When is this game going to be good?

[scaramoosh 10]

My problem with it is there is no structure, it's sort of like a map where you just let players do what they want with it. Now this is great in concept but it just leads to 99% of the servers being complete garbage, the game isn't fun to play. I've only have 1 or 2 great experiences and those were months apart, it just takes too long to get anything good going on in this game and I end up just not bothering. It's why I liked Dayz because it put structure into ARMA 2, made it simple to just get in and play and not have to spend ages looking for a good server with something going on. If I'm honest the only reason I bought this game was the hope of Dayz being ported to the main island. However I have genuinely tried to play it as an ARMA game....... sadly though it's just too time consuming to try and find fun gameplay on a server.

The biggest issue is I have a 780, 4770K, 16GB ram, installed to an SSD, an Asus D2X sound card and I'm only running at 1080p. However for some reason the game runs at 30fps and if I go into a town it's down to 13fps. The whole point of this new engine was to make the game fun better and it just runs worse than ARMA 2, even worse than Dayz. Every time I see the words "CPU Heavy" I run a mile because why would you go CPU heavy? GPUs are like 10 times more powerful and games like BF3 and Crysis 3 prove you can make an amazing looking game and have it running at 100+ fps. I'm sick of the excuses of it being a large island...... fuck all is going on in it and it's not all rendered at the same time. GTA V is a massive land mass and oh look that runs well on console hardware that's 8 years old at this point and it looks amazing as well. If I look at my hardware usage while I'm playing the game isn't heavy on anything, it's just poorly optimized. If you cannot make a game run well on top of the line hardware from today, then you've failed, buy an engine that actually works....

This whole game is a complete let down for me, it's failed to be quite honest and I see so many assets that were from ARMA 2, in fact the game looks like ARMA 2 with new lighting.

All I can do now is wait and hope someone makes a good mod so I haven't completely wasted my money.

[becubed 24]

All I can do now is wait and hope someone makes a good mod so I haven't completely wasted my money.

You are not after a good mod you are after a good mission. Find some friends to play with, host your own game on your PC. I used to be able to host for two friends with no problem, I don't have any more that play Arma. Then try out missions until you find some that you like.

Public servers usually have some people who have no interest in playing with others, they can really spoil the game for everyone.

[trent 14]

You're going to get fanboys derailing your thread for even mentioning DayZ and BF3.

For structure check out "Whole Lotta Stratis" and "Whole Lotta Altis (WIP)". They are heavily structured SP & MP missions where you must conquer the whole map. You take over camps, bring in reinforcements, etc. Had a very nice balance to it.

Did any of the showcase missions appeal to you? There are some similar scenarios in the User Missions section.

[Archosaurus 10]

Find a very good, rare server to play on, find a group to play with, make your own SP missions or download SP missions.

Arma is mostly a singleplayer game for me, and I have extensive experience in mission making, so I might be a bit biased, but I know how hard it is to find a good group.

[jw custom 56]

When playing on public servers you can't expect things to just run smoothly as people constantly join/leave/crash so you as a player have to seek teamwork yourself. It's far from everytime i play the experience is awesome but it's rather easy to find a decent server with a little persistence :)

About your performance issues... my system: i7-3770/GTX580/250GB SSD/32GB RAM and the game runs really smooth so i wonder whats making it run so poorly on your system!

[spanishsurfer 58]

As for the game not running well, it varies on who you talk to, runs great on my rig. Once the game runs well though, you really shouldn't have a problem finding a good server. Like others mentioned, you're not playing the right missions, find a mission that you like. You may have played some missions but failed to understand how to play it, try and read the readme often included in the briefing section when in map mode. Take those 5 extra minutes to read a bit so you know what you're doing, too many folks join a mission and run around expecting to know what to do, this is not COD or BF3.

I've helped a lot of people with Arma, I'd be glad to help you enjoy it, add me on steam.

[Smurf 12]

Public gaming in Arma always have been subpar, now because of Stable vs Dev branch + the fact the game isn't even released yet so some people won't play it for now. After release the mod chaos will start (we will have an enhancent version of PwS but still).

Find a group that suits you otherwise you won't get the best of Arma.

[stealth2668 12]

Get the Dynamic Universal War System mod from steam workshop.

[bravo93 37]

Cant remember the last time I played on a public server in Arma 2. You should find a good community/clan which actually uses mods like ACRE, ACE etc and if they're mature and professional you'll have a great experience I promise you. The one I'm in has around 70-80 active members. I wont say the name as it will probably be seen as cheap advertising.

[Maio 293]

Hey,

As many said, find yourself a group to play with. Checkout the ARMA-3-BETA-SQUADS-AND-FANPAGES forum. I suggest going for an established group that plays multiple types of missions. Go for squads that allow you to play whatever role you want AND switch in-bewteen factions from mission to mission... diversity is key.

Performance wise...tweak your settings :)

I'll leave the thread open for a little while longer, incase OP wants to add something.

[Minoza 11]

I feel your pain. I bought Arma 3 with high hopes that things will change for good when it comes to public gaming. Unfortunately it is still the same as with Arma 2, but the issue is not the public gaming itself, but exactly a lack of structure. Issues range from MP browser over squad and loadout managment to the missions which reward lonewolfing, encourage respawn/teleport etc... If game fails in all these areas, you can't expect public gaming to be any good, and it isn't, just like it wasn't in Arma 2.

[Smurf 12]

I feel your pain. I bought Arma 3 with high hopes that things will change for good when it comes to public gaming. Unfortunately it is still the same as with Arma 2, but the issue is not the public gaming itself, but exactly a lack of structure. Issues range from MP browser over squad and loadout managment to the missions which reward lonewolfing, encourage respawn/teleport etc... If game fails in all these areas, you can't expect public gaming to be any good, and it isn't, just like it wasn't in Arma 2.

Yep, what lead us to:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?158503-ArmA-Multiplayer-and-humans

and

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=11127

[tortuosit 486]

Take your time and find a squad with good mission makers, get DUWS or Whole Lotta Altis for SP.

[scaramoosh 10]

I'm not interested in having to join a group to have fun... I just want to be able to log in and play a structured mode that is obvious how to play.

What is funny Ultra settings FPS = 13 (in the last game I played) low settings FPS = 29............

Seriously this is the worst optimized game I have ever played!

[NeuroFunker 11]

My problem with it is there is no structure, it's sort of like a map where you just let players do what they want with it. Now this is great in concept but it just leads to 99% of the servers being complete garbage, the game isn't fun to play. I've only have 1 or 2 great experiences and those were months apart, it just takes too long to get anything good going on in this game and I end up just not bothering. It's why I liked Dayz because it put structure into ARMA 2, made it simple to just get in and play and not have to spend ages looking for a good server with something going on. If I'm honest the only reason I bought this game was the hope of Dayz being ported to the main island. However I have genuinely tried to play it as an ARMA game....... sadly though it's just too time consuming to try and find fun gameplay on a server.

The biggest issue is I have a 780, 4770K, 16GB ram, installed to an SSD, an Asus D2X sound card and I'm only running at 1080p. However for some reason the game runs at 30fps and if I go into a town it's down to 13fps. The whole point of this new engine was to make the game fun better and it just runs worse than ARMA 2, even worse than Dayz. Every time I see the words "CPU Heavy" I run a mile because why would you go CPU heavy? GPUs are like 10 times more powerful and games like BF3 and Crysis 3 prove you can make an amazing looking game and have it running at 100+ fps. I'm sick of the excuses of it being a large island...... fuck all is going on in it and it's not all rendered at the same time. GTA V is a massive land mass and oh look that runs well on console hardware that's 8 years old at this point and it looks amazing as well. If I look at my hardware usage while I'm playing the game isn't heavy on anything, it's just poorly optimized. If you cannot make a game run well on top of the line hardware from today, then you've failed, buy an engine that actually works....

This whole game is a complete let down for me, it's failed to be quite honest and I see so many assets that were from ARMA 2, in fact the game looks like ARMA 2 with new lighting.

All I can do now is wait and hope someone makes a good mod so I haven't completely wasted my money.

yesterday ive been played on some public domination server, annex something, was quite fun. People were cooperating with eachother.

[Vladiman 10]

If I'm honest the only reason I bought this game was the hope of Dayz being ported to the main island.

There's your problem.

Co-op missions that require teamwork and coordination are what define Arma. I've joined public servers of domination and have loads of fun with friends I made on there.

DayZ and wasteland stuff can be fun but to me that's not what Arma is about.

[ric 1]

I'm not interested in having to join a group to have fun... I just want to be able to log in and play a structured mode that is obvious how to play.

What is funny Ultra settings FPS = 13 (in the last game I played) low settings FPS = 29............

Seriously this is the worst optimized game I have ever played!

sorry i dont mean tobe rude but it sounds like you would be happoer playing some thing in the "corridor" genre of FPS's

[pharoah 65]

I agree with the sentiments of the original poster. What ARMA3 doesn't give you off the bat is a proper 'this is what you do' MP mode when you first join, unlike BF3 for example where you have brightly coloured flags in red, and you see everyone rushing in the same direction (or spawning directly into the action). I've put forward the following idea that I'm hoping BIS would do something about ie.

What would really be great is a proper 'Warfare' type MP scenario developed, preferably developed by BIS rather than left to the community. The scenario (which I've posted elsewhere on the forums) is really meant to simulate 'real' war between two roughly equivalent sides (BLUEFOR/OPFOR) and tries to mimick real life issues eg. logistics, tactics, etc. I've put down my thoughts below:

A dynamic war campaign encompassing the following:

- the island (Altis) commences with a visible 'front line' (on the map that is) with everything behind enemy lines being red on the map. You can't see any enemy movement on the map unless you undertake LLRP or UAV missions. Whatever they can see will be visible on the map eg. vehicles, inf, a/c, etc. Hopefully this promotes the need for a 'general' or someone who can come up with tactics/strategy as to where to attack, etc.

- the 'front line' is visible on the map and is based on what towns/area we capture vs OPFOR captures (so its consistently moving).

- each side has a main base from which major reinforcements are provided. Each side will also have FOBs and/or towns that they capture/occupy. The inf/vehicles at each FOB MUST be resupplied on a regular basis by vehicle convoys (or helicopters but with less capacity, more for urgent supplies, etc). This brings in the whole logistics function into the game, and the need to constantly resupply enemy forces. No unlimited virtual ammo boxes here. This also allows for interdiction missions and the ability to ambush convoys (air and/or LRRPs).

- if we attack a town and capture it, the front line then has a 'bulge' in it, and if we keep pushing forward, we create a bigger bulge..however this just means our flanks are exposed (as IRL). This works similar to the Domination type mode however there's more 'structure' to it rather than purely jumping from place to place with no clear plan/direction. On the same token, OPFOR may attack a town, capture it and leave a token force eg. 1 platoon or even a squad with a BMP or something (depending on the size of the town) before moving on OR may leave a large force.

- as we attack a town, the OPFOR may choose to defend, not defend (ie. run), counterattack or attack somewhere else. So if you put all your resources into attacking a small town, the enemy could do the same to your base, etc. Again, recon becomes very important (this is where little birds would be excellent..kind of like LOH missions in vietnam)

- if we're defending a town, OPFOR forces may attack it in force ie. atleast a company of inf, armoured vehicles, artillery, etc thus leading to a major battle which could result in either victory or defeat.

- this should allow us to do air strikes on their main base or interdiction missions against their trucks, armour, etc (and same for them)

- we should have air strikes on a regular basis by OPFOR thus requiring squads/platoons/etc to constantly have anti air weapons available.

- OPFOR can launch commando missions in squads of maybe 5 like LRRPs calling in arty, air strikes, etc. This should include the use of 'frogmen' or submersibles.

- OPFOR should have heavy artillery (SP) which would constantly move around after doing a fire mission. Imagine launching an attack on a town only to lose 3/4s of your armour/infantry through well placed artillery.

- the OPFOR main base must be heavily defended esp from air attack and should have the ability to call in some reinforcements from off-map

- this should promote using LRRPs or something ie. where a small squad (like the OPFOR) gets dropped behind enemy lines to observe/report/call in arty, etc.

Obviously the above is not everything but just a starter. The key here is a constantly evolving/moving battlefield, the need for logistics (and the need to protect said logistics) as well as the need for updated intelligence which makes good use of automated intelligence gathering (UAVs incl the vehicles) as well as manned intel eg. LRRPs or little birds flying recon and reporting back.

Can you imagine the immersiveness of this compared to something like Domination? In Dom, everyone runs around to randomly generated 'capture this' points...this atleast gives each person an idea of the large scale of the war, so you may end up taking your squad south (instead of north) because there appears to be a large push. Think about armour, artillery (SP), etc....if the OPFOR are massing south and all your heavy armour is north...how do you stop them?

Anyway, thats my $0.02 worth. I'd love to see something like this implemented. "

This is where you have a proper command structure with someone who allocates 'missions' eg. - sniping missions (get dropped off in the middle of nowhere to snipe a general, or go in by sea, etc)

- air strikes on vehicle convoys

- air strikes on ammo dumps, etc

- SF strikes on key positions/objectives/etc

this gives purpose to playing online rather than the usual ' run from red spot to red spot'. I reckon it would be perfect if we could get something like that...just like playing an online campaign like 'Scorched Earth' for IL2 1946 (where you were allocated proper missions that had implications if you were successful or a failure).

The above is just my idea and by no means perfect or something that should be developed...but its an idea of SOMETHING that BIS should be pushing out ie. more MP modes which are easy for the new players to jump in and realise 'oh thats what I have to do'.

[skelig 27]

Think you should stick to counter strike, military simulation ain't for you :cool:

[rafo23 10]

Iv'e had a couple of memorable moments in MP lately. Try different servers, there are lots of friendly players that help you and use teamwork. By far Arma 3 has been the best in multiplayer, Arma 2 isn't even close. As for your performance issues, i have a similar system and in SP I get around 40-90FPS on ultra, in MP its about 30-50FPS which isn't bad. Something must be wrong with your system.

[mistyronin 1181]

First just point out that I consider insane to judge a game before it's release, now it's only a public beta ( and even so, you should wait a few months to see what the community does ).

Besides that this saga has always been oriented to single player, or lately also to serious multiplayer ( groups with TS and so on ); It doesn't pretend to be an occasional arcade like BF.

But yes, everything can be improved. An a better respoint and objectives could be added to make multiplayer a bit easier for teamwork. Maybe the devs have something prepared for the release...

[pharoah 65]

What I'd love to see is an overall 'strategy' ie. multiple missions all going on at the same time eg.

- air strike here

- lase target here (scud launcher surrounded by inf patrolling the woods) before egressing like an LRRP mission

- SF mission to steal/destroy new tanks here (must infiltrate by submarine)

- rescue pilot here

- capture base/fort here

- resupply troops under seige here (ie. you need to drive a convoy to the base under seige)

- clear minefield here

- etc etc

This is the part I'm talking about. The MP modes that ARMA has by default aren't great. You want to be able to provide players with the ability to go lone-wolf or as part of a squad.

The great thing about BF is that the maps are geared towards pointing you in specific directions through coloured icons, maps, etc. In ARMA, this isn't the case unless you know what to look for.

[mistyronin 1181]

The great thing about BF is that the maps are geared towards pointing you in specific directions through coloured icons, maps, etc. In ARMA, this isn't the case unless you know what to look for.

I've never been into makin MP missions, but I think what you ask should be able to be created ( I mean by the community ).

[spanishsurfer 58]

What I'd love to see is an overall 'strategy' ie. multiple missions all going on at the same time eg.

- air strike here

- lase target here (scud launcher surrounded by inf patrolling the woods) before egressing like an LRRP mission

- SF mission to steal/destroy new tanks here (must infiltrate by submarine)

- rescue pilot here

- capture base/fort here

- resupply troops under seige here (ie. you need to drive a convoy to the base under seige)

- clear minefield here

- etc etc

This is the part I'm talking about. The MP modes that ARMA has by default aren't great. You want to be able to provide players with the ability to go lone-wolf or as part of a squad.

The great thing about BF is that the maps are geared towards pointing you in specific directions through coloured icons, maps, etc. In ARMA, this isn't the case unless you know what to look for.

This already exists in Arma 2 and is available in Arma 3 in limited amounts (he needs time to develop it). It's called Benny Edition Warfare, think RTS mixed with FPS. Everyone has a role, commander, squad leaders, recon teams, defensive teams, etc....The game mode is really limited to your imagination. You can lonewolf, work as a team, whatever.

I play mostly on PUBLIC game servers and generally get people to work as teams pretty easily...Find me on STEAM if you want, I'll show you how its done.

If you think Arma 3 multiplayer is lacking then its YOU that's not playing it right. Cooperation is a two way street and I've found that generally people are very receptive to someone talking on VON and wanting to work together, EVEN ON PUBLIC SERVERS.

[Minoza 11]

So I guess you will teach all the new players how to play it? Don't you think that the game itself should point player in some direction which leads to fun experience? Of course, this leads us to what I've said before, you can't have one without the other.

Edited August 30, 2013 by Minoza