Arma 3 Alpha Server Landscape

[fabio_chavez 103]

to keep it short and simple, the arma 3 alpha server landscape is a wasteland (litterally), and its running WAYS under its potential right now

i dont know about coop people and if they are happy but when it comes to PVP, 99,9% of the gamemodes running on the servers are utterly LAME.

I think besides the fact that there are allready multiple maps and also some decent gamemodes out there, wich, for some reason noone can understand, have ZERO population,

the alpha community is running WAYYS below its potential... and im not speaking in quantity but in quality... too many competing lame halfassed gamemodes out there! (C&H on giant areas with only 1 spawnbase and no real squad and teamplay functions? i mean come on!! and random stupid weapon distribution systems are an obstacle to balanced gameplay not a feature...)

Maybe if BI would at least give the people a halfway decent AAS gamemode with basic squad functions etc... uhhm well, surely the beta is going to revitalize everything, but please dont blame it on the alpha, its all allready outthere,

waiting to become an awesome tactical PVP milsim heaven.

[HorbeySpector 164]

Be patient, the game is still in Alpha phase.

did he just say that?

ooh yes he did

[jw custom 56]

Go ahead and create your own awesome gamemode with all the awesome thing and features you like no one is holding you back!

[fabio_chavez 103]

Go ahead and create your own awesome gamemode with all the awesome thing and features you like no one is holding you back!

like i said, there are some quite ok gamemodes out there allready (and a lot of amazing forwardported A2 content), you are defending the status quo by trying to tell me, that i should not lament or promote discussion about the matter, if i am not willing or able to create a gamemode myself, that is not even adressing the bottomline of my post.

please if you have any reasonable explaination why the status quo of this pretty decent alpha test is regressing, go a head or tell me, or if a am wrong to advocate for better PVP servers, tell me.

But please dont try to stiffle my concern here.

[jw custom 56]

like i said, there are some quite ok gamemodes out there allready (and a lot of amazing forwardported A2 content), you are defending the status quo by trying to tell me, that i should not lament or promote discussion about the matter, if i am not willing or able to create a gamemode myself, that is not even adressing the bottomline of my post.

please if you have any reasonable explaination why the status quo of this pretty decent alpha test is regressing, go a head or tell me, or if a am wrong to advocate for better PVP servers, tell me.

But please dont try to stiffle my concern here.

I'm simply trying to say that different people prefere different type of missions/gamemodes/features so when they create their missions/gamemodes they make them as they prefere. The only way to make thing just as you prefere is to create it yourself.

*EDIT*

How would a decent pvp game mode be like according to you?

Edited May 31, 2013 by JW Custom

[Sandy* 10]

an awesome tactical PVP milsim heaven.

... can only be found in privately hosted games.

[fabio_chavez 103]

... can only be found in privately hosted games.

thats not true, look at BF2:PR and also serval arma 2 mods that are sophisticated and popular at the same time.

@JW Custom:

No Bots, thoughtfull AAS and Insugency Layouts, basic squad functions, kits restrictions and a spawn system that contributes to strategic and dynamic gameplay. That would be minimum requirements for Tactical PVP for me.

some missions feature some of this stuff but most blitzkrieg or C&H missions i came across to far lack most of these features completely or to a any meaningfull extent. IMHO

EDIT: but thats really two topics: "what Fabio Chavez would prefer" and "server landscape is lame, when it comes to pvp"

i think everybody can agree to the latter.

Edited June 3, 2013 by Fabio_Chavez

[.kju 3244]

The problem is the bad server browser, lack of preview information, filtering, friends list, favorite servers, mission rating, etc..

[metalcraze 290]

thats not true, look at BF2:PR and also serval arma 2 mods that are sophisticated and popular at the same time.

PR is sophisticated? Lol

You see a guy, you shoot at him, oh you've made a mistake? No problem, respawn, try again.

Sorry, but the dude is right. Random people + no comms = no teamwork.

[fabio_chavez 103]

PR is sophisticated? Lol

You see a guy, you shoot at him, oh you've made a mistake? No problem, respawn try again.

Random people + no comms + respawn = no teamwork.

i dont want to argue about this but i think you either dont know what you are talking about or you are taking exceptions for the whole.

with few exception, even on PR public servers the average degree of teamplay you will encounter if relatively high, not to speak of the organized events or games where you just happend to meet spectacular teamplay every once in a while.

im not asking for that much imho, in context to the alpha state, for now, i would be happy with a server (that runs A2 maps... as soon as BI fixes the new crash bug), that has 20-40 people at any given point, from afternoon till midnight.

I am overdramaticizing and kju is right its also a structural problem, and if you really try hard you gonna have fun every once in a while out there in the alpha... but i dont think it has to be THAT HARD and i think this is a appropriate place to discuss this.

[Smurf 12]

Get used to metalcraze, he does that.

And yes, PR on BF2 you could get some full public servers with nice teamwork going on which doesn't happen that often in any Arma mode. Guess is it related to the lack of information regarding each gamemode or how hard it is to form a squad since there is no template to that. A2's PR had a nice UI for that, some Evo\Domi also but weren't that great.

PS: BF2 PR v1.0 is looking SWEET! Nice features, better sounds, more maps and armies... Going back to that once its released.

;2406997']The problem is the bad server browser' date=' lack of preview information, filtering, friends list, favorite servers, mission rating, etc..[/quote']

Ah c'mon... We've been doing that since ever, so must be good enough huh?

:j:

Edited June 3, 2013 by Smurf

[gossamersolid 155]

;2406997']The problem is the bad server browser' date=' lack of preview information, filtering, friends list, favorite servers, mission rating, etc..[/quote']

This!

If BIS really wants the MP to take off in ArmA 3, we need some features as mentioned by Kju.

I'd also like to add:

- Mission downloading re-direct (HTTP or FTP) (Whenever people download a mission from the server, the server seems to have a small choke)

- Addon downloading ingame (Player attempts to connect to server with mods, it tells the user they are missing the following files and lists them all. the user can choose to accept and start downloading or not. After the download is finished, the game will say it needs to restart. Upon restart it'll auto-reconnect to the server with the mods loaded. This is of course unless BIS ever allows loading of addons ingame).

[bad benson 1733]

i'm also a bit disappointed by arma 3's pvp so far. but i also realize that there's a lot of good pvp going on without me:(

i think part of the problem, besides the game modes, is also the mind set people have. due to the way pvp was made more popular in arma (dayZ, wasteland, yea i said it:p) people are more after racking up kills and going solo. that's why you will find the most team play on coop servers.

the thing is, arma is much more open and big in terms of terrain and gameplay. so most of the pvp game modes are created with that in mind.

i'm pretty sure lots of the maps you, and me too, experienced as badly designed come across very well designed if played by organized groups. while i think that some features could help that with random people, i don't think that it will solve the problem.

i enjoyed arma 2 PR a lot (and bf2 pr too) when it came out. but after playing it for a while you'll realize that it can either be a disaster or very awesome. all depending on, if people will play it right. if squad leaders did their job and people would work in a team, it would be very enjoyable. if everyne went solo, on the other hand, i found it to be unplayable and most sessions like that just fell apart and everyone slowly left.

it seems most people just want to jump in and have quick action. so they will ignore attempt of organization. and i saw lots of people playing two lives and leaving because they realized that they will have to walk drive everytime they die.

my general observation is that at the start of the alpha there was a lot of PvP with awesome maps. but all the pvp is wasteland now so you won't have much of a choice. so i think it's too simple saying it's the gamemodes.

i think you really should go into detail though with your feature requests. otherwise this will just come across as a rant.

"thoughtful AAS, insurgency layouts" - those definately exist. but nothing is standardized in arma so they are hard to find.

"restricted kits" - there are several pvp game modes that have that. they avoid sniper/camper fests by only allowing ironsights for most people, which i find awesome.

"basic squad functions" - that one you will have to specify. do you mean bf3/arma 2 insurgency like squad respawn?

[Sandy* 10]

thats not true, look at BF2:PR and also serval arma 2 mods that are sophisticated and popular at the same time.

While I've had my share of fun in PR, it's still just a realism mod built on top of an arcade FPS with several core faults due to the hardcoded parts of the engine. And yeah, there's a lot of teamwork on public servers, but it's just random squads of people doing more or less what they want. There's no grand strategy, no briefing where you're assigned tasks etc. Hardly an "awesome tactical PVP milsim heaven".

Arma's open nature also adds challenge in this regard - with BF2:PR the maps (missions), gamemodes and such are set in stone so it's easier to introduce newbies to the gameplay and keep them in line. An Arma mission can revolve around anything.

[EDcase 87]

Apart from the lack of server browser options don't forget that a lot of players are new so don't have a clue how to play yet.

Most 'veterans' are already in clans and even though they may play on public servers a bit they generally won't get too involved in trying to organize the mob.

Co-Op is just easier to jump into for learning and doesn't get affected by people leaving and making things unbalanced.

Plus of course if you have 'vets' playing with new guys you can guess who's gona get pissed off and leave.

Give it time. After full release missions will become more stable and I think the PvP scene will pick up...

(I always played Co-OP in ARMA2 but I'm looking forward to a bit of PvP in ARMA3)

Edited June 4, 2013 by EDcase

[Masharra 10]

i'm also a bit disappointed by arma 3's pvp so far. but i also realize that there's a lot of good pvp going on without me:(

***SNIP****

From what Ive gathered, I assumed this is slowly going to become the norm with arma. The game is becoming easier to hop in and out of, its controls and movement are becoming closer to the drop in and out gameplay of other games. Its being made enjoyable for the masses and contrary to what most "mature adults" say I find they enjoy the pop in and out run and gun shootouts with loud explosions and blue and orange lighting. The fact that it can be in arma is a bonus as they can take the "highground" and say they are playing a more realistic game than say cod, bf3, or cs. Unfortunately whilst the game may be different, how they play isnt.

Youre still a camper sitting on the edge of the map regardless of if its in bf3 or arma 3. Having 3x the landmass doesnt change the fact that you are playing battlefield in arma. Most pvp game modes I find are glorified tdm's, who hide behind the word Arma and realism.

A "true" arma pvp mode in my eyes is the "dark business" Unfortunately I dont think the general public really has the patience for that. They may claim so but people love to talk. MYSELF INCLUDED :P

Heck I would argue Life may be the best pvp experience out there, properly moderated and played but I guess thats for all the game modes.

Coop. I am starting to dislike the term. Majority of coop I see on public servers isnt what I would consider coop. Gang maybe? Mob?

Calling it coop really seems to be stretching the word a bit.

I forget my point. I have a headache.

Edited June 5, 2013 by Masharra

[fabio_chavez 103]

i agree with most of the things said here, especially about the server browsing and that there are certain conditions that have to be met, to take the hurdle from unorganized to organized gameplay, especially on public servers.

i do not share the assessment that arma has become an "hop in and out game", i cant deny those tendencys but there is no real reason why that would stand in the way of organized pvp, you just dont join a game/gamemode from wich you know haz penalizing respawntimes and travveling distances etc etc

Also i do reject the thesis that arma 3 has become watered down, when it comes to the movement it is more like it has become "less retarded",

i am still very enthusiastic about it and i cant see how mass appeal was put before gameplay when this innovative (still demanding 8123491 controlkeys) concept was introduced.

Unorganized pvp/ego fragging is also not a root of the problem, its true a lot of people atm, play arma as they would play bf3 (for some reason, nobody can understand) but i regard that more of a symptom than the root of the problem. But there is something funny about it, many people, including some old arma vets seem to think that pvp is meant to be random and unorganized or organized gameplay is only achievable when you play with "your guys" via TS etc. And they seem to accept that as standard and keep on going that way, atleast that is my subjective impression from the times i recently brought up this topic on public servers.

Therefore id come to the same conclusions as kju and Bad Beson, besides a gamebrowser that is is below quakeworld standard it might have much to do with ppls conscious... a lack of "tac pvp culture" that has yet to emerge.

to say something constructive: some possible contribution to a more sophisticated pvp culture could be that premate squads/claners should not or not exclusively rely on external teamspeak for the common TEAMplay to emerge. Also easy assessible map and team awareness where part of PRs success, so what is it with pvp gamemodes where you have a huge red circle to estimate your location on the map and cannot see teammates? that is not HARDCORE, that is bad mission design, especially in context to public gameplay.

[Masharra 10]

**SNIP**

I call bull on the hurdles that "need" to be met. I may not be that old but I am old enough to remember playing R6 on msn the zone+ carting my computer lans and having great teamplay on most pub servers. I would argue that there are few games which set a standard and stick to it. It is a slippery slope in making a game accessible. It can turn RS1 - R6 RS to R6 vegas.

A common fault is setting a standard and not keeping to it, but continually lowering it. American public schools suffer from it and our general education shows. At some point someone has to say this is the standard. you meet us here not the other way around. Ofcourse where that standard is up in the air.

Also ts3 isnt required its just that on average the ingame chat doesnt have the its capabilities. Clans set a standard and new members meet them not vice versa.

To clarify I enjoy all the new blood etc, but new blood doesnt mean good blood and only one thing will tell and that is time. damnit Im supposed to updating my mission.. Fabio its all your fault

Edited June 5, 2013 by Masharra

[metalcraze 290]

to say something constructive: some possible contribution to a more sophisticated pvp culture could be that premate squads/claners should not or not exclusively rely on external teamspeak for the common TEAMplay to emerge. Also easy assessible map and team awareness where part of PRs success, so what is it with pvp gamemodes where you have a huge red circle to estimate your location on the map

Yeah the red circle is a problem. It should be removed entirely from the game.

and cannot see teammates? that is not HARDCORE, that is bad mission design, especially in context to public gameplay.

This is why I'm saying that there's no teamwork in PR. Seeing all friendlies on the map and running close to them is not teamwork. If people refuse to use comms to know locations of their friendlies and want magical helpers instead from a bad arcade game - that is not teamwork. If people do not want to install Teamspeak to communicate with their teammates - that is not teamwork.

[fabio_chavez 103]

@Masharra: i find your Rainbow Six msn zone remembrance appealing, but i got the suspicion that your explaination is just an attempt to employ some vague monocausal (ideological?) principle or ideal of "set the standards high then the game will flourish" onto the problem.

Imho it is the other way around, "if the game is flourishing, the standards will rise"... so you got to create fertile contitions! (call me a socialist but i think its the same with the education of children ;))

On the TS thing, i think you are not adressing my argument, i was making the suggestion that exclusive internal TS usage is a obstacle to sophisticated (inter squad) teamplay on public servers, that was just a sidenote though.

to add another constructive proposal: i cant describe in words how i am yearning for someone to make a decent remake of some classic rainbow six maps :XXXXXXXXXX

@metalcraze: for me, realism in game simulation is about thoughfull REPRESENTATION instead of incomplete futile deemed to fail attempt to perfectly recreate reality...

in reality i would be shot as a deserter, and all the other people would be militarily trained soldiers with high tech communication equipment and commanding officers that would be aware of what other parts of the troops are approximately doing right now... seeing you team mates on the map might not be realistic but it is a appropriate compensation for the lack of all the other thing you have in reality that are meant to creat situational awareness... also its about gameplay and a more or less easly accessible information about team positions, anyway still not a guarantee that your mates will take advantage of this as experience shows.

also you have to think in terms of what people are capable or willing to adapt to, therefore you can DEMAND that people better the fu** get used to use teamspeak or be damned, ALL YOU WANT, but it will never happen (unless you put very much effort into it but that also requires to have an incentive)

For PR it took YEARS to establish mumble as a standard, and people where only willing to make the transition because they felt it was a benefit and the game was worth it to, get kicked from a server, install/setup a tool and come back to the sameserver intead of "FU** YOU".

at this stage the game is anywhere but at a point where you can expect from the random public population to try to figure out how to connect to the random teamspeak of some random clan...

i dont think a snobbish "do or die" mentality has anything to do with teamwork.

teamwork is the willingness to be aware of other peoples efforts and the attendance to a common goal.

EDIT: when it comes to teammate positions, i would make the compromise to have small circles as indicators for a approximate (roughly 25m?) position of teammates. but still have exact position of self and squadmates...

Edited June 5, 2013 by Fabio_Chavez

[gossamersolid 155]

I have the server map markers off because they reveal enemy positions WAY too easily. I don't know how many times we've went pub stomping in a wasteland server in A2 where the servers have crosshairs and map markers. You can see enemies on the map that you wouldn't possibly find by looking via your personal view.

I just put team markers in my missions themselves because I have more control over them.

Also for the teamspeak thing, my group uses teamspeak. We encourage people to come in and hang out with us if they want, and this is how we get some new regulars to come around. We will not force people though as that is impossible. Some people just don't want to use it.

[fabio_chavez 103]

ok the big question now is, will the beta be as confuse?

what is to expect from the beta, pvp wise?

[.kju 3244]

no different .. sadly :(

[xyberviri 1]

I have been having a blast in Arma 3, until some one comes in and ports everyone to the same location.......

thats pretty much my experience, if you want to have any fun you need to be in a full server so no one new can join or you have to play on a private server with a password, otherwise you see some random connect and 5minutes later boom server gets scripted.

- Mission downloading re-direct (HTTP or FTP) (Whenever people download a mission from the server, the server seems to have a small choke)

- Addon downloading ingame (Player attempts to connect to server with mods, it tells the user they are missing the following files and lists them all. the user can choose to accept and start downloading or not. After the download is finished, the game will say it needs to restart. Upon restart it'll auto-reconnect to the server with the mods loaded. This is of course unless BIS ever allows loading of addons ingame).

This is already on the feedback tracker

retarded

usage of that might get you reported by parents of kids which might be considered disabled and therefore find that offensive....

Edited June 19, 2013 by xyberviri

[fabio_chavez 103]

omg the beta plays so incomprehensively nice... please dear god let there be decent pvp servers XD