MP thoughts

[antoineflemming 14]

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

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.

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

YES YES YES

Well, no, there shouldn't be MP "maps" with an "MP focus" and "gameplay theme" in mind. One, what do you mean by "MP focus"? You mean designed for close quarters arcade or tactical gameplay? You mean designed for some specific kind of game mode? Two, ArmA doesn't have "maps"; it has islands and terrains. Not meant for small, fast-paced run-and-gun gameplay. If they design the island the way the island really is, which they have done, then it'll be "playable", meaning there you can move throughout the map. It'll be designed like a real island, not like a map set up for gameplay.

Here's your problem, and yes, it's a problem. You're coming at ArmA3 like it's some arcade shooter, talking about overpowered stuff. Air support is real. It's not some killstreak you can call in when you... get some kills. Someone jumps in a plane, and they actually provide support as needed. There ARE NO killstreaks, "like COD", so there's no need to worry about stuff like that. There is no class system like in arcade games (well, at least, currently there's not. ArmA 3 might be different). But at least ArmA2's way of determining what types of units are there is best: you fill the slot of a certain unit, maybe a sniper, or rifleman, or an automatic rifleman, or a forward observer. And, if there are no more sniper slots, then there simply are no snipers. Simply removing ammoboxes from game modes would suffice for limiting the number of snipers. That said, what's this about "rifleman as cannon fodder"? If you put yourself in a situation where you become cannon fodder, well, that's just you. This idea of balancing isn't really something to worry about IMO. As long as game modes are designed to facilitate ArmA3's realism (as in not designed for run-and-gun gameplay), then I don't see why there needs to be any concern about balance. Honestly, I just want BIS to have some official game modes (PvP/TvT and COOP).

As far as this idea of "classes" is concerned, if there is a game mode that depends on a sort of "class system", I'd rather it be squad roles, kinda like America's Army.

[VampyricTyrant 10]

Well, no, there shouldn't be MP "maps" with an "MP focus" and "gameplay theme" in mind. One, what do you mean by "MP focus"? You mean designed for close quarters arcade or tactical gameplay? You mean designed for some specific kind of game mode? Two, ArmA doesn't have "maps"; it has islands and terrains. Not meant for small, fast-paced run-and-gun gameplay. If they design the island the way the island really is, which they have done, then it'll be "playable", meaning there you can move throughout the map. It'll be designed like a real island, not like a map set up for gameplay.

Here's your problem, and yes, it's a problem. You're coming at ArmA3 like it's some arcade shooter, talking about overpowered stuff. Air support is real. It's not some killstreak you can call in when you... get some kills. Someone jumps in a plane, and they actually provide support as needed. There ARE NO killstreaks, "like COD", so there's no need to worry about stuff like that. There is no class system like in arcade games (well, at least, currently there's not. ArmA 3 might be different). But at least ArmA2's way of determining what types of units are there is best: you fill the slot of a certain unit, maybe a sniper, or rifleman, or an automatic rifleman, or a forward observer. And, if there are no more sniper slots, then there simply are no snipers. Simply removing ammoboxes from game modes would suffice for limiting the number of snipers. That said, what's this about "rifleman as cannon fodder"? If you put yourself in a situation where you become cannon fodder, well, that's just you. This idea of balancing isn't really something to worry about IMO. As long as game modes are designed to facilitate ArmA3's realism (as in not designed for run-and-gun gameplay), then I don't see why there needs to be any concern about balance. Honestly, I just want BIS to have some official game modes (PvP/TvT and COOP).

As far as this idea of "classes" is concerned, if there is a game mode that depends on a sort of "class system", I'd rather it be squad roles, kinda like America's Army.

I dont mean any of the above. Since you have never played any PvP you shouldnt post on this thread, you don't have any expirience

Look Antoine, all your arguments are wrong and are only for coop. I mean ALL of them they are gtp. I have organized the most successful PvP tournament in the ArmA community 34 teams and more than 25 clans with about 200 players, with the most players and most clans etc. You know why? Because of feedback of the pros and fanatics with PvP. I made the maps I heard the peolple and tried my best, some people that where intrested and knew what PvP is helped too.

You won't even play PvP, pls your post doesnt contribute anything to community. And stop the trolling about cod, what are maps and that PvP must be CQB etc or anything else that you dont know. If i wanted and arcade game I would play one, and I do. You just dont know who I am and what I have done for the community.

If you want go to and see ArmA Strategic Command

And what is this hate towards CoD? I just don't get it.

[the_antipop 10]

For me, ArmA MP has always been a community driven area.

However, in saying that, I do have some issues with the current ArmA 2 MP, that I'm assuming will be fixed in A3.

Aside from the numerous GUI enhancements that have to be addressed to get A3 to a modern-fps level rather than still having a similar layout to OFP MP, A country filter would also be handy, aswell as a filter that looks at mods, i.e when you first start up the game (post install), it is set to 'vanilla', easier for new players, there is then the option to have 'mods' or 'both'. I'm sure with a bigger MP team working on A3, we'll be in for some surprises. :) I think the main area BIS need to focus on is the MP engine itself, the GUI, the UI for the server, the scoreboard, the lobby etc. Leave the game modes up to the community.

[antoineflemming 14]

I dont mean any of the above. Since you have never played any PvP you shouldnt post on this thread, you don't have any expirience

Look Antoine, all your arguments are wrong and are only for coop. I mean ALL of them they are gtp. I have organized the most successful PvP tournament in the ArmA community 34 teams and more than 25 clans with about 200 players, with the most players and most clans etc. You know why? Because of feedback of the pros and fanatics with PvP. I made the maps I heard the peolple and tried my best, some people that where intrested and knew what PvP is helped too.

You won't even play PvP, pls your post doesnt contribute anything to community. And stop the trolling about cod, what are maps and that PvP must be CQB etc or anything else that you dont know. If i wanted and arcade game I would play one, and I do. You just dont know who I am and what I have done for the community.

If you want go to and see ArmA Strategic Command

And what is this hate towards CoD? I just don't get it.

This thread is titled "MP thoughts", not "PvP thoughts"... Two, I'm not challenging PvP. I don't play PvP 1) because I like mods, and I like to play MP with mods. So it's not that I have anything against PvP. I just haven't gotten around to it. I'm not trolling about COD. What do YOU mean by maps? I never said PvP MUST be CQB. I asked you what you meant by "mp focus". And I don't think you actually answered the question. You also mentioned killstreaks. Have you designed some game mode that involves killstreaks? If so then forgive me. I was not aware that there was such a game mode. As far as I know, there are none. And, yeah, I've heard of ArmA Strategic Command. Looking at your ASC vids, I see Chernarus, which I consider an island. Map has an arcade connotation. Maybe that is just me, but when I think of a map, I think of a closed off area specifically designed for a certain type of game mode or game modes. I don't hate COD. I've played it. I'll play it when I'm bored. But what ALOT of people don't want is for ArmA3's multiplayer to be like COD (which means arcade-like). Go look at the Community Alpha thread. That's one of the reasons people don't want an open, free Alpha. They don't want COD or BF gamers influencing ArmA3. It's not some hate that I have. It's just there are members here who don't want ArmA3 designed around arcade gameplay. I only mentioned COD because you mentioned COD, and how you didn't want people only concerned about massive killstreaks. I never even would have thought that there were game modes that had killstreaks, hence why I brought that up.

My main thing about the "maps" thing. I don't think that Limnos or Stratis should be designed for some special PvP game modes. Neither should be designed for PvP gameplay in mind. It'd be nice for PvP, but remember these islands are also present in the campaign, so they will be designed for that. Now, I guess certain objects could be placed in an MP mode to make an area of the island more suited for PvP gameplay. But that's not really the same as designing the islands for MP. That's just object placement, no different than current modes.

A question (Please just answer): By maps, do you mean the conventional understanding, as in maps separate from Limnos and Stratis?

[VampyricTyrant 10]

A question (Please just answer): By maps, do you mean the conventional understanding, as in maps separate from Limnos and Stratis?

the .pbo files that you put on your mp folder. I don't really care how Limnos and Stratis look like, maps can be made if you search a good position. From what I saw they wont be desert or huge tree areas.

Check the maps here

One question, if you don't care about PvP why even bother to talk about CoD and other random stuff that you think are relevant when they are not (if the maps will be cqb, if other islands will be included etc).

[dmarkwick 261]

the .pbo files that you put on your mp folder. I don't really care how Limnos and Stratis look like, maps can be made if you search a good position. From what I saw they wont be desert or huge tree areas.

Check the maps here

One question, if you don't care about PvP why even bother to talk about CoD and other random stuff that you think are relevant when they are not (if the maps will be cqb, if other islands will be included etc).

This is where the slight confusion is happening :) by "maps" you actually mean "missions".

[VampyricTyrant 10]

This is where the slight confusion is happening :) by "maps" you actually mean "missions".

in every game they are called maps... so i choose to use that term.

[dmarkwick 261]

in every game they are called maps... so i choose to use that term.

Right. But, this is the ArmA forums, where that is not the case ;) anyway, that was the source of the confusion. Now that we know, we can discuss on a level field again :)

Maybe it's just my own ignorance, but I never understood the PvP community's insistence that PvP wasn't catered for properly. As PvP games are essentially user-made, surely the PvP community caters to itself by making appropriate PvP missions? When the PvP community mentions that PvP is not supported somehow, do they mean there are no default PvP missions to choose from?

[VampyricTyrant 10]

do they mean there are no default PvP missions to choose from?

exactly. this is a huge drawback, because lacking PvP official missions/maps (whatever) the intrest to the game dies. The game modes that are user made always change and the intrest lowers since it's very tiering to have learn mechanics again and again.

Also those maps are for pulbic play focused, and it gets borring playing vs low-skilled players or in general when these matches can't be used for clan matches, which is the meaning of PvP, organized clan vs clan play. The hardcore gamers are the ones that spend hundreds of houres trying to become perfect.

[dmarkwick 261]

exactly. this is a huge drawback, because lacking PvP official missions/maps (whatever) the intrest to the game dies. The game modes that are user made always change and the intrest lowers since it's very tiering to have learn mechanics again and again.

Also those maps are for pulbic play focused, and it gets borring playing vs low-skilled players or in general when these matches can't be used for clan matches, which is the meaning of PvP, organized clan vs clan play. The hardcore gamers are the ones that spend hundreds of houres trying to become perfect.

It sounds like your problem constantly defeats it's own solution: you wish for a default PvP mode, but worry that a default PvP mode would be too "public" focussed.

But it's the same for ALL default missions. I don't think any default missions are ever used online, with the possible exception of the Warfare one. But in any case, I've always advocated that BIS should throw as many missions into the release as possible. Sort them into broad genres, but have loads of them.

[iratus 71]

Right. But, this is the ArmA forums, where that is not the case ;)

I would like to add that this isn't some sort of "elitism"/"we ArmA people are so special" thing but rather has tecnical reasons. In most multiplayer FPS the geographical data and the ruleset of the gamemode are stored in the same file. For example if looking at Team Forterss 2 the map Two Forts defines not only the terrain, it also defines the gamemode (capture the intelligence), spawnpoints and the like. If one wanted to have, say a control point variant of Two Fort, he would need to create new mapfile. In the ArmA series this data is divided into two files:

• One file wich contains all the terrain data, usually refered to as "map" or "island" (out of tradition even though it doesn't have to be an actual island anymore since ArmA2).
  
• One file wich contains all the mission/scenario data, including things like winning conditions, respawn and the like, usually refered to as "mission".
  

Using the term "map" instead of "mission" almost certainly leads to missunderstandings and maybe rage (especially when used with words like "class" and "killstreak" in the same post ;)).

[antoineflemming 14]

the .pbo files that you put on your mp folder. I don't really care how Limnos and Stratis look like, maps can be made if you search a good position. From what I saw they wont be desert or huge tree areas.

Check the maps here

One question, if you don't care about PvP why even bother to talk about CoD and other random stuff that you think are relevant when they are not (if the maps will be cqb, if other islands will be included etc).

Wow, still putting words in my mouth. I never said I don't care about PvP. I've played a lot of PvP games. I've just never gotten into it in ArmA2. Not only have I not been playing ArmA2 for that long (only about 2 to 2 1/2 years), but the first thing that drew me was the COOP and Domination game mode; My first shooters that I really spent a lot of time with were Delta Force Land Warrior and the old Ghost Recon games. Did a lot of coop on those so that's just something I really like. Plus, with the less than stellar animations, I haven't had too much incentive to play PvP in ArmA2. Thanks for clarifying. See, you said you made maps. Well, Chernarus and Utes are islands. Yeah, someone made a mission on Utes that recreated Shipment from COD4 by arranging some crates. I don't consider that "making a map". Like DMarkwick said, that's a mission. A "map" in a COD or BF game is comparable to an island in the ArmA series (just that island is way bigger than those maps). That was the source of the confusion. So really what you are asking isn't that the "island" or "map" be designed for PvP. Really, it's that BIS would make special PvP missions with objects added to make the game modes more conducive to PvP gameplay. Nothing wrong with that. I just assumed that when you said "map", you were talking about the entire islands and for BIS to alter them to specifically suit MP gameplay or for them to make separate maps (like how COD maps are like completely different from each other); thought you were talking about traditional maps separate from the islands. Now that we're clear, I think that's not a bad idea.

[tremanarch 6]

They could include some CLose QUarter Combat Maps, Big houses Motels and such stuff. The players can see it as a training Mod for CLose Combat and reflexes, and the COD Players can purely play that...

What they need is a little smoother Movement. Not so much stuttering. The Movement and animations are a little bit clumsy sometimes. For me it doesnt matter so much. But the CoD players dont feel comfortable with it ;)

I make an easy to understand graph: its movement -> time:http://s14.directupload.net/images/120508/ycgurpf4.jpg

in the real world movement is not linear - but has a higer order

dont be mad, I mean it good! And I am exaggerating here. Most movement is already really good. Its the little tiny flaws that CoD Players are confused. But it should not be first priority to attract those kind of players anyway.

Edited May 7, 2012 by tremanarch

[whiskeytango 11]

They could include some CLose QUarter Combat Maps, Big houses Motels and such stuff. The players can see it as a training Mod for CLose Combat and reflexes, and the COD Players can purely play that...

What they need is a little smoother Movement. Not so much stuttering. The Movement and animations are a little bit clumsy sometimes. For me it doesnt matter so much. But the CoD players dont feel comfortable with it ;)

I make an easy to understand graph: its movement -> time:http://s14.directupload.net/images/120508/ycgurpf4.jpg

in the real world movement is not linear - but has a higer order

dont be mad, I mean it good! And I am exaggerating here. Most movement is already really good. Its the little tiny flaws that CoD Players are confused. But it should not be first priority to attract those kind of players anyway.

I agree. A range of smallish close combat maps with a matching range of weapons available to both sides would be interesting! It doesn't really play to the unique strengths of Arma though but hey.

I think most arcade shooter players would expect a big speed increase, the ability to jump and fall down 4 metres without missing a step. If Arma offered something where proper room clearing tactics were important that would be good (maybe?).

[Stagler 39]

Fuck close combat maps/islands, if you excuse my language, its up to the mission maker.

I could make a mission right now, that is team deathmatch 6 v 6 random respawn positions, selectable weapons, in every town randomized in chernarus every time of play. With players unable to leave the town boundary and markers indicating as such.

[james2464 176]

Fuck close combat maps/islands, if you excuse my language, its up to the mission maker.

I could make a mission right now, that is team deathmatch 6 v 6 random respawn positions, selectable weapons, in every town randomized in chernarus every time of play. With players unable to leave the town boundary and markers indicating as such.

ORLY? so could everyone else.

But you can't market your mission to the masses, a PvP solution needs to be out-of-the-box

[UpMerge 1]

I always liked the idea of a "neverending mission"...but fail at mission scripting :mad:

Like factorys, airports, harbors, bases, FOBs and crutial points on the map for each side.

Tasks differ form the role you choose (each role should be somehow unique like supporting a base with ammo/fuel/repair-trucks or rebuilding destroyed factories to regain recources from that, and the task you are given..

completing a task, lets say ambush/destroy airport and its hangars could cause th enemy team to have nomore airplanes (next task would be like secure airport again/ support troops doing the rebuilding)..

would be a mix of warefare and domination somehow - without the commander doing the building of the base, he should have the option to assign tasks to teams, get reports about enemy presense and react accordingly.

Thats a good one!

[VampyricTyrant 10]

Fuck close combat maps/islands, if you excuse my language, its up to the mission maker.

I could make a mission right now, that is team deathmatch 6 v 6 random respawn positions, selectable weapons, in every town randomized in chernarus every time of play. With players unable to leave the town boundary and markers indicating as such.

Who cares if it is going to be close combato or not? You missed some facts:

6v6 is too many for a clan match, i d choose 4v4 or 5v5 tops.

Selectable weapons will possibly make the map imba.

Team deathmatch is not for clan matches.

Limiting the map is limiting the game, the point is to have an open map and playets can go wherever they want.

Random? Lol how can you play a clan match in a random map? it's just stupid.

Map locations have to be studied closly in order to ensure that there will be blanace.

check this one again:

ASC MAP PACK

[Phantom Six 25]

@Sinnister domination for ARMA was the most popular mission since it came out by Xeno.

DayZ is now the most popular mod and since a lot of media is spread around it... there's a marketed mod for masses. Youtube is your friend. Since DayZ's release, the ARMA population boomed.

@VampyricTyrant if 6v6 is too much for a clan... simply remove one player from each side of the mission simply in the simple editor and there's your 5 v 5.

You can probably market to the masses by pushing awareness and having a lot of youtube medias and other stuff for it, if the mission appeals to the masses or if the addon appeals to masses. Most successful example I've seen is Day Z

[Troutish 1]

There are a few problems with ARMA mutiplayer:

1) a totally fragmented community base. There are probably great games being played 24/7 but how would you find them? If you cant make it easier for people to find populated servers offering good gameplay then you are wasting your asset.

2) there is no quality control of servers, nor is there any real way of telling what the gameplay experience will be like when you log on (assuming you have all the right patches)

3) There is missing functionality that is required for really good (PVP) gameplay - this is what the Reality Mod developers have tried to address in BF ARMA2

It is absolute nonsense that ARMA III is too much of a "hardcore sim" to provide good and serious PVP gameplay. It is also untrue that there there are only 2 markets, the "hardcore" and the "arcade". People fall into these categories because developers have yet to figure out, a) how large the middle market is, and b) how to adapt a game for it.

Why should people have to make a choice between tedious arcade shooters like BF3, or ARMA, which essentially has NO MP experience availiable for people who dont want to mess with all the clans, servers, mods, ect?

My wish? for ARMA3 to run OFFICIAL online PVP servers with the kind of gameplay Reality Mod tries to provide. If BIS streamed its customers into Reality Mod servers, or somthing of their own that is similar, that would be FANTASTIC.

Troutish

---------- Post added at 18:25 ---------- Previous post was at 18:09 ----------

The huge ARMA game map presents a major challenge for MP – but its not insurmountable. You can see from the problems in Reality Mod Arma that if the server numbers get low, and if vehicle run out too soon, people become strung out all over the map. This ruins gameplay, people log off, and the problem gets worse.

Controlling player density is the biggest factor (IMHO) in determining the quality of gameplay. It is closely related to the spawn system, the capture/ objective system, and the tools that help squads stick together.

I think the solution for MP ARMA would be to create smaller borders within the game map (ie: zones you cannot leave without punishment), and then open up adjacent zones when the objectives are met. These could be 2x2 Km zones for example, or even larger in non-urban, low cover map areas. With this sort of system it could take many hours, or even days of gameplay to fight across the entire map. There would be no “map fatigueâ€, but at the same time the playerbase would not get fragmented.

If the map zones were easily scaleable BIS could even experiment with different sizes according to what works best for certain terrain areas, player numbers, or equipment types.

Again, this type of gameplay should be limited to either BIS servers or BIS audited ones to ensure quality control and maximum player concentration.

[noubernou 77]

Most of the people complaining about the need for official servers don't realize that a majority of players eventually find out that there are mods available that greatly improve on anything BIS can do on its own in terms of game play and move into open, semi-open, and closed groups that play those mods.

I don't think BIS providing servers is going to be the end all to people that have not figured out where the good games are going on right now (and its really not that hard to figure out).

[PuFu 4591]

There are a few problems with ARMA mutiplayer:

1) a totally fragmented community base. There are probably great games being played 24/7 but how would you find them? If you cant make it easier for people to find populated servers offering good gameplay then you are wasting your asset.

2) there is no quality control of servers, nor is there any real way of telling what the gameplay experience will be like when you log on (assuming you have all the right patches)

3) There is missing functionality that is required for really good (PVP) gameplay - this is what the Reality Mod developers have tried to address in BF ARMA2

It is absolute nonsense that ARMA III is too much of a "hardcore sim" to provide good and serious PVP gameplay. It is also untrue that there there are only 2 markets, the "hardcore" and the "arcade". People fall into these categories because developers have yet to figure out, a) how large the middle market is, and b) how to adapt a game for it.

Why should people have to make a choice between tedious arcade shooters like BF3, or ARMA, which essentially has NO MP experience availiable for people who dont want to mess with all the clans, servers, mods, ect?

My wish? for ARMA3 to run OFFICIAL online PVP servers with the kind of gameplay Reality Mod tries to provide. If BIS streamed its customers into Reality Mod servers, or somthing of their own that is similar, that would be FANTASTIC.

Troutish

---------- Post added at 18:25 ---------- Previous post was at 18:09 ----------

4. The huge ARMA game map presents a major challenge for MP – but its not insurmountable. You can see from the problems in Reality Mod Arma that if the server numbers get low, and if vehicle run out too soon, people become strung out all over the map. This ruins gameplay, people log off, and the problem gets worse.

Controlling player density is the biggest factor (IMHO) in determining the quality of gameplay. It is closely related to the spawn system, the capture/ objective system, and the tools that help squads stick together.

I think the solution for MP ARMA would be to create smaller borders within the game map (ie: zones you cannot leave without punishment), and then open up adjacent zones when the objectives are met. These could be 2x2 Km zones for example, or even larger in non-urban, low cover map areas. With this sort of system it could take many hours, or even days of gameplay to fight across the entire map. There would be no “map fatigueâ€, but at the same time the playerbase would not get fragmented.

If the map zones were easily scaleable BIS could even experiment with different sizes according to what works best for certain terrain areas, player numbers, or equipment types.

Again, this type of gameplay should be limited to either BIS servers or BIS audited ones to ensure quality control and maximum player concentration.

1. How would you that? You can easily find populated servers viat current browser filter, find one that fits your playstyle is another issue altogether

2. Again, what would you propose? Because from where i am stading there should be a lot more filters for the MP browser(server difficulty comes to my mind for instance), as well as some join friend function. That said, being able to predict what is the quality of the server via game browser is impossible.

3. There is no such thing as BF A2. Moreover, PR, if you ask me, brought nothing new to the table in term of gameplay. AAS have been available in A2 long before PR came around.

Regarding official PvP servers: i have said it nth times before: there won't be any official BIS servers. I have stated the reasons why way to many times before to be bothered doing it again here. One is commercial gain over monthly maintanance fees and resources.

4. You can already do that in A2 editor. All you need is a bit of time and patience.

[On_Sabbatical 11]

As ar as i'm concerned,ArmA's MP fails because of the lack of PvP ...

When i play online,i'd like to fight people not damn AI.

PR was a good try but suffers of that terrible disease which is Nerfing.

So i'd like to see BIS working more on some MP game modes that encourage PvP.

[noubernou 77]

As ar as i'm concerned,ArmA's MP fails because of the lack of PvP ...

When i play online,i'd like to fight people not damn AI.

PR was a good try but suffers of that terrible disease which is Nerfing.

So i'd like to see BIS working more on some MP game modes that encourage PvP.

Plenty of PvP games, but most are are in communities where there is an actual plan of attack in the PvP game, both sides brief, all sides on TS, usually using ACRE.

No one here wants run and gun play, and thats what makes "big" PvP communties form, the ease of people joining and leaving. That doesn't work when you are trying to actually play with some level of planning.

As far as I am concerned there is nothing wrong with the MP community for Arma, BIS needs to do nothing to make it better besides technical stuff.

[batto 17]

No one here wants run and gun play

Probably.

and thats what makes "big" PvP communties form, the ease of people joining and leaving. That doesn't work when you are trying to actually play with some level of planning.

Nope (ease of people joining and leaving is good though).

1) Basic planning on public servers with random mature ppl via chat or in-game VoIP is perfectly OK because ...

2) ... if you play same thing for 100th time you have some basic understanding of what to do and what is important and ...

3) ... you can play it like training for more serious clan tournaments.

You may want to check out this thread before another run'n'shoot arguments.

Edited May 30, 2012 by batto