somebody who has been here less then a month would come in, think they know everything, and come up with ideas that have been thought up countless times, and pass them off as original. Not to mention saying that ArmA needs a ranking/achievements system. Hell, if I wanted that i would play BF or CoD.

"Challenging" people to reach 20,000 players? If that's not insulting I'm the King of Sweden. You act like your the person who can get 20,000 people to play, as long as we do what you say. :j:

Also, please search before posting, there are craploads of threads just like yours. Just because you suddenly figured out how to "make ArmA more popular" doesn't mean your special.

I swear, some of the smileys are traps set by Placebo.

[polar bear 10]

I find it idiotic that somebody who has been here less then a month would come in, think they know everything, and come up with ideas that have been thought up countless times, and pass them off as original.

A refresher:

So those of you who have nothing bug negativity to offer, what's YOUR solution for getting to 20k?

You seem to think you know what you're talking about so take your shot. I found only negativity in your post. It's dragging you down man. You must have at LEAST one or two constructive ideas of your own right? Otherwise you wouldn't talk like that, it would be foolish.

So step up, I really would love to hear your ideas.

Edited August 11, 2010 by Polar Bear

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

Wow... FPDR

How about this. We let BIS finish their work, maybe try and get the community to advertise a little but that's tough considering 95% of us don't want BF/CoD players. That means going to sim communities, but that probably won't work considering they will probably have a game. If it does work weve converted a couple hundred people at best, a handful at worst.

Basically, if you want more people to play with, convert your friend. Or Assimilate them, whatever makes you happier. I highly doubt we will ever reach 20k players at the same time. There are definitely 20k people who play A2/OA, the thing is we are spread all over the globe, which means very big time differences, which means you may not see more than a thousand on at once. Then you consider these people have lives, families, jobs, or might be playing some other game as well. THAT is why you don't see 20k on.

*Edit* Also, consider all the people who only play in the editor, or singleplayer, or lan with their friends. I know a bunch of people who play using hamachi, or who spend alot of time creating huge battles in the editor, myself included. I haven't been online much lately, although I am slowly getting more into AAS.

This is a Niche game for a reason. It's not meant to be like CoD or BF, it's meant to be one of the most realistic war sims out there. Not many people like it. Hell, going by youtube the majority of gamers thought that OFP:DR was too realistic, and took to long to reload etc.

Edited August 11, 2010 by Darkhorse 1-6

[polar bear 10]

If you want more people to play with, convert your friend. Or Assimilate them, whatever makes you happier.

Yup, trust me, I'm doing that. Can't shut up about how much I love this game.

I highly doubt we will ever reach 20k players at the same time.

I don't. It's a fantastic game and for all the claims about how hard it is to play and how because it's a military sim people won't like it I don't buy it--there are so many different ways to play this game it's got something for everyone.

20k is an aggressive goal but it's good to have those, set your sights high, aim for the top. Why not? I'm not suggesting it's going to be Counter-Strike with 100k online, 20k is realistic.

Seriously some of the proposals I've made have got to be slam dunks. As someone whose been playing a relatively short while I may have insight into this that vertans lack: What it's actually like picking up ArmA for the first time, what the obstacles are, what I understood wrong at first.

Some really simple things like documenting the controls better would go a LONG way to making this game more accessible and breaking its reputation for being tricky to learn.

I'm still waiting for you to step up with your own ideas, I KNOW you must have them, and they're probably good ideas, so let's have it.

Edited August 11, 2010 by Polar Bear

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

No. I believe that BIS needs to concentrate on fixing, fine-tuning, and updating ArmA II and OA,and maybe release 1 or 2 DLCs before they try to appeal to the masses. They don't need to tailor their game to mainstream FPS players, they need to advertise, and slowly convert them. A better demo maybe. Give away 10 free copies per site, for the top 5 gaming sites, something. They do not need to modify the game to do that.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Hehe, my thoughts exactly :)

@Pulverizer:

1) Unplayable performance on low to mid-range gaming PCs on most game situations

Works for me, and I'm only one dual core, 2GB Ram, and 9800GTX. No I'm obviously not playing on the highest settings. Learn to do the same. Although performance is on the low side, I'm not having the same kind of issues I had in Arma2 (the horrible trees). Then again, I'm also getting low performance in most games if I go to far. But corridor shooters doesn't like me very much - or was it the other way around? :p

2) Bugs and CTDs

I've had two BSOD's thanks to crashing drivers, not a single CTD yet unless it was self inflicted (scripting mistakes). Bugs, sure. But GTA4 was completely hopeless on the PC, so I had to get rid of it. And that game IS mainstream. So argument is unfitting.

3) Warping units in MP

Yeah, I had those too. In Unreal Tournament - the original - guess it was a modem issue :p. Warping is problem, but dependent on server settings as well I assume - not only BIS fault.

4) Stupid AI that has zero iniative for anything else but getting their ass smoked

Highly dependent on scripts that affect them. Default behavior leaves somethings to be desired. On the other hand, what other games have this? Try to setup an AI "brain" yourself, and you'll see how incredibly impossible it is. I've done it only for AI artillery decision making process, and it quickly grows out of proporsions. I'd rather have some mistakes in AI than bots with pathnodes and no real AI.

5) Clunky and unintuitive controls

Other than controlling AI efficiently and "old fashioned interface" (action menu, which is outright dangerous sometimes), I don't have any issues at all.

[AntalopeAUT 10]

I beg to differ. I think it's a niche product because of:

1) Unplayable performance on low to mid-range gaming PCs on most game situations

2) Bugs and CTDs

3) Warping units in MP

4) Stupid AI that has zero iniative for anything else but getting their ass smoked

5) Clunky and unintuitive controls

Absolutely NOT because it's too "realistic" or "hardcore". It isn't, unless you argue that CTDs and single digit framerates make the game more hardcore.

1. Lol....which game has this type a gfx AND VIEWDISTANCE...tell me ONE, pls..oh and more fps? DOWN WITH THE EYECANDY MATE ;)

2. Lol....Tell me another game where that DOES ABSOLUTELY NOT OCCUR ( I cant name one although playing for now 24 years with electronic boxes called PC ;)

3. Still cool for your aiming ...react to the lag is fun xD ( or get better performing servers )

4. LAWL...ever played profi/expert for a try ^^ They gonna HS you Oneshot from 700 meters away with their beloved AKSU in under 2 secs from spotting you...can any of you claim to react as quick ?

5. Maybe...but only to unsused hands, so play this game as serious as any other of your "Pop-shooters"( yea thats the musical term for popular), the efforts will pay "nearly" immediately.

Shortly said: This game needs Players, not just some Points hungry Gun-galorists running round and shooting all to hell with standing point straight in the landscape and wondering why the heck they hits nothing.

Still shorter said : Serious People for SERIOUS GAMES

So, Please : N O to soften this game up for just drawing new blood...

Cya on the Battlefields

LAWL=Loud Austrian Wild Laughter

Edited August 11, 2010 by AntalopeAUT

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

1) Unplayable performance on low to mid-range gaming PCs on most game situations

I don't know how I missed this.

I play ArmA 2 and OA on medium settings, with a VD of 2-5k depending on the map/mission. I normally play on servers that have alot of action. I play in the editor with a minimum of 200 units at a time.

I do all this with a Pentium 4 3.4ghz processor, 2GB RAM, and an Nvidia 7800. If I can do it, so can you.

[AntalopeAUT 10]

DarkHorse...your Rig seems to be juicing^^

Lawl

[Pulverizer 1]

I do all this with a Pentium 4 3.4ghz processor, 2GB RAM, and an Nvidia 7800. If I can do it, so can you.

I bet some people can even stick an icicle in their rear-end without making a funny face, but that doesn't mean the majority of people ever will.

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

Well, I'm sure your one of those people. Judging from the amount of smoke your blowing out your ass, it would probably melt before you felt it.

[NevilleBartos 10]

I dont think changing the game will bring more players in, the learning curve of the game is probably what makes it fun for most of us, what might though is if BIS officially supported the popular user made missions, with mission manuals and links to major community sites and forums.

[polar bear 10]

I dont think changing the game will bring more players in, the learning curve of the game is probably what makes it fun for most of us, what might though is if BIS officially supported the popular user made missions, with mission manuals and links to major community sites and forums.

Great suggestion, the most popular multi-player shooter on the net right now, and for the last five years or so, with >100k online at any time from its various incarnations, started out life as a community mod. Valve was smart enough to back a winner--it's almost always the right move to promote popular community developed content.

Edited August 11, 2010 by Polar Bear

[NevilleBartos 10]

Yeah i think the game would have huge potential if BIS officially promoted some of the talent in the community.