MP thoughts

[.kju 3245]

jumpartist I really see PR and their efforts very positive, yet you should realize that AAS had a 100 player server in OA for a while too.

It even had several servers with active player bases during OA and AAS. So PR did not just bring the PvP to Arma. It was around before.

You can say the same for Warfare/CTI. So again I very much welcome the rise and success of PR, but you need to get some perspective.

In addition I believe the focus on as high player count as possible is the wrong approach - one aspect PR is struggling a lot with too.

What really would matter would be to deliver A3 itself from the start with a strong and accessible PvP game mode and promote it a lot,

so that the player base outside the arma world gets to know that arma is also great for PvP play.

The other key aspect is the server browser - currently it is very hard to find PvP servers/missions.

My take would be to make two views - it should ask you: "Show me PvP servers" or "show me COOP servers" (both at the same to be visible via options/filters)

[NoRailgunner 0]

One sad problem might be that many people think that only missions/servers with a high player count are "interesting"/"enjoyable". Guess most of them believe that every game that has MP has to be an MMO with at least 200 or 400+ players every day/hour of the week. It doesn't matter if the mission is great or serveradmins are good - as long as it below their player count expectation its "bad" or "not worth" to even try it out. Maybe some people just like to play as one of those bloddie squaddies who don't care about mission task, teamplay or supporting anyone? Its just easier to shoot and try to get the highest killcount instead of communicating and organizing attacks and counterattacks. Last time I checked PR pvp it was a mess in those HQ bases where players just run around like headless chicken, wreck vehicles and tried to kill others..... Doubt that BIS or anyone will change these attitudes with more restrictive/limiting mission parameters - it will probably annoy more players who want a good MP time.

[james2464 177]

One sad problem might be that many people think that only missions/servers with a high player count are "interesting"/"enjoyable". Guess most of them believe that every game that has MP has to be an MMO with at least 200 or 400+ players every day/hour of the week. It doesn't matter if the mission is great or serveradmins are good - as long as it below their player count expectation its "bad" or "not worth" to even try it out. Maybe some people just like to play as one of those bloddie squaddies who don't care about mission task, teamplay or supporting anyone? Its just easier to shoot and try to get the highest killcount instead of communicating and organizing attacks and counterattacks. Last time I checked PR pvp it was a mess in those HQ bases where players just run around like headless chicken, wreck vehicles and tried to kill others..... Doubt that BIS or anyone will change these attitudes with more restrictive/limiting mission parameters - it will probably annoy more players who want a good MP time.

High player counts with 1.60 is what Arma 2 is all about... if it's not real people the numbers are transferred to AI, it doesn't matter.

Your observations of PR are unfortunate you really need to 'check' PR again, if you stick around a bit your opinion will change and you'll have a lot of fun. Don't take my word for it, PR servers are #1 with an approximate 16% stake on the whole Arma 2 online population (that's more than Domination or Warfare and second to COOP).

Edited March 30, 2012 by James2464

[xeno 234]

@Sinnister

I don't have anything against PR, I appreciate the work they have put into it, the only thing which really

starts to annoy me is people like you, Sinnister, who show up in every thread where the word MP is written

and start acting like a PR missionary.

Luckily PR is not the only game mode available otherwise the ArmA servers would be completely empty most time

of the day (like now while writing this where only 22 people are playing it, that's also the reason why the 16%

are completely wrong, subtract 10% and you are more or less there).

Anyways, yet another thread which is not about PR so back to topic...

@PvPscene

You write the second time that BIS should deliver a strong PvP mode with A3.

Do you really think this will happen ?

• BIS still releases games with gameplay features which do not work in MP
  (latest example is Take On Helicopters where the rope simulation is still not working
  in MP 5 months after release and just think about the many modules in ArmA 2).
  
• It takes ages until MP problems are fixed, if at all.
  
• Furthermore MP missions are delivered in addons, so you have to wait months
  for the next full patch until issues are resolved, if at all
  
• There's nobody at BIS maintaining MP missions.
  
• MP for BIS is basically hosted environment only, dedicated environment almost ignored
  (remember those MP missions which had __SERVER__ using one slot rendering them unusable for dedi servers).
  

And also, what about the other modes ? CTI/Warfare ? RPG ? Coop ? xxxx ?

Will BIS also deliver strong missions for the most played modes too ?

Or is this yet again up to the community to provide them ?

I sometimes have the feeling that MP is some kind of unwanted child for BIS.

It's there but does not get the same love as the first child (SP).

Xeno

[.kju 3245]

Well dont take the "a game mode" not as limited to a single game mode.

My take would be to deliver a couple for the different major audiences - however is that doable or realistic?

Edit2: On the other hand Xeno, from what they say the CA is meant to allow people to port their work, including game modes early.

Edit: Yes the talk of Sinnister is cheap.

Edited March 30, 2012 by .kju [PvPscene]

[W0lle 1050]

We have (again) a PR thread here which can be used to discuss and praise PR. It is not needed to take this into every thread that could be fine.

End of PR discussion here. :)

[antoineflemming 14]

They have an ACTUAL GUI to join a squad quickly and effortlessly. Which then tied you into the games built in VOIP that I hope ARMA3 improves upon, because its base idea/layout is VERY effective, but its quality needs some boosts. After joining a squad, the functioning of the squad as far as SL orders is much easier, and intuitive. Something that the default game leaves lacking. Mostly on purpose to allow for modders to come up with novel ideas.

Currently the squad layout is almost always mission side. To bring some sort of baseline gameplay, the devs may want to hard code something (but have the option in the mission to turn it off) this way, even the most basic missions have a squad setup that the less talented mission writer doesn't have to worry about. But the more experienced scripted can take it and improve upon, or go with something completely different all together.

In my experience, one of the larger hurdles for new players is the lack of continuity between servers/missions. making the learning curve near vertical.

Ok, well thank you for the actual explanation of the features. And, just to be clear, this isn't a BF3 squad, right? I mean, it's a real squad with 2 fire teams, right? (I guess it could be different for the British). Anyway, it's a real squad I assume, not BF3's squad-that's-really-a-fireteam?

And AA2/3 also had a gui that allowed players to quickly join a fireteam (America's Army had just a Squad-sized MP, so they had a SL and 3 Fire Teams). And it actually had a real succession of command system, so SL was in charge of the entire squad, when SL went down, A TL (Alpha Team Leader) was next in charge. What I was saying about higher-level units is that, for games the size of PR games, the system would be a Platoon-sized element, with 3 squads, a PL, a Assistant PL, etc. Of course, this would probably be modified to reflect both US and UK military unit structures. But something along those lines. And, of course, I hope that ArmA3 implements ShackTac's HUD/Compass system. That's a must! And, yeah, definitely a squad system would add some continuity between servers. And, maybe the number of available slots for players (set up by the host) could determine what level unit structure is chosen, so if there is just a 4 player server, then the unit structure would be a fire team. If 9, then a squad. If 20 or so, then a Platoon. And then on and on. That would add a lot of continuity between servers, and it could be in effect regardless of the type of mission. Of course it'd be an option to turn on or off. Also, it'd be good if you could first organize into teams and select all your gear and equipment, etc, and the server "lobby", where in ArmA2 you select what type of unit you are. And then, you could change your role and squad in game.

[james2464 177]

@Sinnister

I sometimes have the feeling that MP is some kind of unwanted child for BIS.

It's there but does not get the same love as the first child (SP).

Xeno

It's not an unwanted child, it's a very cranky child that gives BIS a lot of grief because it is so hard to please!

[xeno 234]

It's not an unwanted child, it's a very cranky child that gives BIS a lot of grief because it is so hard to please!

No, you are wrong. You are quite new to the series otherwise you would know what I'm talking about.

Xeno

[VampyricTyrant 10]

I always wondered...

Why people that have no intention of taking part in any "serious" PvP activity express opinion on the subject, also they never had any, they take part it these conversations by massivly spamming irrelevant stuff about BF and CoD, you mislead and misguide people, you don't have a clue about the subject, you don't spend as many hours as the PvPers with the game, you have your great coop environment (mods - communities -addons etc), you don't know what clans or competitive tournamets are about, you never played any pro game, you in general replay to every thread and when other people disagree with you, you insist that you are right even if you don't know what the other guy means, you NEVER tried to understand; anything.

[dmarkwick 261]

I always wondered...

Why people that have no intention of taking part in any "serious" PvP activity express opinion on the subject, also they never had any, they take part it these conversations by massivly spamming irrelevant stuff about BF and CoD, you mislead and misguide people, you don't have a clue about the subject, you don't spend as many hours as the PvPers with the game, you have your great coop environment (mods - communities -addons etc), you don't know what clans or competitive tournamets are about, you never played any pro game, you in general replay to every thread and when other people disagree with you, you insist that you are right even if you don't know what the other guy means, you NEVER tried to understand; anything.

Because opinions are what these boards are partially about. I have to admit to being somewhat confused about the perceived lack of PvP support in ArmA. Surely PvP support can be almost entirely encapsulated by the role of the mission author? The only other thing I can even remotely regard as support (as far as BIS is concerned) is in the matter of balanced units & equipments.

I try to understand, but when things are not explained in a way that makes sense then I fall back on what I can see.

[Tonci87 163]

And why does the usual PvP crowd always demand features that would turn Arma into another BF/COD

Sorry couldn´t resist

Ok let the flamewar beginn

EDIT: Yes Arma could use more PvP support!

[Bee8190 10]

Well I'll agree that after 1.6 patch the PVP became re-populated and actually fun again to play so that was a good start. Rather late but better later than never alright. 1.6 also showed us that BIS is taking PVP serious and will work on further improvements.

As mentioned by somebody here already I think, BIS should really consider making missions of their own, rather re-playable and out of the box. IMO very much worth the effort of including couple great missions as the number of players playing (mostly) without mods is still more than great but seeing as very members of these forums getting hired by BIS, I guess we got nothing to ''worry about'' this time and indeed look forward to missions made by arma gamers themselfs.

[gossamersolid 155]

As long as ArmA 3 is actually using improvements/bug fixes that are in ArmA 2/OA, then we should have a decent release (for once). A decent release will lead to a solid MP population.

If we have a decent release, people won't be frustrated and leave the game forever. Remember, release is everything.

Just because it gets fixed later on, doesn't mean people will come back.

[noubernou 77]

No, you are wrong. You are quite new to the series otherwise you would know what I'm talking about.

Xeno

Not really sure what you are on about there Xeno, as far as MP goes, as long as they fix the technical issues then that is the only place I want to see BIS involved in MP. The MP community is built around individual mission makers beyond Domination, which is good, and thank you for it, but not something any serious community considers to be a serious "mission." Anything that BIS provides will likely end up the same as Domi, relegated to pubbers and seeding servers, and generally a bastion of bad game play and children.

Arma is best in MP when its scenario play, not some sort of generalized system.

[antoineflemming 14]

Not really sure what you are on about there Xeno, as far as MP goes, as long as they fix the technical issues then that is the only place I want to see BIS involved in MP. The MP community is built around individual mission makers beyond Domination, which is good, and thank you for it, but not something any serious community considers to be a serious "mission." Anything that BIS provides will likely end up the same as Domi, relegated to pubbers and seeding servers, and generally a bastion of bad game play and children.

Arma is best in MP when its scenario play, not some sort of generalized system.

Just cuz BIS makes their own Domination mode doesn't mean that they will provide public servers, or bad children, or bad gameplay. Stop with your generalizations that just because something's in another game, that it's implementation into ArmA will just ruin it. Chances are you haven't even played some of those games you are vaguely referring too. Having some official game modes will NOT make the game like COD or BF3 or any other arcade shooter. It'd be no different than BIS already providing scenarios that are COOP-compatible. I'd like for them to make their own Domination-like game mode, or some in-depth COOP mode other than really short scenarios. Some objective-based, tactical COOP mode other than kill all opfor... Especially for new players. I think the campaign won't be COOP-compatible, so if they could at least provide some LONG COOP missions, that take a long time, then that'd at least be good. But nothing's wrong with BIS having some official game modes, like the most popular ArmA2 game modes, so that those game modes are available and polished day 1.

[noubernou 77]

Just cuz BIS makes their own Domination mode doesn't mean that they will provide public servers, or bad children, or bad gameplay. Stop with your generalizations that just because something's in another game, that it's implementation into ArmA will just ruin it. Chances are you haven't even played some of those games you are vaguely referring too. Having some official game modes will NOT make the game like COD or BF3 or any other arcade shooter. It'd be no different than BIS already providing scenarios that are COOP-compatible. I'd like for them to make their own Domination-like game mode, or some in-depth COOP mode other than really short scenarios. Some objective-based, tactical COOP mode other than kill all opfor... Especially for new players. I think the campaign won't be COOP-compatible, so if they could at least provide some LONG COOP missions, that take a long time, then that'd at least be good. But nothing's wrong with BIS having some official game modes, like the most popular ArmA2 game modes, so that those game modes are available and polished day 1.

There are official game modes, capture the flag, warfare, etc. People play them, but most of the largest communities DO NOT. Shacktac, Tactical Gamer, and United Operations, three of the larger communities in Arma rarely play Domi, and only TG plays PR. But all of them have their own mission makers in house who make missions for their community based on what they like to play. Domi is relegated to seeding the server or for their public servers.

BIS can make all they want for MP, but I don't see them being any more popular than their existing game modes. Seeing that there is really nothing in the engine that prevents you from doing any game mode that exists in any other game I'd say I'm pretty much on target because after 10 years most of those game modes have not found a huge following, Domi, Warfare, and Evolution being the only examples, and all three of those were originally made by people other than BIS and are really not like any other game mode in other games.

So go ahead, demand BIS waste their time on providing basically filler content and diverting resources away from the technical issues that are really at the heart of the "bad" multiplayer that people complain about.

[.kju 3245]

Well Nou to keep the record straight. Warfare was done by Mike Melvin - the community guy who first did CTI in OFP.

Warfare is a "mere" continuation of his work. And Warfare has been pretty popular in A1/A2/OA - while indeed the rest of BI MP missions

had little replay value and depth. Therefore they were forgotten quickly.

To me the idea to deliver/ship A3 itself with a (or more) strong game mode officially is very key.

Both to promote the game to players from CoD, RO, BF and other similar games, as well as make the series known for good MP.

While the A3 CA/beta might allow community people to port their missions and game modes, or to create new ones in the meantime,

even (way) before the official release, my take is even the CA will be considered by people as preview on the finished product and

therefore they expect the CA to offer something for MP by BI itself.

Edited April 6, 2012 by .kju [PvPscene]

[Pulverizer 1]

BIS can make all they want for MP, but I don't see them being any more popular than their existing game modes.

Cause and effect. Obviously their existing PvP modes (excluding warfare) aren't popular when they are poorly designed and have broken scripting.

[noubernou 77]

they are poorly designed and have broken scripting.

Exactly. I'd rather have them focus on giving us the tools we need and the stable platform we need to make our own content even better than it is now. That is the heart and soul of this community.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Most people who buy a game want to play + enjoy it right after install/setup. They don't want to make their own SP/MP missions in the first place or download tons of addons/mods just to have some fun. If A3 does fail in SP/MP area the only people left are those who are veterans, fanboys or people who like to tinker with something. Of course double or tripple checking stuff is time-consuming and you will need good and patient people to test + fix/tweak this stuff! Quality has its price, but certainly after a period of time everything is re-paid. :)

[antoineflemming 14]

Exactly. I'd rather have them focus on giving us the tools we need and the stable platform we need to make our own content even better than it is now. That is the heart and soul of this community.

Or they could make their own versions of the community's most widely used game modes, and then we don't have to worry about broken scripts and stuff like that... ..... And who says BIS can't fix both the technical problems with MP and create game modes that work well with the features ArmA3 has to offer? Seriously tired of you people who only deal with extremes: "this" or "that" crap.

[noubernou 77]

Look at Warfare, originally a community project, then BIS picked it up, and now the most popular version is a community version based off of the BIS version.

I am not just talking out my ass, there is a pretty good history here over the last 11 years almost.

[Vultar 0]

I often play Arma2 (without OA) on [ARMA2.RU -PvP- <AAS>] server.

It's great fun. More challenging (at least here you can't see those snipers on your map/radar).

I hate Evolution or Domination - too much armor everywhere.

I appreciated Co-op missions for ACEmod. One of the best video games experiences I've ever had.

[VampyricTyrant 10]

1. official maps developed with a mp focus and a game play THEME in mind. they must be official at the start. this seems so essential but is something BIS havent done

This is the biggest and worst problem of the ArmA series thats why after 6 months the PvP community dies and no hardcore gamers choose arma

5. rather than have roles like engineer, recon, etc I'd like to see an intelligent weight system that prevents everyone taking a sniper rifle and javelin. or applies a appropriate speed penalty to such.

I'd propose something differant, have classes but make balanced maps, maps that all classes can utilize and not having riflemen as cannon fodder. Score should be decided by differant stuff than just kills and destorying vehicles, score for capture zones for defending them.

6. squad advantages. now this may be in defiance of the spirit of arma series. but promoting team play leads to much better games. things like ability to set up squad respawn point, only squad leaders being able to call in air support or air drops for ammo, etc.

air support and off-map artillery should be nice, maybe used by the AI or for a very short period of time by the player, imho air units are too OP for the PvP system maybe call an airstrike or an artillery under some circumstances that would require a bit of skill not just get them and gain a massive kill-streak like CoD, after all who cares about public play? isnt it all about tournaments and clans? about the squad respawn point, I would like to suggest you to check the maps of ASC tournaments (look in my sig) each team can use a mobile respawn vehicle that decides where the players can spawn if they want, it also has a limited times of respawn, after it gets destoryed for a certain amount of time it's gone

7. better MP interface. make finding and joining a game child's play with easier interpretation of the options available at a glance. make it easy.

YES YES YES