The Future of Arma

[Hazzard65 0]

Bohemia you are standing on what could be a huge multi-player phenomenon. Your game has the potential to be the number one online wargame that could easily rival anything from Call of Duty or Medal of Honor.

In order for this to happen the very first priority for you is to stop creating campaigns and above all (and I mean this is the most loving way possible) stop trying to write stories. You suck at writing stories and dialogue. Your engine is so powerful and offers such a huge amount for so many people but it's weakest element is in story driven campaigns simply because it is so buggy... and this negative experience is compounded by your UTTERLY HORRIBLE WRITING! Please stop, it's getting painful to see.

When you have come to terms with this and you are ready to move on it is time for you to move everything you have over to multiplayer development. Go nuts, experiment, sort out your netcode... really push this engine to the limits in terms of optimization and streamlining the combat experience. I don't mean simplify but rather lubricate ;).

I am not suggesting I am TELLING you that if you focus on multiplayer and you really polish it up to a blinding sheen, still offering the highly complex, customisable multiplayer experience with the ease of access that Battlefield or Call of Duty offers with smooth online combat in a large scale environment for PVP or PVE you WILL see your bank balance begin to bulge at the seems.

Or you can continue to pump out these lacklustre, bug ridden, terribly written campaigns that nobody truly cares about, wasting your time and wasting a potentially wonderful opportunity.

Just imagine if you were to divert your entire team of talented and skilled individuals into creating a planetside type shooter MMO based on ArmAII. Imagine if it were easy to access, smooth to play and offering the kind of scale and scope most FPS shooters players simply couldn't imagine. Imagine if you charged a reasonable price for a subscription; say £3-4 per month.

You are talking about a piece of demographic pie that has been left on the windowsill with not so much as a sniff from anyone else out there. If you grabbed that pie with both hands you are looking at potentially millions of players over a very short period of time all clambering over each other to play your game.

Think about it Bohemia... you are missing a real opportunity here. In case you think I am some fool who doesn't know what he is talking about I humbly inform you that I work for an internationally acclaimed MMO that boasts just over a million players... I understand the market, the medium and I understand your game, being a dedicated Opflash/ Arma fan since 2001.

Nobody understands what we are looking for better than you. Do it... DO IT!... before someone else does.

Edited January 4, 2011 by Hazzard65

[dm 9]

Whats with all these future threads popping up lately... Was there a sale on crystal balls over the xmas period?

[ProfTournesol 956]

I mostly disagree, a lot of players don't care (or not much) about the MP side of the game, and buy it to play the missions, campaigns and have fun in the mission editor and mods/addons. BI missions and campaigns are very enjoyable, apart from some parts of Harvest Red IMHO.

[d3lta 10]

Bohemia you are standing on what could be a huge multi-player phenomenon. Your game has the potential to be the number one online wargame that could easily rival anything from Call of Duty or Medal of Honor.

In order for this to happen the very first priority for you is to stop creating campaigns and above all (and I mean this is the most loving way possible) stop trying to write stories. You suck at writing stories and dialogue. Your engine is so powerful and offers such a huge amount for so many people but it's weakest element is in story driven campaigns simply because it is so buggy... and this negative experience is compounded by your UTTERLY HORRIBLE WRITING! Please stop, it's getting painful to see.

When you have come to terms with this and you are ready to move on it is time for you to move everything you have over to multiplayer development. Go nuts, experiment, sort out your netcode... really push this engine to the limits in terms of optimization and streamlining the combat experience. I don't mean simplify but rather lubricate ;).

I am not suggesting I am TELLING you that if you focus on multiplayer and you really polish it up to a blinding sheen, still offering the highly complex, customisable multiplayer experience with the ease of access that Battlefield or Call of Duty offers with smooth online combat in a large scale environment for PVP or PVE you WILL see your bank balance begin to bulge at the seems.

Or you can continue to pump out these lacklustre, bug ridden, terribly written campaigns that nobody truly cares about, wasting your time and wasting a potentially wonderful opportunity.

Just imagine if you were to divert your entire team of talented and skilled individuals into creating a planetside type shooter MMO based on ArmAII. Imagine if it were easy to access, smooth to play and offering the kind of scale and scope most FPS shooters players simply couldn't imagine. Imagine if you charged a reasonable price for a subscription; say £3-4 per month.

You are talking about a piece of demographic pie that has been left on the windowsill with not so much as a sniff from anyone else out there. If you grabbed that pie with both hands you are looking at potentially millions of players over a very short period of time all clambering over each other to play your game.

Think about it Bohemia... you are missing a real opportunity here. In case you think I am some fool who doesn't know what he is talking about I humbly inform you that I work for an internationally acclaimed MMO that boasts just over a million players... I understand the market, the medium and I understand your game, being a dedicated Opflash/ Arma fan since 2001.

Nobody understands what we are looking for better than you. Do it... DO IT!... before someone else does.

I don´t agree with this opinion. Do you want COD or BattleField? Buy them.

But Arma, is Arma, and has a own style, that I love. I like the campaigns too...

[NeMeSiS 11]

I completely disagree with this.

[walker 0]

Hi all

I agree with a lot of what Hazzard65 has said.

If I was BIS I would concentrate on making editable example missions and new fuctionality rather than campaigns.

I do like the last two campaigns but their resources are far better focussed on creating the tools that others can then use to make missions and mods.

I would suggest that BIS seperate the Real Virtuality Engine development from campaigns and mission making best of all, make use of the community by allowing them to license the engine at a percentage basis through Sprocket, Idea and Steam to sell the best of the user created as officialy approved MOD's, Mission Packs and Campaigns.

All BIS would need to do this is good Beta Test team to give a BIS certificate of aproval.

Kind Regards walker

Edited January 4, 2011 by walker

[(AEF)Swordsman 10]

I can see both sides. The majority of the Australian groups that I play with (myself included) would rather see the campaigns that ship with the game ditched entirely for either more content, streamlined releases, more features for the editor or more dev time on the engine / game mechanics. We all live for the MP side of ArmA, it's where we get our enjoyment and satisfaction from the game. I know most of us haven't even looked at the campaigns since OFP (they just don't interest us).

At the same time, I know a few guys who just don't have the time for MP and thoroughly enjoy SP missions... although in saying that they wouldn't touch the campaigns with a 10 foot pole and play community made SP missions or make their own. :)

I hate to sound like the whingey little twat, but it'd be great if more time was put into developing the community tools (modding tools + the in game editor) and turning ArmA-X into a "blank slate sandbox" that came with the content and the means, I don't think I'd be totally out of line to say the rest would make itself. :)

But... I'll play ArmA regardless of how it's done (if it's continued) in the future, so long as it stays true :D

[ProfTournesol 956]

Hi all

I agree with a lot of what Hazzard65 has said.

If I was BIS I would concentrate on making editable example missions and new fuctionality rather than campaigns.

I do like the last two campaigns but their resources are far better focussed on creating the tools that others can then use to make missions and mods.

I would suggest that BIS seperate the Real Virtuality Engine development from campaigns and mission making best of all, make use of the community by allowing them to license the engine at a percentage basis through Sprocket, Idea and Steam to sell the best of the user created as officialy approved MOD's, Mission Packs and Campaigns.

All BIS would need to do this is good Beta Test team to give a BIS certificate of aproval.

Kind Regards walker

Obviously, a part of the upgrade of the scripting/game engine cames from BIS people trying to make campaigns and facing engine/scripting limitations. The same things happens to modders, who - while doing mission - realize that they need new models/unit/scripts etc.

[Freeborne 10]

Perhaps a poll might be more useful, based on people's importance of single player or multiplayer.

I stopped playing Single Player since OFP. Got half way through ArmA and got bored, only played about 5 missions in ArmA2, gave up on first mission in Operation Arrowhead. Spend 20+ hours a week playing MP though, been pretty consistent for over 2 years.

ArmA, as a game and engine continues to evolve, but spending so much time on creating campaigns seems like taking a step back and just repeating what's already been done before. I'd rather see campaign's lose focus and more content added, bugs fixed, improve the interface and mod compatibility, optimize performance, etc.

Some of the recent GUI changes have been so simple but taken years to change (such as expanding the multi-player server screen-width). If people want to play Single Player, then sell it as a separate mission pack but I'd almost bet my own money it wouldn't prove very popular.

[Peonza 10]

Well a.. this may sound bit scary, but IMO this game should go into "globalisation" stuff, like most games do today.. BIS could host small network of servers, which you login in before playing online games, have various crap like chat channels and so on, and importantly - upload download update addons on the fly , before entering server requiring them, (and Arma without addons feels very dull), also browse/download huge list of scenarious , etc

This would make it very user friendly, and more casual players would play this

[walker 0]

Obviously, a part of the upgrade of the scripting/game engine cames from BIS people trying to make campaigns and facing engine/scripting limitations. The same things happens to modders, who - while doing mission - realize that they need new models/unit/scripts etc.

Hi ProfTournesol

You make a good point ProfTournesol but BIS have a whole raft of a systems to allow user imput into Real Virtuality Engine (RVE) development. It would seem counter productive to not take note of that imput on which so much money is spent because only those developing in house are considered competant to point out bugs and feature needs.

By all means let developers rotate through the mission and campaign department but in reality those resources are limited, and a developer ends up short changing either the mission/campaign development or more importantly bug checking or engine functionality. I suspect bugs get through as the developers loose focus trying to get a mission made in time for the release deadline. The missions then get rushed.

The complexity and openeness of RVE means that many endings to BIS missions happen outside the expected results. In MP at Zeus we have a process of the admin Endexing missions that have not quite reached a final end Trigger. This could be mitigated by using the existing Finite State Machine to develop all mission checkpoints and endings; and as counter balance alowing more fuzzy ending triggers like the xFOR controls the zone trigger, which gets rid of the spending 3 hours trying to find the one living but wounded driver of the damaged tank somwhere out on the battlefield that the binary state xFOR present trigger creates.

Plus one on this point:

Well a.. this may sound bit scary, but IMO this game should go into "globalisation" stuff, like most games do today.. BIS could host small network of servers, which you login in before playing online games, have various crap like chat channels and so on, and importantly - upload download update addons on the fly , before entering server requiring them, (and Arma without addons feels very dull), also browse/download huge list of scenarious , etc

This would make it very user friendly, and more casual players would play this

Kind Regards walker

Edited January 4, 2011 by walker

[demonized 20]

i liked the SP campaigns and when i first started playing arma that was what fit into my schedule, also had little interest in MP at the time, now MP is mostly used but yeah SP should always be there imo, especially for new players, cheers BIS for trying to make interesting campaigns.

[Tom_Anger 0]

I've never played MMO's because it honestly sounds queer when you hear grown men on teamspeak talking about dragons, guilds, and warlocks. From what I have heard some guilds would team up to take over land and build fortresses (just typing these words makes me want to hit my penis with a hammer).

Having said this - In a Tactical Military game that could be interesting. I do think ArmA's Warfare model is the best to give folks a very close aspect of FPS, RTS, and MMO, however, the concerns are stability and when the game is over so is your character. ArmA Life also has the MMO playability, but not to the magnitude that it could be. :D

I believe one of the main reasons ArmA is what it is today goes to the engine and ability to customize missions as well as addons. If ArmA looked to structure the game for MMO capability "globally" I bet there would be a fall-out with those who work on missions, addons, other customizations, unless that could be implemented in the process.

Interesting post and I for sure will see how it unfolds.

[whisper 0]

MMO != RPG

You should take a look at BattleGround Europe or Planetside as examples of what can be done as MMO FPS.

I'm a bit in a mixed bag on this. That would mean complete halt to other aspects of the game, because the task is really huge, considering the state of the game MP wise (there's still a lot, lot, lot of issues to fix MP-wise, which count for a huge workload), complete staff change (many people on BI staff don't have much to do with MP things)....

Anyway, this is wishfull thinking and it will never happen

[TechnoTerrorist303 10]

I love the fact the OP claims to understand the game and the market and then suggests turning it into a subscription service.

For me the big appeal is the ability to create my own missions, scripts even units and maps then run them on a server configured exactly how I (and my squad) want it. If it all went centralized then this wouldn't be possible and it would fail horribly.

[Rak 0]

I couldn't agree more with the OP(well except the "MMO" part, no). Of couse you have to have a campaign, but focusing on campaigns after the release is just pointless. I never played any of BIS' campaigns through to the end, DLC campaigns has no interest for me. They've mostly became stale/cliche with horrible voice acting halfway.

This game(franchise) lives, because of it's multiplayer. Because of it's coop, because of it's PvP. It's lackluster in terms of stability and accessibility, but somehow this community seems to have learned to get along with it. As the OP says, improve the netcode. Work on new gameplay modes, pick one (like "This mode defines ArmA soul, this will be the "official" MP gamemode and we'll support it) and improve it with new features.

I also think this game has incredible MP potential, but it's very hard for new people to realise it. And for the people like me, it's painful to get along with the current MP.

[tequila.mockingbird 10]

Hi Guys,

After only ever playing OFP in SP, I played Arma. It was good, but didn't draw me in like Flashpoint. What kept me going was actually my first go at Warfare. That was really awesome - not played anything like it. So I agree with you to some extent about the MP support.

But I don't see the argument to drop SP support. I enjoy getting into a game though its offline interactions. I enjoyed Harvest Red, OAH was ok, but nothing to write home about, BAF was a nice angle on the conflict (and great to see the brits), and, actually, I thought PMC was good.

Different from HR, but fresh. Wasn't sure about some of the mission design. but there are nuggets of gold in there, held together by a story to follow (which was actually good, certainly in BI terms). It actually had a story, etc - and I miss that from MP. I think the voice acting in BAF and PMC was also good -- i thinkk it's just too lazy to say 'horrible VA' now (escpecially from people who havn't played the lastest campaigns :p), it's not hollywood, but its no worse that OFP.

Maybe because I only picked it up after the patch, so didn't have the problems of other players.... I think PMC, for eg, is a great one to introduce people to gameplay, simplifying the sometimes-difficult-to-control AI, etc, and i don't see why whey woudlnt release it with BAF in the stores to get some more users to come back to arma - to populate the MP servers, which keep you in it for the longer-term.

[callihn 10]

Honestly my biggest issue is that writing multiplayer missions is too difficult, I have worked with several engines in the past and never had such difficulty before, it's like a single player game with MP possibilities available though not very optimal and the Multiplayer Framework just doesn't fill that void. I've never seen an MP game like this, in fact it seems that even some of the so-called global commands in fact do not work well with MP. I'd like to see all commands work in MP correctly with JIP, like any other MP game out there.

[ahmedjbh 0]

The problem with BIS games is this.

When you are on a good server, with nice people, and a good mission, there is absolutely nothing that even compares to it, I would happily pay £100 per evening for those games.

Unfortunately those situations are really rare, so for example if you are trying to get a friend interested, you show them the game, and then you have to explain, eg if it crashes, you say thats rare, if you cant find a decent server, you say, ahh its late etc, if its all domination, you say theres this other great map etc.

The percentage of "good games" to "bad games" is not right, there is too much reliance on the community or luck as to whether you will have a good game. It needs to be built in to the game. Im not saying it needs to be made childish or simple, but in addition to the sandbox, there should be more standard BIS multiplayer thats actually good.

There is so much potential with Arma, and I can see the hope was that some great modders would bring it out, and this has happened to a degree, but its so much effort and work to make it that way, the extra downloads and configuring etc.

I would happily pay for an expansion pack that made the netcode better, made a really good PVP missions, and a few dedicated offical servers.

Im hoping Project reality will bring that to the Arma universe.