Suggestions that would make Arma II / AO more popular

[Eclipse4349 0]

I disagree. The rambo types can play DM and TDM to their hearts content, and should be given the environment to do so. Even rambo co-op and PvP players. Server admin have the discretion to kick players who do not follow the rules, of which lone-wolf-uber-rambo-ness could be one. But a game should not force someone to play a certain way. If people only want a certain style of player, coordinate it yourself through steam or xfire contacts, or join a clan that plays the way you like.

Weeding out entire classes of players will only hold a title back. Look at EA's battlefield series. Hugely popluar, and no forced play style. Yet, before Arma 2 came into its own and was patched up and I still played Battlefield, I always had team-minded squad-oriented players to shoot it up with, because those are the players i sought out and built a network with. The rest were just cannon fodder.

[[frl]myke 14]

But a game should not force someone to play a certain way. If people only want a certain style of player, coordinate it yourself through steam or xfire contacts, or join a clan that plays the way you like.

Utterly wrong. The game design dictates the way it is meant to be played. If i play a Formula 1 game, i would be very dissapointed if i can drive straight over grass without consequences. If i want to drive offroad, well then i better switch to a rally sim, wouldn't you agree?

[celery 8]

Regarding the thread topic:

Provide an engaging single player experience out of the box!

That's all you need. That's all OFP needed to become as mainstream as a game like that could.

Myke;1823336']Utterly wrong. The game design dictates the way it is meant to be played. If i play a Formula 1 game' date=' i would be very dissapointed if i can drive straight over grass without consequences. If i want to drive offroad, well then i better switch to a rally sim, wouldn't you agree?[/quote']

Are you saying that achieving your goal as effectively as possible within the constraints of the game's and mission's mechanics is the wrong way to play?

[Eclipse4349 0]

Myke;1823336']Utterly wrong. The game design dictates the way it is meant to be played. If i play a Formula 1 game' date=' i would be very dissapointed if i can drive straight over grass without consequences. If i want to drive offroad, well then i better switch to a rally sim, wouldn't you agree?[/quote']

You are talking about something else entirely. That would be like me saying BIS should remove their ballistic model and use a flat trajectory because that's what the "other" gamers want. That isn't at all what I am saying. I am saying that the game should not discourage someone with a certain style of play. Which they haven't, because they included classics like DM and TDM. And the whole point of this anyway is that the game needs to do a much more thorough job of training up new players on Arma's features and commands. This applies to all players. Impatient Rambos arent the only types that refuse to invest the amount of time it takes to learn Arma, so the point is moot anyway.

Arma needs much better documentation, explanation, and tutorials if it is ever to really take off. I myself know many perfectly "good" gamers, who love to work as a team and play as a squad, who are completely turned off by the big learning curve and lack of help in learning it from the game itself. Some people have too limited an amount of time to enjoy gaming to choose to spend it learning Arma, especially when Arma doesnt help you.

[[frl]myke 14]

Are you saying that achieving your goal as effectively as possible within the constraints of the game's and mission's mechanics is the wrong way to play?

No, i'm saying that winning a Formula one racing sim by taking shortcuts without any sort of penalty is not a feature but a bug. I would call this exploiting.

I am saying that the game should not discourage someone with a certain style of play.

If the certain style of play does not fit with a certain style of game then a certain player should think if he plays the right game for his certain style of play, whatever it is.

And the whole point of this anyway is that the game needs to do a much more thorough job of training up new players on Arma's features and commands.

Couldn't disagree. Although, no joke, my 4 year old son managed to find out how to navigate ingame, he found himself out how to give orders to AI teammates to move to a certain place (in 3d world aswell on map) or get in a vehicle. The only thing i ever actively showed him was how to place a player unit in the editor.

And although as father i would like to believe it, i don't think he is already a genius, i think he is just a normal 4 year old boy. So i fail to believe that the learning curve is that steep as some wont stop to suggest in here.

:EDITH:

Junior looking for reload >100kb

Edited December 29, 2010 by [FRL]Myke

[Eclipse4349 0]

Myke;1823414']Couldn't disagree. Although' date=' no joke, my 4 year old son managed to find out how to navigate ingame, he found himself out how to give orders to AI teammates to move to a certain place (in 3d world aswell on map) or get in a vehicle. The only thing i ever actively showed him was how to place a player unit in the editor.

And although as father i would like to believe it, i don't think he is already a genius, i think he is just a normal 4 year old boy. So i fail to believe that the learning curve is that steep as some wont stop to suggest in here.[/quote']

What everyone else thinks-----> Your son = genius. you should be

[[frl]myke 14]

What everyone else thinks-----> Your son = genius. you should be

I do hope it, i really do. ;)

[Mr. Charles 22]

Poor boy, the headset is bigger than his head xD

And ArmA would need one thing to get more popular: good critics.

[Zipper5 74]

Those who know how the game works will be the most successful, being realistic about things does not guarantee success. As realistic as Arma 2 is, or people make it out to be, it's still a game and can still be played like a game.

For example, I know exactly how an AI reacts when it starts to engage an enemy. I know that most of the time it will try to go crouched when it sees one, I know that if it's stationary and loses sight of me he will eventually pop his head up and move to try and locate me again, I know how effectively certain foliage/obstructions block their view, I know that they almost always take a short while to adjust their aim before firing (the time this takes depends on their skill level), I know they always try to aim for your head first, and I know that leaning distorts their aim as it moves your head just a bit further away from where their gun is pointing. Therefore I can pretty much rush around a village and take down AI very effectively even if I get into a face-to-face encounter with them. It's not the realistic thing to do, but it gets the job done quickly, efficiently, and to the same or greater degree as doing it "realistically". Despite being dynamic, Arma 2's AI is still pretty predictable when you work with it enough.

Using your knowledge of the game's mechanics to win is a perfectly legitimate strategy, even if it's not playing "realistically".

[johncage 30]

If you follow the popularity contest philosophy of game making, you end up making a bunch of call of duties and battlefields. No thank you.

[MoS 0]

I don´t know if this has been mentioned before... but I´ll post it anyway because I believe over the time most of us forgot why they first started to play OFP/ArmA/ArmA2.

We want WAR!

Some want to be that little soldier on the battlefield facing a huge enemy army, while spending most of the time staying alive and shoot widly at the enemy.

Some others want to be part of the cool Air Force or the Tank Squad casting great waves of destruction upon the enemy.

Either way it is about being party of a large scale war, fighting the enemy with up to date machinery and many enemies + allies. Ain´t I right?

Therefor my suggestions:

1.) Larger landscapes

There is just not enough room to let two big armies fight each other.

(Chernarus may appear huge but in fact it is just mountains and woods not suitable for armored warfare. Also to small for big planes)

2.) Lower hardware requirements (with help of simplier graphics)

Just think what you would prefer: A) A game with Crysis graphics and standard corridor shooting ala CoD or B) A game with OFPs graphics but a huge area to fight a lag free 100vs100 player warfare?

3.) Multiplayer netcode improvements

As already said above: Support of massive amounts of players per server is mandatory to create an immersive warfare scenario. 200 people for example would just be awesome!

4.) Sustaining environment

To create such immersion it is also necessary to have the landscape be changeable by the player through craters, wrecks and destroyed buildings.

(And I am talking about seeing those until the end of the game)

5.) Standard multiplayermode with CTI components

Using all those things mentioned already, it would also need a mode which guides the player through to the fight. It takes a dynamic frontline and an adaptable automatic missiongenerator which tells you where to go and what to do (specific to your role). Of course letting the player still choose himself how to best achive his assigned goal!

6.) Overworked communications platform

Maybe tunable radio frequencies would just do the trick. Support the players with ingame communication mechanics instead of letting them have to use programs like TeamSpeak (which is in fact very simple yet so effective and popular) or other workarounds.

(Why doesnt any game have such a simple easy-tune-in-into-different-comm-rooms-mechanic?)

Well thats just about it. Just let me say a few more words.

First I am sorry about any errors (english is not my prime language). Second I know those things I suggested are not going to happen in at least some years. BIS holds on onto their engine until the end of time (yes I claim that it is BIS to blame for putting too much emphasis on graphics and too less on physics/netcode). The other thing is that there just aren´t any game developers who try to create a similar game. We have the hardware-power to be able to create such a scenario, which we have wanted since OFP, yet ArmA is still the only one, at least going into the right direction and this is why im sticking with it until I find what I am looking for.

Btw Im playing BIS games since OFP in 2003. I mention that because I want the bashers, haters and fanboys to know that I throughlived the whole development process of this series and therefor understand why things are the way they are!

Now finally to give a clear statement why specifically my suggestions would attract many players?

Cause it would provide a packing and addicting platform of modern combat warfare to live out the players desire to shoot and blow up stuff together and against other players on an unseen grand scale!

:cool:

[Eclipse4349 0]

I don´t know if this has been mentioned before... but I´ll post it anyway because I believe over the time most of us forgot why they first started to play OFP/ArmA/ArmA2.

We want WAR!

Some want to be that little soldier on the battlefield facing a huge enemy army, while spending most of the time staying alive and shoot widly at the enemy.

Some others want to be part of the cool Air Force or the Tank Squad casting great waves of destruction upon the enemy.

Either way it is about being party of a large scale war, fighting the enemy with up to date machinery and many enemies + allies. Ain´t I right?

Therefor my suggestions:

Well thats just about it. Just let me say a few more words.

First I am sorry about any errors (english is not my prime language). Second I know those things I suggested are not going to happen in at least some years. BIS holds on onto their engine until the end of time (yes I claim that it is BIS to blame for putting too much emphasis on graphics and too less on physics/netcode). The other thing is that there just aren´t any game developers who try to create a similar game. We have the hardware-power to be able to create such a scenario, which we have wanted since OFP, yet ArmA is still the only one, at least going into the right direction and this is why im sticking with it until I find what I am looking for.

Btw Im playing BIS games since OFP in 2003. I mention that because I want the bashers, haters and fanboys to know that I throughlived the whole development process of this series and therefor understand why things are the way they are!

Now finally to give a clear statement why specifically my suggestions would attract many players?

Cause it would provide a packing and addicting platform of modern combat warfare to live out the players desire to shoot and blow up stuff together and against other players on an unseen grand scale!

:cool:

Let us know how that all works out in 20 years or so when pc technology and internet bandwidth makes that possible... Back to Arma 2 now perhaps?

[MoS 0]

Have you seen the youtube vids with TWO-THOUSAND AIs battling each other in one place? Altough this guy has overclocked his CPU we have already the capacity to do this by now... Dont you think it would be possible for merely 200 cpu-conserving-real-players?

And btw six years ago it was totally possible to play CTI with 30 vs 30 in OFP.

Do you really want to tell me this isnt possible with todays broadband internet connections?

I am totally aware that this isnt possible with the current ArmA2 engine and that is exactly why I wrote that it would need a complete overhaul... but as mentioned earlier I know why BIS is never going to do that and that there is no other company working in the same area...

Anyway it was asked how to attract more players and I gave a proper anwser... now back to polite non-bashing idea gathering perhaps?

[Eclipse4349 0]

I am totally aware that this isnt possible with the current ArmA2 engine and that is exactly why I wrote that it would need a complete overhaul... but as mentioned earlier I know why BIS is never going to do that...

As i said, back to Arma 2 perhaps? You said yourself that your suggestions aren't possible with the engine, and that you know BIS isn't going to completely redo it. Not meant to bash you, it's just that this thread is about suggestions for Arma 2 and OA, which these suggestions clearly aren't intended for.