Major issue with multiplayer

[sickboy 13]

Servers with mods that you dont run already show up Orange or Red right? Aren't they already sorted?

Just is a problem of server admins who feel they should put mods/addons in the official game addons folder.

Otherwise I think these are valid points:

• BIS should provide better and more MP modes/missions out of the box
  
• Server Browser should be improved, modded servers at the end or so
  
• Integration with mod distribution tools like Six Updater. This is being discussed
  

Removing or reducing modding might seem like a good solution for the public part, but not for the actual fans, so I vote for improving it, and integrating with solutions like Six Updater.

The thought of having ingame mod downloading must´ve died by now, since we all know that no gameserver will stand 3-5 people downloading ACE Mod for instance at the same time ...

That's why Six Updater comes with a large world wide official mirror network with lots of Mods on it, the network will hopefully increase even more with community servers, official servers, and in the near future also Peer2Peer ala Bittorrent.

Besides you can still host a custom repo with mods / versions to your likings, and its not required to run it from the same server, you can host it anywhere you want on as many mirrors you want.

Lastly the answer to keeping your server playable if you would also host a mirror on it is bandwidth/traffic shaping :)

---------- Post added at 11:04 ---------- Previous post was at 11:02 ----------

If BIS didn't need to spend resources on download managers and making MP mod support suitable for the new players, they could spend those resources for better MP missions and stock features

Most people have specific jobs / assignments / area,

e.g a programmer generally doesnt work on missions, models or textures, and visa versa. So not spending resources on X, does not mean you have more resources to do Y.

---------- Post added at 11:05 ---------- Previous post was at 11:04 ----------

Pulverizer hit the nail on the head with the idea of putting the basic servers first and then getting to the more complex servers. I started Playin A2 a year ago and still find it a little duanting trying to get the correct mods for multiplayer. Can't wait for A3

Use Six Updater; http://www.six-updater.net/p/about.html

Additionally, if the server is specifically setup for Six Updater it is even more easy / better.

Plenty of communities are already deploying it and never want to go back ;)

---------- Post added at 11:18 ---------- Previous post was at 11:05 ----------

Just today I had an encounter that left me facepalming about MP in ArmA.

On WASP server the mission modder thought it to be a good idea to give EAST armour more strenght...5 player shot 6 NLAW at a T-90 but the sucker drove on killing all...this happened on two maps in two sessions...the change onyl affect OPFOR...this is when you loose the interest in ArmA MP.

The cheat was confimed by all BLUFOR players.

What's next, bulletproof An-2 with KH-29?

Whenever I join a public vanille server I should find a vanilla game with vanilla units, not everything modded to the Admins or Clans liking.

Do that on your passworded servers and or give a WARNING: CHEAT Edition.

Im back into playing campaing with my friends in privacy:

So how about you follow your own advice and rent and setup a server as you expect others to set it up.

BIS must.... Server admins must ... How about what you must?

It's always other people's fault eh.

(Yes, bad English, but you get it don't you?)

Edited January 12, 2012 by Sickboy

[metalcraze 290]

I understand the need for mods, hell I've modded BIS games since 2002. But I feel that this community is often too eager to get the latest mods and concepts out and thus fragment the already niche crowd before it has a chance to become bigger. Like I said a mixed blessing.

What do people who want to use have to do with people who don't?

Yes cutting out mod support is an awesome idea that totally won't stop a lot of people from buying ArmA.

Thankfully what you suggest will not happen since BIS is not stupid to shoot itself in a leg.

Implemention of small server side mods could be another solution. This way community could make tiny (config) mods without having the players to download and manage them. Later when the community has grown and hungers for big mods, BIS should open the flood gates.

What if community wants big mods right away?

I personally know that ArmA will always be inferior to ArmA with ACE, why should I care about people who don't want to play with mods? Nobody stops them from not playing with mods you know. I mean think about it - you can actually play without mods, nobody forces you to install them. Incredible, right?

Why should I be forced to play vanilla if I don't want to?

[Maio 293]

A Filer Option to show only vanilla servers would be a good idea

Indeed, vote for this feature on the ArmA 3 CIT.

I see this as a midway solution until BIS can integrate a mod downloader that will help new players.

[norsu 180]

What do people who want to use have to do with people who don't?

Yes cutting out mod support is an awesome idea that totally won't stop a lot of people from buying ArmA.

Thankfully what you suggest will not happen since BIS is not stupid to shoot itself in a leg.

Once again, did you ever read my posts? I never said anything about cutting mod support, just limiting it for a while to set up a solid player base and multiplayer community that isn't dependent on private servers. BIS has shot themselves many times already with buggy releases and messy multiplayer management. Why do you think I opened this topic?

What if community wants big mods right away?

I personally know that ArmA will always be inferior to ArmA with ACE, why should I care about people who don't want to play with mods? Nobody stops them from not playing with mods you know. I mean think about it - you can actually play without mods, nobody forces you to install them. Incredible, right?

Why should I be forced to play vanilla if I don't want to?

So you really think BIS can't make a proper multiplayer game? That's one of the problems I can sometimes see in this community. Vanilla gameplay is seen already as inferior to whatever big mod comes up next. I sure hope BIS doesn't think like this :j:. Big mods take time so what's the harm in ensuring that multiplayer stays focused until decent alternatives are released by the community?

Most people have specific jobs / assignments / area,

e.g a programmer generally doesnt work on missions, models or textures, and visa versa. So not spending resources on X, does not mean you have more resources to do Y.

BIS doesn't have unlimited funds. The longer someone has to work to get multiplayer mod support right for A3 launch the more it's going to cost. I'd rather see that funding going into multiplayer gameplay and mission design.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Norsu

[metalcraze 290]

Once again, did you ever read my posts? I never said anything about cutting mod support, just limiting it for a while to set up a solid player base and multiplayer community that isn't dependent on private servers.

And BIS games are played by 3.5 players right now right? What stops people from not playing with mods and not playing on private servers which will always remain private for their own reasons.

Limiting mod support will make most of MP community leave - didn't you think about it?

BIS has shot themselves many times already with buggy releases and messy multiplayer management. Why do you think I opened this topic?

Demagogy.

So you really think BIS can't make a proper multiplayer game?

They've made a proper MP game - a game that cater to whatever needs of the player with ease, not being a limited crap like 95% of MP shooters where people play all the time on the same 5 small boring official maps with the same 2 weapons on the same 10 servers. What you suggest is turning ArmA into shit like that.

That's one of the problems I can sometimes see in this community. Vanilla gameplay is seen already as inferior to whatever big mod comes up next. I sure hope BIS doesn't think like this :j:. Big mods take time so what's the harm in ensuring that multiplayer stays focused until decent alternatives are released by the community?

Because mods that fix and improve things come out really fast?

BIS still didn't fix the damn loader which sits there under fire and it's been 2 years, BIS still didn't fix engine being turned on when turret is being turned - community did fixes in less than a month.

Why should people who want to play with mods be limited? How will it help the multiplayer? I for one won't play on public servers regardless of anything.

You didn't answer my question - what stops people from playing online without mods?

Edited January 12, 2012 by metalcraze

[NoRailgunner 0]

Simple - userfriendly MP browser incl. filter eg "A3 only" should be enough. Plus some more infos right into players face - no need to hide/reduce these infos if they are important! :)

[norsu 180]

Because mods that fix and improve things come out really fast?

BIS still didn't fix the damn loader which sits there under fire and it's been 2 years, BIS still didn't fix engine being turned on when turret is being turned - community did fixes in less than a month.

I agree on this. It's all really up to BIS to nail things in right this time. When community fixes things, it's never offical. That's why I suggested small server side mods that fix little annoying things like the turret problem. These kind of tweak mods have been around for other FPS games for ages and they require nothing from players.

You didn't answer my question - what stops people from playing online without mods?

Nothing of course. However when ARMA 3 is released, majority of the players are newbies who don't know anything about mods. We veterans are used to mod management but we are also the loud minority. I for one would like to see more people enjoying what ARMA games have to offer in multiplayer but right now that's a very tall order.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Norsu

[sickboy 13]

BIS doesn't have unlimited funds. The longer someone has to work to get multiplayer mod support right for A3 launch the more it's going to cost. I'd rather see that funding going into multiplayer gameplay and mission design.

Of course they don't have unlimited money, but you'll have to pay your employees regardless if you give them something to do or nothing to do.

And as pointed out, everyone has a task, and an area of expertise. Free programmers are generally not suddenly going to make models, and visa versa.

---------- Post added at 14:21 ---------- Previous post was at 14:19 ----------

Indeed, vote for this feature on the ArmA 3 CIT.

I see this as a midway solution until BIS can integrate a mod downloader that will help new players.

That's the best one can do; ticket good ideas (preferably in a high quality ticket), and gain votes.

---------- Post added at 14:29 ---------- Previous post was at 14:21 ----------

Nothing of course. However when ARMA 3 is released, majority of the players are newbies who don't know anything about mods. We veterans are used to mod management but we are also the loud minority. I for one would like to see more people enjoying what ARMA games have to offer in multiplayer but right now that's a very tall order.

That's why integration with a mod distribution tool is of importance.

However as I posted earlier, I do agree that better and more MP Modes and Missions available out of the box, as well as improved server browser etc, are also necessary and will improve the situation for all, especially new comers.

---------- Post added at 14:34 ---------- Previous post was at 14:29 ----------

One thing I do wonder about, and interests me to think about is what is the motivation for wanting to have more players, more servers, etc?

1000 or 10.000 servers, you can only play on 1 at a time anyway and 1000 seems more than enough choice (if not already too many).

1000 or 10.000 players, you can only play with up to say ~150 players on one server anyway, so what is the benefit?

Apparently the amount of sales of the games is sufficient to have BI make more games, of course it's nice to become extra rich... but otherwise?

People seem to wish for measures that would harm the die-hard fan-base, only to grow the "new" fan-base.

To what end? What does that give US? It seems you want the "new" fan-base to have fun, but what about yourself / the die-hard fan-base?

Is it about the "Ours is bigger" angle? Is it about feeling bad because "our game only has 3000 players playing at once, while game X and Y have 30.000 players playing at once"? In the grand scheme of things - how does it matter?

Is it about making the arma game more like all the other games, just cuz? What are the die-hard fans supposed to do then? Wait for another unique developer to come along and give us what we always wanted and have loyally received from BI in the past 10 years?

Seriously just interested in the motivations, and wondering if that isn't a sort of red-herring, disguising a different problem.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Sickboy

[Maio 293]

One thing I do wonder about, and interests me to think about is what is the motivation for wanting to have more players, more servers, etc?

1000 or 10.000 servers, you can only play on 1 at a time anyway and 1000 seems more than enough choice (if not already too many).

1000 or 10.000 players, you can only play with up to say ~150 players on one server anyway, so what is the benefit?

Apparently the amount of sales of the games is sufficient to have BI make more games, of course it's nice to become extra rich... but otherwise?

People seem to wish for measures that would harm the die-hard fan-base, only to grow the "new" fan-base.

To what end? What does that give US? It seems you want the "new" fan-base to have fun, but what about yourself / the die-hard fan-base?

Is it about the "Ours is bigger" angle? Is it about feeling bad because "our game only has 3000 players playing at once, while game X and Y have 30.000 players playing at once"? In the grand scheme of things - how does it matter?

Is it about making the arma game more like all the other games, just cuz? What are the die-hard fans supposed to do then? Wait for another unique developer to come along and give us what we always wanted and have loyally received from BI in the past 10 years?

Seriously just interested in the motivations, and wondering if that isn't a sort of red-herring, disguising a different problem.

Good point Sickboy, I do agree. You nailed it with the bolded part. I think it's more of a subconscious thing. Members see ArmA as the introvert of the PC gaming scene and feel the need to push it forward against it's will :) I don't blame them though, it's a natural thing once you come to love something with a high potential.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Maio
Salmon with soya and green pepper sauce with flat bread

[norsu 180]

[/color]One thing I do wonder about, and interests me to think about is what is the motivation for wanting to have more players, more servers, etc?...

My personal motivation is to be able to join non private servers running different game modes and missions without too much of a hassle. I like private servers too but when I get a sudden urge to play the game I bought mainly for multiplayer it's nice to know that I can just fire up the browser and jump in. If you have enough audience and multiplayer is hassle free there will be good public servers too. Public server communities can be formed and with them a network of admins to keep the trolls out from popular servers. Private servers will always be there for die-hard-fans but public servers have never really been successful in ARMA games.

Is it about making the arma game more like all the other games?

It's about making ARMA more like other games when it comes to multiplayer accessibility. I can't see how that will disturb die-hard-fans who can still organize private events. The mod limitation is a radical idea and I can see that there are alternatives which is why I started this topic in the first place.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Norsu

[sickboy 13]

Thanks.

Is that how things go in other games, with large player numbers, and perhaps good working server browser etc?

Personally I wonder if the same would happen in ARMA if there would be more ARMA players, and a better server browser, I would expect an organization body to be involved like PR etc, but I guess benefit of the doubt :-)

[norsu 180]

Thanks.

Is that how things go in other games, with large player numbers, and perhaps good working server browser etc?

Personally I wonder if the same would happen in ARMA if there would be more ARMA players, and a better server browser, I would expect an organization body to be involved like PR etc, but I guess benefit of the doubt :-)

Yes it does work like that. With a large player count and accessible MP you'll attract big public server communities with dedicated admins like Multiplay for example. But for public servers to really succeed it's not all about ease of joining a game, it's also about how easy it is to maintain servers that run 24/7.

Without an admin being present it's hard to run say a classic ARMA coop server because once the mission ends you have to manually select next mission, fill the player slots etc. Many servers run Domination/Evolution and I think that's because those game modes can be endless or require just a simple reset every now and then. Same thing goes for PvP missions, the one mission type that can be left alone on public server becomes popular. Mission lists, better player management etc. are also needed for more accessible MP.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Norsu

[Montanaro 0]

How about BIS run dedicated servers with all vanilla stuff?

Do they do that now? I don't recall.

BIS is about the only group to have the motivation to run a large fast vanilla server. It would be too much to ask a clan to host one because eventually they will want to go custom mission/mods.

[sickboy 13]

How about BIS run dedicated servers with all vanilla stuff?

Do they do that now? I don't recall.

BIS is about the only group to have the motivation to run a large fast vanilla server. It would be too much to ask a clan to host one because eventually they will want to go custom mission/mods.

Most servers ran vanilla OA in the first months after release and afaik results weren't really remarkable.

Also I believe there's many vanilla servers running out there still, addon wise, however probably not mission-wise, so perhaps that would be a point.

Although I think the main issue here isn't server-availability but their visibility in the server browser and accessibility.

[gammadust 12]

I also think that restricting access to mods, even for a limited time period, would be counterproductive and just "too much". But the main issue is there and it should be addressed.

Aside of adding the mentioned filters (CIT) BIS could also give more proememinence to those filters (ie. through tabs), and even make them default ON. Aside of mod/unmodded filter we could also have one for stock/custom missions:

The point being that, given this, newcomers would be directed to a more initial and stable start point. Vets thinkerers and alike would still get access to advanced usage.

On another note, regarding mods themselves, with the idea in mind of streamlining their access, both in terms of downloading and installing, BIS could "officialise" some publishing guidelines that would allow for the integration with the renewed server browser.

Something along these lines:

class CfgPatches {
class SomeAddon {
 Units[] = {};
 Weapons[] = {};
 RequiredVersion = 1.57;
 RequiredAddons[] = {};
 AddonVersion = 1.05;
 etc...

 Author = "Whoever";
 AuthorSite = "http://www.whereever.com";
 DownloadUrl1 = "http://www.domain1.com/whatever.zip"; // this could be author supplied
 DownloadUrl2 = "http://www.domain2.com/whatever.zip"; // this could be a community repository
 DownloadUrl3 = "http://www.domain3.com/whatever.zip";
 ...
 Whatever other variables useful to set up the functionality server side
};
};

This could come optional to the modder. If he wants better in-game support for his mod he would folllow the stricter guidelines and have the a slight workload increase. If he does not want to bother too much, simply ignore those fields and his mod would still be functional loosing the advantages.

Another thing would be to properly integrate mod options within a generic configuration screen in-game.

And the cherry on the top would be dynamic mod loading (config files) without having to restart the game.

Edited January 12, 2012 by gammadust

[Tonci87 163]

On another note, regarding mods themselves, with the idea in mind of streamlining their access, both in terms of downloading and installing, BIS could "officialise" some publishing guidelines that would allow for the integration with the renewed server browser.

Something along these lines:

class CfgPatches {
class SomeAddon {
 Units[] = {};
 Weapons[] = {};
 RequiredVersion = 1.57;
 RequiredAddons[] = {};
 AddonVersion = 1.05;
 etc...

 Author = "Whoever";
 AuthorSite = "http://www.whereever.com";
 DownloadUrl1 = "http://www.domain1.com/whatever.zip"; // this could be author supplied
 DownloadUrl2 = "http://www.domain2.com/whatever.zip"; // this could be a community repository
 DownloadUrl3 = "http://www.domain3.com/whatever.zip";
 ...
 Whatever other variables useful to set up the functionality server side
};
};

This could come optional to the modder. If he wants better in-game support for his mod he would folllow the stricter guidelines and have the a slight workload increase. If he does not want to bother too much, simply ignore those fields and his mod would still be functional loosing the advantages.

Another thing would be to properly integrate mod options within a generic configuration screen in-game.

And the cherry on the top would be dynamic mod loading (config files) without having to restart the game.

Very good Idea!

[gammadust 12]

There is a slight catch 22 in the following line though:

DownloadUrl2 = "http://www.domain2.com/whatever.zip"; // this could be a community repository

With Armaholic for example, one only knows the final download url after the zip has been uploaded. The ideia would not work in this case. Anyway the author can easily get hosting for its mods some other way and be able to supply its own url.

[mr burns 131]

Have the internal mod manager read out loaded addons base classes, link back to one or multiple dl repositorys (where class info is tagged aswell), conduct magic md5 checks for current version (maybe let the user choose non current versions aswell [if the MM´s advanced tab is checked]), download.

This though already looks alot like SixUpdater ... so no need to break our heads i guess :D

[gammadust 12]

Have the internal mod manager read out loaded addons base classes, link back to one or multiple dl repositorys (where class info is tagged aswell), conduct magic md5 checks for current version (maybe let the user choose non current versions aswell [if the MM´s advanced tab is checked]), download.

Ability to install concurrent versions of addons would also be welcome I guess, client side, a record could be kept on a per server basis on which version is running.

But now that you mentioned this another way to solve the catch 22 would be to provide a link to a basic text list (instead of direct zip file urls) of available mirrors which would be updatable as soon as addictional urls become available.

This though already looks alot like SixUpdater ... so no need to break our heads i guess :D

The whole point is to allow for a newcomer to jump straight in instead of fiddling around with external applications, which appears to be the issue behind this difficulty in expanding the players pool.

[Timmoboy 10]

Gammadust you are really on to something here! :)

[paragraphic l 2]

This image shows another UX issue for me

http://i.imgur.com/ZV7uo.jpg

The server browser shows around 30 servers at a time.

How do you filter this? Where do you look at?

Is there any indication on the quality of the servers? Someones pc or big dedicated server?

First thing I'd like to see changed is to have the list left and information right, bigger screen estate for the information to tell you if you can or cannot join this one.

If browsing unfiltered show the popular servers first, it might not be fair towards the smaller ones, but quality proves itself by becoming popular, it is part of the MP experience and a reason to play the game or not.

Maybe have a better 'start'-state for the server browser, which can explain about the modding situation vs the vanilla situation.

Just my 2cts for simple UI improvements but I trust BIS to allready have heard the cries for those enhancements

[tacticalnuggets 24]

The trifecta of ArmA3 success all comes down to MP in the following ways.

1. Automatic mod downloading/patch updates

2. Enable/Disable mods passed initialization, or at least automatically to match the content of the server

3. Drastically reduced client jittering and JIP lag.

Everybody agrees that A2 rocks in its size, mod-ability, and realism. AI is already pretty great in most circumstances, blows most games out of the water. The problem is that multiplayer is now the main thing gamers look at for longevity, and A2 failed in this department. I believe this is the core reason why A2 remains and unconventional game. I find the learning curve and realism to be fairly optional for newcomers, and easily circumventable if you could just jump in multiplayer really easy. Most people would rather learn how to play by garnering information from other real players instead of guessing around in an editor and singplayer.

[.kju 3240]

a2 already has a filter to shown non addon servers - it is called "expansions: show/hide".

However there are two core problems:

1) The check is based on addons on the server. Instead it has to check for addons of the current mission.

2) The current check is broken.

See also:

Feature #24409: New server filter: addon less mission

If it were to work, the top servers would be greed - to indicate a player can join.

Yellow would be below - it means player lacks addons required for the mission.

Red at the bottom means different, not compatible game version.

[gammadust 12]

a2 already has a filter to shown non addon servers - it is called "expansions: show/hide".

This confuses me a bit... if the server is running a mission which requires certain addons, certainly(?) it will have them installed (therefore relaying this information to gamespy), so the current filter would trigger based on the latter, no? (Unless what I am missing here is that not everything is downloaded along with the mission, I am thinking about scripts which are normaly placed inside mission's folder)

Also, these tickets should be merged or this one simply removed since the filter is there already. Both tickets do have the same objective in mind - to facilitate access to newcomers.

Edited January 14, 2012 by gammadust

[.kju 3240]

First of just because the server has addons, does not mean the current mission needs addons, right?

Also you do not want to download all addons a server has, but only these required for the current mission.

This is why the current system is flawed.

The other core problem is the information mismatch between server and client.

The server needs to send the client a list of required addons.

You need to realize that at this point we are still in the server list.

If every server would send to every client on each server list refresh the list of

required addons for its current mission, the data to be sent and received is significant.

Still I believe it can be done with compression and step by step data transfer etc.

Does that help?