ARMA3 needs better ACCESSIBILITY for players to meet, chat and play out of the box!

[avibird 1 141]

Let me start by saying BOHEMIA you are top Shelf in my book with your Product but ARMA2 has some issues with accessibility for a lot of players. Please go read Why this game is not more Popular thread!

1. Lack of official COOP or PLAYER VS PLAYER MISSION on dedicated servers that a player can join in play and go with a FEW simple clicks of a button. This is what makes BF games so Popular not the run and gun gameplay but the ability to JOIN a game play for a bit and then go back to real life.

2. Lack of open public servers that you can join. Most players who run COOP missions lock the room due to the inability to stop cheating in the game.

3. Lack of players using the in game voice chat. Most players use teamspeak over your system. This kills open public servers. Find out why and change. This stops the open community to grow. If you don't want to join a clan or just want to play for a bit this limits you because you can't just meet players and play. You need o find what teamspeak and then switch over.

I have many other examples why ARMA2 is lacking accessibility. Most of the threads here are about eyecandy improvements But what about accessibility. That is what COD/BF have over ARMA2.

Edited June 18, 2011 by AVIBIRD 1
to clear things up on ACCESSIBILITY.

[CameronMcDonald 146]

oh god must restrain from posting elitist comments about accessibility yeeearrrrrrrrrrrghhhhhh

1. I would disagree here and say that it is probably the gameplay of BF2 that you can pick up and put down instantly that makes it popular. You can't really play ArmA 2 for a bit like other FPSes out there... well, you can, but you'll probably die a few times to no result or not get anywhere.

2. ArmA 2's modability makes it more vulnerable than most games to hacking. I would rather see this modability stay than no hackers anywhere.

3. There is some leeway to improve the ingame chat, but the way you mention it is basically like saying it's a warstopper. I hosted a session a week ago with a few players (yeah, only a few) on for a zombie stomp, and the ingame voice worked fine. Any particular suggestions on how would you would see this improved?

[dmarkwick 261]

More accessibility is of course good. But the easy-peasy accessibility of CoD and BF is exactly what draws in the slackjawed moron brigade :D

I'd like for ArmA3 to be more accessible, and yet have some sort of filter. I think that filter might be the mod system, where the vanilla games can soak up the SMB, and the servers with requirements attract the at least minimally engaged gamer.

[roberthammer 582]

1. ... go with a simple click of a button.

Typical Console - console guys are too lazy to click on browser and pick the server :j:

[Innomadic 10]

1. Name another sim that could actually do that. Arma just ain't that simple, you can't jump into a game immediately and expect the game to do it all for you.

2. I would have thought most of the Arma population would be mature enough to NOT use hacks anyway...

3. What you on about? AEF Pub Dom players use in game voice all the time, regulars on games.on.net are the same. We only use TS because its clearer (and ACRE), doesn't mean no one uses VON.

[sethos 2]

No, it doesn't. This game does not need a quick-pass access card to the 'console crowd'. The community is way better off with it.

[Montanaro 0]

what's the point of joining quickly, when you are going to spend the next hour crawling in the mud only to get shot in the face by a sniper 3/4 of a mile away?

[dale0404 5]

No, it doesn't. This game does not need a quick-pass access card to the 'console crowd'. The community is way better off with it.

Definately agree with this. Everyone remember the console brigade coming onto the Arma2 servers when the game got released. They were all moaning about the game being shite because they were used to COD type games and the ease that they can play them.

Not to mention all the people with an IQ of 8 trying to ruin the game for other people.

Someone said in another thread that for every 4 new people that get the game 1 of those will stick with it. I hope that statement is true for Arma3...

[avibird 1 141]

Typical Console - console guys are too lazy to click on browser and pick the server :j:

1. Name another sim that could actually do that. Arma just ain't that simple, you can't jump into a game immediately and expect the game to do it all for you.

2. I would have thought most of the Arma population would be mature enough to NOT use hacks anyway...

3. What you on about? AEF Pub Dom players use in game voice all the time, regulars on games.on.net are the same. We only use TS because its clearer (and ACRE), doesn't mean no one uses VON.

No, it doesn't. This game does not need a quick-pass access card to the 'console crowd'. The community is way better off with it.

what's the point of joining quickly, when you are going to spend the next hour crawling in the mud only to get shot in the face by a sniper 3/4 of a mile away?

Definately agree with this. Everyone remember the console brigade coming onto the Arma2 servers when the game got released. They were all moaning about the game being shite because they were used to COD type games and the ease that they can play them.

Not to mention all the people with an IQ of 8 trying to ruin the game for other people.

Someone said in another thread that for every 4 new people that get the game 1 of those will stick with it. I hope that statement is true for Arma3...

You guys are missing the whole point of better accessibility. I never said easier gameplay or the console player mind set. Back in the old days with OFP you could find player made missions to join in public host rooms very easy all day long. Why do you guys always go back to the console thing. This is about finding games and playing with people of the same mind set.

A lot of people don't have time to join a clan or don't want to join a clan (talk about a console thing) I don't want to get into a console or clan thing here.

It is so hard to find COOP missions that players are playing in open public rooms beacuse of some of the reasons i stated above. COOP missions is what made OFP what it is. Warfare,dom in my view is killing the feel of OFP.

[Deadfast 43]

1. Lack of official COOP or PLAYER VS PLAYER MISSION on dedicated servers that a player can join in play and go with a simple click of a button. This is what makes BF games so Popular not the run and gun gameplay but the ability to join a game play for a bit and then go back to real life.

I disagree with the last point, there aren't that many missions you can join for a bit in Arma. Most of them require you to put in some time. The game does need a proper addon management system though.

[instagoat 133]

Arma will never be pick up and play. However, it is too difficult to get into right now. Most of my friends are gamers, and they (in parts, rightfully) hate Arma 2 because it doesn´t lend you a hand at all. Instead, it expects you to do everything on your own, and kills you immediately if you do it wrong.

I´d love to play with my friends, but for them, A2 is a frust-fest, and not a game. And no, I´m not interested in playing together with more common sim-type, realism savvy gamers, because I don´t swing that way.

So, I too would love for A3 to become more accessible, with tutorials that don´t just explain movement and control, but TACTICS AND HOW TO EMPLOY YOUR TEAM/EQUIPMENT. New people without any sim background at all run immediately into the wall of not knowing how the fuck to get rid of an enemy in front of them, they need to be trained to do this, and that ONLY works via TUTORIALS. Sorry for the caps.

Problems are cluttered command interface, no explanation of necessary tactics/strategies to survive, role and optimal useage of equipment, inoptimal guidance trough levels for players more used to COD type games (And telling them to "Go back to CoD" if they don´t get it isn´t an option. Everybody, as far as I´m concerned, who is new to the game is a potential friend and addition to the community as a whole.), and what I often find is the general harshness and realism of combat in A2, which is disliked.

The latter obviously shouldn´t be changed, as the realism in the run and execution of combat is what makes Arma, but the rest should at least be thought about being adressed. Most gamers today have never delved into a game like this, and they DONT KNOW how to play it. The only solution is to explain it to them, and not by external, community made tutorials. The game itself needs to do this.

My two cents on the topic.

[mrcash2009 0]

I´d love to play with my friends, but for them, A2 is a frust-fest, and not a game. And no, I´m not interested in playing together with more common sim-type, realism savvy gamers, because I don´t swing that way.

Its a realism based sim and always was, so its not really going to be overly accessible and "game" like. That is why you have COD type Games that people swing with and then Sim's.

Why do I never see arcade flight game players in an IL2 or black shark sim forum saying the same?

I just think that becuase the market is a wash with FPS war games that Arma is assumed to fit with it based on that link only, but it isn't, it really is like taking HawX and taking Blackshark and then suggesting they should meet in the middle becuase you fly in them.

Edited June 17, 2011 by mrcash2009

[Avgeris 64]

Let me start by saying BOHEMIA you are top Shelf in my book with your Product. ARMA2 has some issues with accessibility for a lot of players. Please go read Why this game is not more Popular thread!

1. Lack of official COOP or PLAYER VS PLAYER MISSION on dedicated servers that a player can join in play and go with a simple click of a button. This is what makes BF games so Popular not the run and gun gameplay but the ability to join a game play for a bit and then go back to real life.

2. Lack of open public servers that you can join due to the inability of the host to stop cheating in the room.

3. Lack of players using the in game voice chat. Most players use teamspeak over your system. This kills open public servers. Find out why and change. This stops the open community to grow. If you don't want to join a clan or just want to play for a bit this limits you because you can't just meet players and play. You need o find what teamspeak and then switch over.

I have many other examples why ARMA2 is lacking accessibility. Most of the threads here are about eyecandy improvements But what about accessibility. That is what COD/BF have over ARMA2.

I agree 100% with you. This post expresses my thoughts.

Its the vanilla content that keeps the game alive. Look at CS 1.6 its still played till toady. Look at Starcraft. The only thing the companies did was release patches for balancing weapons, builds etc Its the PvP community that keeps the players staying in the game and keeps bringing more.

The 3d party stuff makes things misunderstung. For instance ArmA1 and ArmA2 PvP had some many third party PvP map types that everyone played the one he knew how to.

Simple stuff: Official maps. Grab your friends find a server PvP with a common map, leave. Get better in that map and a make clan to play against other organaized clans in the same map that we all know (publicers - gatherers - clans)

Finnaly play in tournaments, thats the ulitmate fun (tournamets with clans not events like the ones that massive numbers of players join a server etc)

Why you need vanilla? Simply because organzitions that host tournaments dont want third party in their leagues, ladders etc for various reasons.

All the success arma had in the PvP aspect of it maps from the ESL, PvP scene, ECL even those (sorry) crappy CTF maps by 88 where still played when the rest of the community gave up. And all these kind of maps have the CS-BF feeling, jump in shoot ppl etc. Too bad that there were so many of them, so many types, so many gameplay types. And the fact that there were many was a drawback, each clan had to practice for a specific tournament with diffant maps, that made it hard. Some specific ready made OFFICIAL maps by BIS would solve everything. Tactics, skill etc improve just by playing, "find the good spots" in the maps make tactics for each map etc. But all in quick and exciting BALANCED maps. How many times have you been spawnkilled in the public maps (Berzerk, Valhalla etc) this happens because they are badly desinged.

I still favour these maps, they are made by the ESL template:

http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=10999&highlight=ESL

And ArmA1

http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=4585&highlight=ESL

Especially the Two Sides, Anhoehe and B2T

they have a mobile respawn, standard classes etc, this have a system that makes you focus on a specific gameplay style ( I don't say tehy are the best, but they are a step)

Edited June 17, 2011 by Sfigokolarios

[instagoat 133]

Its a realism based sim and always was, so its not really going to be overly accessible and "game" like. That is why you have COD type Games that people swing with and then Sim's.

Why do I never see arcade flight game players in an IL2 or black shark sim forum saying the same?

Because they don´t get into those games in the first place. I tried getting my friends into IL2, and they turned it down for the same reason as Arma. The two biggest gamebreakers were no tutorials, and the game being difficult to set up. IL2 even comes with half the controls unmapped, and doesn´t explain to a noob what they even are for.

The only difference between a "simmer" and a "Gamer" as far as I´m concerned is that the Gamer is primarily interested in gameplay, and not the toys he plays with. He just wants to use them. A simmer doesn´t care so much about gameplay drawbacks, and focuses on detailed and complex simulation. The more buttons, the better. Those are diametrically opposed, unless you make the buttons FUN for the gamers. Neither IL2 nor Blackshark do those: they´re flat-out sims, not -games-. Game is the make or break word here.

If A3 wants to be a successful sim, it will get into a much smaller market, and needs to be trimmed differently than if it wants to be a successful game first. In the end, what they want to do with it is up to BIS: having been with this series ever since OFP, I would be okay with either, as I am used to how the game works. However, for the sake of the game, the community and the company, getting a higher influx of people cannot be bad. And the simmer market is, unfortunately, comparatively limited. People nowadays usually simply don´t have the time and energy to spend hours and hours learning just how to clear a machinegun nest, or deal with an enemy tank assault.

People are turned away from the game, before they even get to the point of experiencing the rewards of beating a complex, squad based mission, or getting trough their first campaign without casualties, or building their first proper mission themselves. This needs to be averted, or the community, in the long run, will decline for lack of influx of new people.

Also, I want to apologize for the "I don´t swing that way" comment, if I offended any of you proper sim guys. I just want you to understand that I am not in your camp, and that I´ll always try and make a case for Arma staying more on the game, rather than the sim side. In the end, discussion is healthy, and it´s not in our hands anyway, but in BIS´s. All we can do is provide feedback and pointers, no? :V

Cheers

[4 IN 1 0]

How about stop playing those dom/evo/warfare stuff and start making real deal mission for both COOP and PVP?

Back in the OFP days I play on COOP only server that content 80% of user made mission from silly ones to hardcore stuff, people just stop playing these type of mission now adays basicly because of those EVO thing.

Edited June 17, 2011 by 4 IN 1

[mrcash2009 0]

Because they don´t get into those games in the first place. I tried getting my friends into IL2, and they turned it down for the same reason as Arma. The two biggest gamebreakers were no tutorials, and the game being difficult to set up. IL2 even comes with half the controls unmapped, and doesn´t explain to a noob what they even are for.

The only difference between a "simmer" and a "Gamer" as far as I´m concerned is that the Gamer is primarily interested in gameplay, and not the toys he plays with. He just wants to use them. A simmer doesn´t care so much about gameplay drawbacks, and focuses on detailed and complex simulation. The more buttons, the better. Those are diametrically opposed, unless you make the buttons FUN for the gamers. Neither IL2 nor Blackshark do those: they´re flat-out sims, not -games-. Game is the make or break word here.

So they are two different angles, we all know this and as I said Arma is primarily a sim, so gamer people will look the other way, nothing new.

If we are talking about bridging the gap based on selling it more then we are on the thin ice of pandering to a crowed wanting it simpler, and that is debatable sure but a very very fine line and thin ice too. As I say its a sim, what more can be "expected" ? I dont expect other FPS shooters to be more complicated, and visa versa.

I agree on streamlining things, and more intuitive things to "assist" more that can be switched off, but if BIS feel they need to sell it more so will spend allot of time and effort trying to simplify to a more console based FPS shooter mindset of people to real them in, then they better make it switch-able, but personalty I dont think they should. Once the gate is open to it then the sales aspect seems more than the sim, then the request flood in for more simplified things then you have a sim that might as well be passed to a publisher to rape it into oblivion.

We are nearly talking expectation which should be obvious, its a sim, not a game.

Edited June 17, 2011 by mrcash2009

[dmarkwick 261]

I mentioned this before, but the sim/gamer crowd can easily be both catered for and distinguished from each other.

Gamer crowd - plays the game vanilla.

Sim crowd - use mods.

Broadly :)

[mrcash2009 0]

But they wont buy it DM! they wont even look at it!!! It needs to be marketed as and FPS shooter before they look at it .... ARRRGH!

:)

They can I agree, but the scales must be steadily balanced in the middle though, but even then I expect that wouldn't be enough.

Edited June 17, 2011 by mrcash2009

[instagoat 133]

So they are two different angles, we all know this and as I said Arma is primarily a sim, so gamer people will look the other way, nothing new.

If we are talking about bridging the gap based on selling it more then we are on the thin ice of pandering to a crowed wanting it simpler, and that is debatable sure but a very very fine line and thin ice too. As I say its a sim, what more can be "expected" ? I dont expect other FPS shooters to be more complicated, and visa versa.

I agree on streamlining things, and more intuitive things to "assist" more that can be switched off, but if BIS feel they need to sell it more so will spend allot of time and effort trying to simplify to a more console based FPS shooter mindset of people to real them in, then they better make it switch-able, but personalty I dont think they should. Once the gate is open to it then the sales aspect seems more than the sim, then the request flood in for more simplified things then you have a sim that might as well be passed to a publisher to rape it into oblivion.

We are nearly talking expectation which should be obvious, its a sim, not a game.

The latter points on "selling out" are a legitimate fear, seeing as many great games were ruined when their original concepts were ditched in favour of simplification of the gameplay itself. Examples are Deus Ex 2, or C&C4. I agree with that.

However, what I´m getting at is not necessarily "dumbing down" the gameplay, but rather making it easier to get into. Arma will, no doubt, still take more time and patience than your average game, but if it comes with well designed tutorials that grant players immediate, small successes, they´ll have an easier time getting fun out of it. I as a gamer expect a game to ease me in, and tell me what to do, and not leave -everything- up to me to find out. That´s not fun, that´s work. And if BI want more customers, they better had not alienate a large part of the new arrivals by dropping them into the cold water right away.

The game can be as complex as it wants to be. The point is that getting into it needs to be made easier, or the game, even if it initially sells, will have the franchise as a whole fall flat on its face. If many people buy this, and find it too difficult to get into, they´ll tell their friends, and they will not buy DLC/successor games.

Which is why I hope that either, if the game stays the way it is, it won´t sell so well that it becomes generally stigmatized, or that it is easy enough to get into that people actually stick with it and come to enjoy the finer parts of Arma gameplay. Which, truthfully, is the simmy simming heart. (There, I admitted it.)

Tutorials, BIS. Tell the noobs not only how to tell their squad how to walk from A to B, but also how to effectively make them spot, maneuver on and kill an enemy. How to use terrain. And how to employ special weapons. Thanks in advance.

Cheers

[avibird 1 141]

How about stop playing those dom/evo/warfare stuff and start making real deal mission for both COOP and PVP?

Back in the OFP days I play on COOP only server that content 80% of user made mission from silly ones to hardcore stuff, people just stop playing these type of mission now adays basicly because of those EVO thing.

YES, someone who understands what I am saying.

It is so hard to just find COOP missions to play with other players in the community.

[Tonci87 163]

Keep this accessibility Daemon to yourself. We have seen more than oncce what accessibility has done to good game series

[-Luc- 10]

Hi,

I am a supporter of the simulation.

I played many times the official campaigns and scenarios, but more often, the missions I created myself.

When I create tasks, I need:

- A good idea;

- A good map;

- Weapon systems;

- How to use the editor.

I do not need tutorials, I have knowledge of the military art through my reading and research. I need a good engine and a large realistic content to realize my original idea.

I do not expect that be easy, but I expect to have the elements to do so.

The content of OFP, ARMA1 / 2 was good for that. ARMA3, from what I know so far, will be much more limited, confined to the future. In OFP, ARMA1/ 2, I could create all sorts of scenarios (Cold War, post Cold War, contemporary). With the futuristic approach, we lose that opportunity.

Please dont say me that there will be mods and addons, I dont want enjoy a game 1 or 2 years after purchase.

For me, the content is as important as the engine when buying a game. This time I'm not satisfied yet.

Because it is a sim until now, it was less accessebil and thats normal and ok like that...

Thank you,

-Luc-

Edited June 17, 2011 by -Luc-

[Primarch 10]

YES, someone who understands what I am saying.

It is so hard to just find COOP missions to play with other players in the community.

Perhaps they do not like the same type of missions as you do?

[mrcash2009 0]

However, what I´m getting at is not necessarily "dumbing down" the gameplay, but rather making it easier to get into.

Nearly the same when you see what the results can be. BIs made OA better with tutorial missions they were FAR better than A2, the panflet in the box and key shorcuts were better, you have this entire forum, wiki etc etc ... what else can possibly be done to sway a person who wont even look at it, not alot apart from move on and the ones that will it was meant for. Theres a point at which making it easier to get into can only be stretched so far with something like the arma series until you tip into a dumbing down situation.

Arma will, no doubt, still take more time and patience than your average game, but if it comes with well designed tutorials that grant players immediate, small successes, they´ll have an easier time getting fun out of it. I as a gamer expect a game to ease me in, and tell me what to do, and not leave -everything- up to me to find out. That´s not fun, that´s work.

I was into Ghost Recon 1 and that was more of a game (kind of) and had that accessible type of thing. Later I got Arma1 and expected what I got on the tin, a few months of learning and working things out as it was a sim, ive never stopped learning it since, as its nothing like anything else.

Fun is run and gun, satisfaction is arma. You can have fun with arma, its got the editor and you can do as you wish, its a box of tools to do this, so people who dont want that and wont look under the hood will be the ones who will stick with FPS shooters, its a nice filter really.

ARMA3, from what I know so far, will be much more limited, confined to the future. In OFP, ARMA1/ 2, I could create all sorts of scenarios (Cold War, post Cold War, contemporary). With the futuristic approach, we lose that opportunity.

I have absolutely no clue where you get that information from, that's crap. If you check the Ivan E3 footage he stated nothing is taken away only added too. Disagree absolutely, but then its based on what you know so far, and so far we dont know everything to make such a sweeping statement, and we do know already what Ivan has stated. Confined is not in the vocab of arma series, if you think that then you have missed what its all been about.

Arma is a platform for people to do as they wish, people who dont want it to do as they would like but want it to spoon feed them are missing the point of it and will still hit the "sim" wall soon enough, it will always be the way no matter how much BIS sugar coat it for sales (even if they did).

Edited June 17, 2011 by mrcash2009

[Primarch 10]

Please dont say me that there will be mods and addons, I dont want enjoy a game 1 or 2 years after purchase.

Thank you,

-Luc-

Buy BFBC2 and you won't enjoy it 2 weeks after purchase.

You don't like the setting ArmA 3 is in? Don't buy the game.