Am I the only one that wants to see a ARMA III MMO?

[Valiant 1-4 10]

Actually I believe Lord Buchta said something about Arma3 supporting more (or at least as many?) players as OA. Not sure about double, but it would be cool.

Yeah he said hopefully more, im just using generouse numbers.

Although "supports" isn't really the right word, since from what I understand there is no hard coded limit to the number of players that can join an Arma server. It primarily depends on the playable slots defined in the mission, and secondarily on what kind of load the server can manage.

There's probably a better word, im just gauging on the norm of what you see out there, or will in the near future server/affordable server wise.

Hence my post on the last page: if I create a persistent mission in Arma3 with several hundred player slots and run it on a server that can handle the load, does that make the game an MMO?

Not traditionaly? Most...if not every other proper MMO deal in the thousands, thats how they get the player numbers to make it work in a pick up - put down and go to sleep - wake up and play again way, if you just have a few hundered in a game thats not been created for it, i figure there would only be problems with optimisation and having enough people on to have a proper oposition. Thats why MMO's have downgraded graphics alot of the time too, as far as optimising graphicaly goes.

-edit- But to go slightly off topic *gasp* but in the interests of being helpful ill tack on that i can see an expanded City/Lemnos Life orientated game coming out of this.

Now maybe you could buy an actual building and call it your own on that server forinstance, especialy with having every building enterable and the greater size of the island also taking into account scripting like MSO has in the works.

Edited August 7, 2011 by Valiant 1-4

[Haystack15 10]

No Thank you. I Prefer ArmA to stay they way it is currently.... :)

[Beagle 684]

The biggest problem in A3 will be the network traffic generated by a great number of players. Currently around 60 players is the practical limit in A2 unless the server is exceptionally good.

In warfare with server controlled A.I. more then 32 Player will bring the best server to a stall after 2 hours... so no I dont see this without chaning the gamestyle to a MMO with no A.I at all.

Currently there are servers with 56 Slots, and the people playing there like to habe 5fps server frames with scripts and A.I. lagging 5 seconds behind...A.I. is so much behind that it usually has a few seconds time to kill you after you killled it.

[koekto 10]

I can only say one thing, I support this idea.

[xman1 10]

And I will say I do not support this idea.

Plenty of MMO's out there and if we liked MMO's, we would be playing one.

Stupid idea in my opinion to turn a good product into such a POS.

I'd be willing to bet that 98% of the people on this forum will agree with me.

-X

[Montanaro 0]

PLayers + AI 2 to 3 sides fun and war.

Well thought out idea

I see it took you 2 years to come up with this post

[demonized 20]

lol, hell hath no fury like a scorn BIS forum member :D

i like the idea, but as an idea, i think it would only be able to be realized when a great leap in technology is made, or a new game is created based on armaverse, but with very simplified graphics and AI handling, also there is security reasons to take into account with such a large scale RL warfare based public game.

[ryguy 10]

There already is Arma 2 MMO on some RPG mods

[celery 8]

There already is Arma 2 MMO on some RPG mods

Really? With 16-32 player limit?

I still think that people here are confusing MMO with RPG/MMORPG.

[znizam93 10]

;1998340']I'mma hit you with my level 11 M249' date=' two hander. It has red dot sights which grant me +4 bonus accuracy, and my Suit of Traction allow me to fire the Epic weapon with ease.

Word.[/quote']

Haha that's hilarious, as soon as I read this comment the first thing I thought of was Family Guy...

Lois Griffin: [flashback] Oh, I need a spankin'. I'm a bad, bad girl.

Peter Griffin: I'm a Paladin with 18 charisma and 97 hit points. I can use my helm of disintegration and do one D4 damage as my half-elf mage wields his plus-five holy avenger.

Nice one Grimes

[FallujahMedic -FM- 867]

I think the OP is on to something here. Bohemia Interactive has surprised us with spin-offs like Firing Range, so it goes without saying that that they are open to new ideas. A new title in the Armaverse doesn’t necessarily need to be exactly like what we we have been used to with OFP/Arma/Arma2.

I have long wanted to see something a little different. My idea (while nothing new in principle) combines gameplay elements from various games such as Axis & Allies, Panzer General, Dune 2, Command & Conquer and Stronghold. It also takes elements from the Warfare, Domination and Evolutions gameplay modes.

Those that have played the original OFP may remember the mission entitled Defender. In this mission the player and his AI had to defend a town against an armor attack. Now, imagine this concept on a map sized scale. The player would start with a certain number of credits to purchase or construct Defenses/Units (think Warfare). He would use this to form patrols, man defenses, etc. The longer the town is held, the more credits earned and the better the units become (dug-in). The town would be vulnerable to attack from online players who may have towns of their own. Think of this as the front lines of the battlefield constant changing due to skirmishes. The player would not be on his own though, he would be part of the chain of command and would receive orders from his superiors to scout locations, lead ambushes, steal equipment etc. So in essence, he would not be master of his own castle so to speak, but is part of a strategic effort (though he will be acting on a tactical scale).

For those players that are offline their defenses and resupply will be accomplished by AI and by those players online. For example, Joe is offline and he has AI defenders and offensive units in his town. Combat will be much like the current take over of a town in Domination. Though the difference will be that the town will receive resupply, rearm, repair from Online towns within the Theater of Operations. As an online player, you may be tasked with sending troops or supplies to your neighbor to repel an attack. Or if the town is nearby, you may join in the defense and provide direct combat assistance to your neighbors AI defended town.

The map and Intelligence will only be updated through direct reporting of recon findings. No fog of war revealed maps. Support and rearm will only be accomplished through requests.

This is just a brief overview of my thoughts for an MMORPG for Arma. It is not what I expect Arma3 to be, but rather a vision of the direction Arma could take if interest was there.

[wolfbite 8]

World domination server like red alert would be awesome as an additional game mode.. But I have no idea how feasable something like that is..

[FallujahMedic -FM- 867]

Maybe not a "worldwide" domination per say, but more of a separate strategic map and tactical map. Think of the game Pacific Theater of Operations IV:

The setting is 1939. The European continent is plunged into war. The globe is carved into 50 naval districts. Players must take command of Naval forces from the United States, Japan, Great Britain, or Germany. The objective is to seize control of as many districts as possible, and defend against enemy aggression. From the North Sea to Midway to Okinawa- every conquest is one step closer to victory!

In other words, Tactical outcomes which determine Strategic gains.

[BF2_Trooper 0]

Am I the only one who remembers that "game 2" was always described as having "roleplaying game elements"? I don't think RPG like features for any ARMA game is too far fetch. Hell, just look at the inventory interface in ARMA 2 right now and tell me it doesnt remind you of some ULTIMA game or something. Also, not all Roleplaying games involves dungeons or dragons or magic and that goes for traditional paper and pen RPGs as well. Just look up something called "Twilight 2000" and you'll know what I mean.

[johanna 11]

I would love arma in mmo!

And like wolfbite wrote: 'World domination server like red alert would be awesome'

[ryguy 10]

Really? With 16-32 player limit?

No, it could be much bigger depending on the server...

[-GR-Operative 10]

Just pointing, MMO and MMORPG are not the same thing as some of the guys here might think ;)

---------- Post added at 12:02 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:01 AM ----------

I still think that people here are confusing MMO with RPG/MMORPG.

Exactly, didn't read your comment.

[Double Doppler 10]

Leave ArmA as it is! ArmA will be ArmA and always will be ArmA. Don't change it!

[celery 8]

No, it could be much bigger depending on the server...

64 players doesn't make Chernarus Life massively multiplayer.

[rangerpl 13]

64 players doesn't make Chernarus Life massively multiplayer.

But the shitty community makes it comparable to MMOs :bounce3:

[Steakslim 1]

but the shitty community makes it comparable to mmos :bounce3:

oh thnip thnap!

[H00t74 0]

Just give me a way to save map state and I am golden :)

[Valiant 1-4 10]

Just give me a way to save map state and I am golden :)

http://www.armedassault.info/index.php?game=1&cat=news&id=5103

[KuntyBallistix 10]

I am kinda on the OP's side in this - but with 1 difference, A3 would NOT work as a MMO . . . . .

As any1 who has played Planetside will know, the fun taking bases and towers soon all fades and gets repetitive, and here-in lies the answer on why A3 would not work.

For a successful MMO to work 1st and foremost you need players, players to keep a subscription - to do that the gameworld has to tie itself to the player, involving them and giving them something personal to work towards - in order to do this the game would need to enlist certain MMORPG elements such as choosing a class and leveling it up.

Say, for instance, you choose infantryman, you would start with the basic generic weapons and, through completing missions, would gain xp and points to branch off into being a sniper, medic, demo etc etc . . .

Then there are the missions, quests, if you will, that you would need to complete in order to level up - missions that would proberly be designed with a overall story in mind and mission chains etc etc . . .

I have many an idea on the subject of a MMO, based on a game such as ArmA - some qualities of the ArmAVerse certainly lend themselves well to a MMO-MilSim, but thats exactly it, some qualities . . . .

ArmA3 as a MMO = boring repetitive pvp/AI

A MMO based on ArmA3 = ever changing pve/pvp/AI scenarios

[SpooksAUS 10]

I'd be great only if the game included the following:

Huge Land area

Major Conflict (2+ Major Power, 3+ Minors)

Real World Objectives (Capture town and Hold, then move up)

Balance between far away respawn points and getting back into the fun quicker

Huge dev 'event' say armoured NPC column is approching city B.

+

Real-world weather (Flooding, snowing, hail etc.)

Just imagining a small country with a massive capital in the middle and 4-5 major cities spread out as well as a few town/townships around them and each player faction has a homeland city and each one is fighting over the capital to insert either his or her's ideology whether Political or not. It'd need crazy server technology and alot of other power to support such a huge map with players etc.

Then to make it interesting having supply lines for producing vechiles of war, ensuring that other players may 'snipe' these convoys delaying or destroying any chance of adding vechiles to townships/cities and ensuring that players of the faction actually protect and guard them. Not to mention mines and stuff would need to be protected as well as civies etc, but it could be awesome, although many games could have been awesome except fall on thier face so bloody hard.