A view of ArmA II multiplayer from a TF2, CSS, BF2 player

[Cookieeater 10]

I've had ArmA II for pretty much around 2 years and have played it from time to time setting up scenarios and just battling it out. At the same time I have played a ton of public games on TF2, CSS, and BF2. The multiplayer on ArmA II is just flat out terrible for public players. Here are my reasons why I think ArmA II public has been such a flop, and that hopefully somebody whose making a map or a gamemode will take into account.

1. Mod dependency

There are way too many mods out there for ArmA II on a server. A random person will try going to a public 100 player PvP server that finally isn't Domination, and will be greeted with:

You can not play/edit this game, it is dependent on content: @ACE, @ACEX,

@ACRE,@RH40PACK,@TACTICOOLM4,@WARFX,@NAVYSEALSMODELS ,@SOMERANDOMSTUFFYOUHAVETOSCOURTHEINTERNETS, + 20 other mods i have never heard of

I know the pain of installing ACE with the damned new installer. And half of those mods listed on there I have no idea where to download. And even downloading them, which will take a good chunk of my time, i'll be met with wrong version errors up the ass. Especially when I take my time to download ACE which takes around 2 hours and find out that I have the newest up to date version when 90% of servers haven't updated yet, and be pestered with that WARNING message.

My solution to this problem:

ArmA II needs to be easy to approach to new players and should be operative to play on most servers without a third party program. I'd say ArmA II should download any addons that the player doesn't have onto his comp when trying to join a server with mods enabled. The solution would be extremely simple without killing the server's bandwidth.

1. Player with no mods joins server that is mod dependent

2. Message pops up "You do not have these mods listed here:@EXAMPLE,@ANOTHEREXAMPLE

Would you like to download them?(100mb)

3. Player selects yes

4. In every mod folder on the server hosting ArmA II, there would be a file with a URL in there that links to where the mod is hosted(downloadurl.txt in @EXAMPLE). The game will download from this URL link, and NOT DIRECTLY FROM THE SERVER HOSTING ARMA II(so if @EXAMPLE was hosted in ArmAholic, it'll download from ArmAholic and not the server hosting ArmA II)

6. The game will extract the downloaded .rar that only has .PBOs in it to a folder with the server's name where it'll dump all the .PBOs that that exact server requires.

7. Game automatically mounts the server folder that was just created whenever you join that specific server.

8. Player has fun, doesn't need to alt tab and download some third party program.

2. Domination

I have no idea why people play on these servers. People run around like headless chickens. There's no organization anywhere at all, people just run into a helicopter, which usually crashes due to lag, and if it doesn't, everyone ejects, spends 5 minutes running to a random household corner, starts shooting everything that moves, and dies to a random dude hiding in a bush. Theres no teamwork involved, which is pretty disgraceful IMO as ArmA II is known for it's realism and I have never ever experienced teamwork in a public game.

3. Missions are too big

Yes I just said missions are too big. Nothing is centralized, the player is confused by all of these random helicopters scattered around an airfield, and second off he has no idea where to go. As a new player, you'll be greeted with "ATTACK ALL THESE GOD DAMN CITIES, THATS IT" that are miles and miles away from your spawn. It doesn't help that there are only 30 players on the server that are all scrambled out everywhere on the map that never talk at all. Nothing seems to be made in consideration for the public player. It seems like the mission makers make the mission on just how epic coolness it is instead of how fun it is to the player. Instead of complaining about how public players lack teamwork, mission makers should view on how to make missions that encourage teammates to stick together and work as a team.

Overall, I want teamwork which is absent, which big missions are to partially blame. I want PvP, but not epic coolness PvP that takes up the entire map, but PvP that just involves 2 squads vs eachother in a village. I'd think ArmA II public multiplayer should just take a huge step of scaleness back and focus the battle on just an assault on a village filled with AI, or a Squad vs Squad battle in the woods. It'll still be realistic(maybe even more realistic than normal public games), yet players will easily get a grasp on where should I go, what to do, and wheres my team.

Edited April 28, 2011 by Cookieeater

[maturin 12]

1. Mod dependency

There are way too many mods out there for ArmA II on a server. A random person will try going to a public 100 player PvP server that finally isn't Domination, and will be greeted with:

You can not play/edit this game, it is dependent on content: @ACE, @ACEX,

@ACRE,@RH40PACK,@TACTICOOLM4,@WARFX,@NAVYSEALSMODELS ,@SOMERANDOMSTUFFYOUHAVETOSCOURTHEINTERNETS, + 20 other mods i have never heard of

So play on a vanilla server? There should be some way of easily segregating mod servers, and if there's isn't already, then it's a UI tweak away.

Alternately, there are addon sync programs if you can't stand vanilla.

2. Domination

I have no idea why people play on these servers. People run around like headless chickens. There's no organization anywhere at all, people just run into a helicopter, which usually crashes due to lag, and if it doesn't, everyone ejects, spends 5 minutes running to a random household corner, starts shooting everything that moves, and dies to a random dude hiding in a bush. Theres no teamwork involved, which is pretty disgraceful IMO as ArmA II is known for it's realism and I have never ever experienced teamwork in a public game.

A-fucking-men. Domination is a blight.

3. Maps are too big

Yes I just said maps are too big. There are missions out there that just are too big. Nothing is centralized, the player is confused by all of these random helicopters scattered around an airfield, and second off he has no idea where to go. As a new player, you'll be greeted with "ATTACK ALL THESE GOD DAMN CITIES, THATS IT" that are miles and miles away from your spawn. It doesn't help that there are only 30 players on the server that are all scrambled out everywhere on the map that never talk at all. Nothing seems to be made in consideration for the public player. It seems like the mission makers make the mission on just how epic coolness it is instead of how fun it is to the player. Instead of complaining about how public players lack teamwork, mission makers should view on how to make missions that encourage teammates to stick together and work as a team.

GTFO. Or do so if you are suggesting smaller maps. It wouldn't be ArmA anymore. More compact missions can be nice, but it's not the game's fault if players can't read a map. It's the mission maker's fault if the map isn't properly marked.

New players can be confused in any game, it's only when you play the same five scenarios ad nauseum in TF2, CSS or BF2 on a map the size of broom closet that you will get to know where everything is. The size of the map has nothing to do with idiots not working together, and no game can force people to do so.

Overall, I want teamwork which is absent, which big missions are to partially blame. I want PvP, but not epic coolness PvP that takes up the entire map, but PvP that just involves 2 squads vs eachother in a village. I'd think ArmA II public multiplayer should just take a huge step of scaleness back and focus the battle on just an assault on a village filled with AI, or a Squad vs Squad battle in the woods. It'll still be realistic(maybe even more realistic than normal public games), yet players will easily get a grasp on where should I go, what to do, and wheres my team.

Well, there are maps like that. I think there are even some BIS-supplied deathmatches like that.

But it will not be more realistic. Most of real war is maneuver, ambush, deception and finding the enemy first. What you want is the equivalent of an 18th century gentleman's duel, and may the quickest trigger finger and the lowest ping win. Just mashing players together won't create teamwork. You'll just be running around like rambo in close proximity with other mute rambos.

[Zipper5 74]

I hate to say it, but I agree with all 3 of those points.

You're going to be told by people here to join a clan, but what should be done is server admins should work to fix these issues on public servers. Really the only thing BIS could do without compromising the game is develop a means of an addon downloader similar to the one for missions.

[Cookieeater 10]

GTFO. Or do so if you are suggesting smaller maps. It wouldn't be ArmA anymore. More compact missions can be nice, but it's not the game's fault if players can't read a map. It's the mission maker's fault if the map isn't properly marked.

Sorry I meant more compact missions, not smaller maps.

Edited April 24, 2011 by Cookieeater

[maturin 12]

Sorry I meant more compact missions, not smaller maps.

Missionmakers would do well to abide by that principle in general, unless they are very good at coding and organizing things. This even holds true for SP.

Keeping things well-paced and running smoothly get difficult even when your squad is full of obedient AI soldiers, and you need an established squad to do things otherwise. It takes work and skill to max out the experience in this game, and if you manage it, it is absolutely above and beyond anything else in gaming, but it can fall apart.

On the rare occasion I go online with my crappy internet connection, all I want is to follow around a few players in a small co-op mission so we can communicate and plan tactics against the AI with some good performance. That's happened like once. You need to know people.

Large scale PVP over one marked village is going to be a clusterfuck, though.

[ArmAriffic 10]

2. Domination

I have no idea why people play on these servers. People run around like headless chickens. There's no organization anywhere at all, people just run into a helicopter, which usually crashes due to lag, and if it doesn't, everyone ejects, spends 5 minutes running to a random household corner, starts shooting everything that moves, and dies to a random dude hiding in a bush. Theres no teamwork involved, which is pretty disgraceful IMO as ArmA II is known for it's realism and I have never ever experienced teamwork in a public game.

I don't think domina is that bad, it's not that good but not that bad, any I don't see any team work/organisation in BF2 ether unless your playing PR

It's the clan's that have the realistic, disciplined missions where you have to do training before you can go on missions and play one night a week but i think the MP will be much better when PR get's released, lets just hope it's not 1/2 gig like PR for BF2

3. Missions are too big

Yes I just said missions are too big. Nothing is centralized, the player is confused by all of these random helicopters scattered around an airfield, and second off he has no idea where to go. As a new player, you'll be greeted with "ATTACK ALL THESE GOD DAMN CITIES, THATS IT" that are miles and miles away from your spawn. It doesn't help that there are only 30 players on the server that are all scrambled out everywhere on the map that never talk at all. Nothing seems to be made in consideration for the public player. It seems like the mission makers make the mission on just how epic coolness it is instead of how fun it is to the player. Instead of complaining about how public players lack teamwork, mission makers should view on how to make missions that encourage teammates to stick together and work as a team.

I hate small call of duty type maps, and sometimes you need it big My WIP GTA syle mission will use almost a whole island

Edited April 24, 2011 by ArmAriffic

[xmongx 0]

It all started with the Evolution mission in ARMA, i remember it well. I always saw Domination as a spin off of that mission and it only really took a foothold in ArmA2. The two missions as an example of mission building/scripting are fantastic, sadly i dont think KilJoy and Xeno knew at the time that they were going to slaughter MP for BIS.

Public MP for the arma series will likely be saved by PR but untill then you need to find a squad to play with to dodge the 'tion shite.

[ArmAriffic 10]

1. Mod dependency

There are way too many mods out there for ArmA II on a server. A random person will try going to a public 100 player PvP server that finally isn't Domination, and will be greeted with:

You can not play/edit this game, it is dependent on content: @ACE, @ACEX,

@ACRE,@RH40PACK,@TACTICOOLM4,@WARFX,@NAVYSEALSMODELS ,@SOMERANDOMSTUFFYOUHAVETOSCOURTHEINTERNETS, + 20 other mods i have never heard of

there is plenty of servers that don't depend on mods/addons

[Archosaurusrev 12]

97thrr servers are awesome for ACE2 warfare. (Use SixUpdater for that.)

3para for no mods.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

I think ArmA II public has been such a flop.

This would be the only statment I would disagree with. But I imagine it would probably feel this way if you were a keen MP player and only picked the game up today.

Hopefully there will be some who heed the advice but unfortunately there are some who think words like vanila, and compact are heretical in terms of mission making and people are way too reliant on addons to provide variety in thier games.

[Jacky60 10]

I have to agree with all the OP's points. I've played for 20 months and although I've seen the occasional bit of teamwork it's very poor in comparison to BF2 mod project reality. The general lack of communication amongst players, the poorly structured incentives to reward teamwork and the rarely used voip combined with the reluctance of players to help others learn means it takes forever to get to grips with. It is however still an amazing multiplayer experience in mho.

[maturin 12]

I have to agree with all the OP's points. I've played for 20 months and although I've seen the occasional bit of teamwork it's very poor in comparison to BF2 mod project reality.

That's a very unfair comparison, albeit an accurate one. Mission design and player culture determine the amount of teamwork. BF2:PR has only one kind of gameplay and a few missions. Its players are all there for the same reason.

In Arma 2, anything is possible, missions are literally infinite and players may log on to public MP with a wide range of intentions, skill levels, preferences and hardware (not to mention languages!).

If you compared the operations of Arma squads to PR, we would unquestionably come out on top, and that's because the environment is even more circumscribed. Teamwork is not an option.

[c0nse-0n3r 19]

In Arma 2, anything is possible

I 2nd that. I switched from BF series because ARMA gameplay is limitless to most degrees...and the players are mostly matured, gaming vets who know how to play (notice i say "mostly")

It really depends what public MP server your playing I find..

Many servers don't need addons and some DOMI missions are great fun :cool: when people are there to put in the effort

I love playing on player/clan/mod public servers but my only wonder is..

Why no BIS dedicated servers?:confused:

There might be a good reason for this? I just havent heard it yet

I'd like to see a few BIS run servers, with vanilla/popular user map rotations

Some "official" servers (with realtime leaderboards maybe?) would make such a difference IMO...especially for those transitioning from other FPS/war sim MP games (CSS/BF/COD etc.)

At least, a few main servers with a good uptime gives ARMA community 1 central place, right out-of-the-box(w/ patches of course :D ) to meet up and branch out into the other great plyr/mod servers around

[Defunkt 431]

You're going to be told by people here to join a clan, but what should be done is server admins should work to fix these issues on public servers.

Disagree, blaming the server-ops (or even BIS) is a truly tired cliche, I've seen all manner of things offered that address the typical complaints of multiplayer but the players don't patronise them. Look at the P-v-P nights galzohar tried to run not so long go, folded because nobody would make the effort. The players (often the very same ones who complain about how poor the scene is) are the problem. Server-ops only run servers because they want to improve matters and they often try a lot of things to achieve that but players in general have become very lazy. You can see this manifest across multiple genres where they're happy to lap up the latest shrink-wrapped drivel because it requires so very little of them beyond a few dollars.

---------- Post added at 02:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:36 PM ----------

I've only tried a few times to play ArmA MP, basically it boils down to:

1. I don't have the particular mod setup the server is running (99% of the time despite having a 40gb ArmA folder).

2. I can't play without ACE/sound mods and some others like the PVP animation pack. After playing with mods standard A2 is impossible to play for me.

In the end ArmA2 is a strictly SP game for me, which is sad because it has so much potential.

I mean seriously, what is a server-op supposed to do? Run a modded server or an unmodded server? Either way LJF will find it unplayable and declare this a sad state of affairs.

[maturin 12]

Why no BIS dedicated servers?:confused:

I doubt they can afford it. And they would have to be flung out across dozens of countries anyways.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

I've seen all manner of things offered that address the typical complaints of multiplayer but the players don't patronise them. Look at the P-v-P nights galzohar tried to run not so long go, folded because nobody would make the effort. The players (often the very same ones who complain about how poor the scene is) are the problem. Server-ops only run servers because they want to improve matters and they often try a lot of things to achieve that but players in general have become very lazy. .

Fair call. Wich is why we come full circle and end up recomending joining a clan. Which is opens up the sort of stuff ArmA and its community does very ,very well. I dont think that we will find anything close to an answer to this till someone comes up with a mission to rival vanila Domination and we can start to see more than one combination that keeps the masses happy

[Cookieeater 10]

Disagree, blaming the server-ops (or even BIS) is a truly tired cliche, I've seen all manner of things offered that address the typical complaints of multiplayer but the players don't patronise them. Look at the P-v-P nights galzohar tried to run not so long go, folded because nobody would make the effort. The players (often the very same ones who complain about how poor the scene is) are the problem. Server-ops only run servers because they want to improve matters and they often try a lot of things to achieve that but players in general have become very lazy. You can see this manifest across multiple genres where they're happy to lap up the latest shrink-wrapped drivel because it requires so very little of them beyond a few dollars.

---------- Post added at 02:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:36 PM ----------

I mean seriously, what is a server-op supposed to do? Run a modded server or an unmodded server? Either way LJF will find it unplayable and declare this a sad state of affairs.

Public PvP Gaming Nights on Zeus #2 Server

WHAT YOU WILL NEED

• Latest ACE stable release - currently 1.8, available on both Armaholic and the Zeus YAS server.
  
• An optional client side addon pack called @zcommon (Tutorials on how to download and set this up with Yoma's addon sync 2009 are included in the Zeus manual)
  
• Teamspeak installed (preferably with a working Microphone)
  
• A Mature outlook on gaming and ability to order or follow orders from group leaders
  
• Operation Arrowhead or Combined ops installed and patched to latest version stable release
  
• A little bit of patience during the briefing stage of the mission while the CO's organize their forces and tasking
  
• No additional addons aside from ACE stable release and zcommon. Server runs signature check and will automatically kick anyone who uses addons not signed. Some additional addons may or may not be approved in the future (currently it is too much work to keep monitoring and keeping keys up to date).
  

P-v-P nights galzohar tried to run not so long go, folded because nobody would make the effort

due to the server requiring ACE and Teamspeak.

Teamspeak and ACE being required probably knocked off a large amount of players. If you browse through the thread's galzohar used to spread publicity, there are complaints about ACE being required, showing my Mod Dependency complaint.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=114005

http://www.realitymod.com/forum/f440-pr-arma2-general-discussion/94118-public-pvp-gaming-nights-zeus-2-server.html

If I was a new player to public games, and saw this game on my server browser, i'd join, and be hit with needing to require ACE, to downgrade my version of ACE, or to download the new version of ACE, making me require to exit and download a really large mod just to join a game. By this time, people would have abandoned joining altogether, but even after that, you'd require Teamspeak. On the thread, it doesn't tell you what their Teamspeak IP is, so you'd have to go google their site for their Teamspeak IP. I'd safely assume due to my own experiences, that if a player cannot start connecting immediately to a game, that they'd become easily frustrated and abandon the whole attempt.

Edited April 25, 2011 by Cookieeater

[.kju 3245]

Major issues of the game itself:

• VON has had issues for far too long
  
• VON is not well integrated into the interface
  
• Chat is mixed with kill messages and status messages
  
• Addon servers are not recognizable (clear enough) in the server browser
  
• Overall the error messages the user gets shown (if at all..) are terrible
  
• Integrated addon download is missing (or at least an API to integrate community made tools)
  
• Lack of basic MP features (favorite servers, friends list, etc)
  
• The CO vs OA mess - BI should really provide a CO lite if they care
  
• BI provides no usable or good MP game modes out of the box (Warfare is not - only Benny made it playable)
  
• MP issues with BE, cheaters, connection to the server
  

As for Warfare BE, Domination, Evolution - in my view overall the community

can be very happy and thankfully to have Benny, Xeno and KillJoy.

Arma is known now for open world, large scale, free roaming gameplay.

That said in my view all of em are not tailored enough to provide the best

gameplay - it seems it is not the focus for any of the three authors.

While one may like it or not, one has to accept the experience people have

and what they are used to when coming to arma.

Certainly they lack guidance and ways to encourage teamplay.

PR:A2 is said to do this different and focus on these - we will see how well

they will manage to do this.

To make an example for Warfare BE - I never understood why the mission

area needs to be huge and effectively last for hours.

I think smaller sized versions, with less towns or an infantry only or ground

forces focused version would add a lot.

Even more as far as I can tell the most fun part of Warfare is the dynamics

of the two teams playing against each other. So the resistance AI and getting

towns at the mission start is something that should be redesigned or even

dropped - that part is mainly about abusing AI stupidity and rushing towns

rather the gameplay elements what actually makes warfare great.

Finally one major issue hurting new game modes is that players tend to join

the high player count servers first.

This is though to combat as somehow most people believe the more player the better

the experience - still one can design a game mode to adjust to the player count

like defunkt did for example, or offer AI support until the player numbers are higher.

In the end it is something for BI to balance with the server browser interface I believe.

@ Cookieeater

Out of interest - did you ever try AAS?

It does have various issues on its own too, yet overall it tries to guide new

players fairly well I believe and it is rather smaller scale infantry focused gameplay.

In my game mode, A&S ProMode, I tried to address most of the issues, yet it was

not designed and especially not promoted for public play to avoid hurting AAS.

It is made for clan and league play.

Edited April 25, 2011 by .kju [PvPscene]

[Cookieeater 10]

I have tried AAS, and I have enjoyed it. It was on a server that actually lightened itself up, and had crazy missions like PvP mass littlebirds and Rocket jeep destruction derbies.

[Defunkt 431]

If I was a new player to public games, and saw this game on my server browser, i'd join, and be hit with needing to require ACE, to downgrade my version of ACE, or to download the new version of ACE, making me require to exit and download a really large mod just to join a game. By this time, people would have abandoned joining altogether, but even after that, you'd require Teamspeak. On the thread, it doesn't tell you what their Teamspeak IP is, so you'd have to go google their site for their Teamspeak IP. I'd safely assume due to my own experiences, that if a player cannot start connecting immediately to a game, that they'd become easily frustrated and abandon the whole attempt.

Sorry but you're just illustrating my point exactly, you won't lift a finger or compromise what you consider to be the ideal parameters to participate in a multiplayer game somebody else has invested time in setting up but you're still quite happy to come here and complain about the lack of it. Who's at fault here? It was publicised in advance so you weren't short of time to get what you needed sorted and having done so you could have enjoyed this regular event multiple times thereafter.

I've seen plenty of the same low participation with vanilla games (I used to run a vanilla server myself in order to reach the largest possible playerbase). The problem is players won't go an inch out of their way, they just expect it to be there, exactly tailored to their requirement at the moment they happen to be looking and already populated with other players. And that's fine in most games, you can eat McDonalds at any time of the day or night for next to nothing but if you want to dine at the Ritz you're going to have to make a booking and spend a little.

[c0nse-0n3r 19]

I doubt they can afford it. And they would have to be flung out across dozens of countries anyways.

Figured they could cover the main playing countries w/ servers pretty easy, but maybe your right, and its too pricey to afford

At least pub servers seem to survive on donations/plyrs :cool:

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

Figured they could cover the main playing countries w/ servers pretty easy, but maybe your right, and its too pricey to afford

At least pub servers seem to survive on donations/plyrs :cool:

And what missions do you propose that BIS would run to satisfy the majority of players who would join?

[ck-claw 1]

To make an example for Warfare BE - I never understood why the mission

area needs to be huge and effectively last for hours.

I think smaller sized versions, with less towns or an infantry only or ground

forces focused version would add a lot.

I do believe in his latest version that is what he's added that parameter?

Infantry/armoured/air battle

[Cookieeater 10]

Sorry but you're just illustrating my point exactly, you won't lift a finger or compromise what you consider to be the ideal parameters to participate in a multiplayer game somebody else has invested time in setting up but you're still quite happy to come here and complain about the lack of it. Who's at fault here? It was publicised in advance so you weren't short of time to get what you needed sorted and having done so you could have enjoyed this regular event multiple times thereafter.

I've seen plenty of the same low participation with vanilla games (I used to run a vanilla server myself in order to r7each the largest possible playerbase). The problem is players won't go an inch out of their way, they just expect it to be there, exactly tailored to their requirement at the moment they happen to be looking and already populated with other players. And that's fine in most games, you can eat McDonalds at any time of the day or night for next to nothing but if you want to dine at the Ritz you're going to have to make a booking and spend a little.

Theres a huge amount of factors that can cause to nobody playing a server, even a modded ACE Domination one. Well, maybe the problem was that your server didn't have enough players. Having no players on the server creates a loophole effect, where nobody want's to join in because they don't want a server that has no players. This probably happens the same with every server out there as well.

Maybe we should try finding a server that's relatively populated at all times during the day, and then ask if they could change their missions to a mission that a lot of the community and I want(Small 2 squad coop against village, PvP in woods) and see if playercount decreases or increases.

[Defunkt 431]

Yes, I think players should accept greater responsibility for finding or making what they want. I swear there are a heap of server-ops who would be only be too happy to put up whatever was politely requested if it gets used (ultimately that's why they often run Domination). I wish it was easier as we all do but I accept that these difficulties are part and parcel of choosing a niche genre and a game which additionally offers a multitude of different ways of playing.