Multiplayer dying fast??

[Tonci87 163]

It also might have to do with people playing script heavy/badly designed missions on servers with shitty hardware. Sure the MP has some problems but they are not even close to what some people claim.

[Alwarren 2767]

Sorry, but it ain't that easy. I've seen missions that run well in single player but completely break down in multiplayer, playing the same mission, without any modifications. Multiplayer should be faster due to the fact that the AI is offloaded, but it isn't the case. There are definite issues with that.

Putting blame on anyone never helped, and blaming the mission makers is as wrong as blaming BI. There is probably a middle ground somewhere.

[bvrettski 10]

So you picked the worst possible time on purpose for your statistic?

There was 4000 players this weekend at peak hours.

Nope that was 4:30 PM Sunday afternoon when I took the screenshot but nice try.

Maybe worldwide there were 4000 at some point but not when I went on to play.

Yeah, it's pretty clear Bvrettski is either grinding an axe or just a dishonest person in general.

Nice accusation...

I DO have an axe to grind and its consistently presented if you read my posts.

Arma3 is the game I wanted to play. There is no game. BI provided no P vs P multiplayer (yes they gave us some small 10 player coops to be honest). They provided little content. Thats it. There is no game to play and while I appreciate all the efforts of the mission creators in the community lets be honest. Wasteland is a port from A2, Breaking Point is a port from A2 Dayz...in fact all the games are by and large updates or conversaions of existing games.

If all you wanted from BIS was some new weapons vehicles and maps then they could have put them in A2 and we could have just moved on from there.

---------- Post added at 07:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:22 AM ----------

It also might have to do with people playing script heavy/badly designed missions on servers with shitty hardware. Sure the MP has some problems but they are not even close to what some people claim.

This gets tossed around a lot. Some people blame the game/ engine/ BIS...others defend the game and point at the mission designers / scripters. All I have asked for is BIS to give us some well coded multiplayer ( p vs p) games to play that take advantage of the assets and maps they gave us. If anyone should be able to make good multiplayer missions it should be BIS right? They have the resources and they wrote the program so at least they should understand how its supposed to work.

I guess then we'd only be able to point fingers at them if their missions ran like crap. We'd have no mission designer to blame for the poor performance of the game.

Edited December 2, 2013 by Bvrettski

[iceman77 18]

It also might have to do with people playing script heavy/badly designed missions on servers with shitty hardware. Sure the MP has some problems but they are not even close to what some people claim.

Yup I agree. Joe smoe trying to host a 60 player server on his 5 year old dual core... so he can play his uber cool map he just made with 500 AI. What's unit caching!? :p. If a mission and server is designed and optimized well for MP, then I've seen no problems.

[dnk 13]

http://arma3.swec.se/game/statistics

That's why we're calling you out for cherry picking.

The trend is upward, especially at the low points.

"Dying"

Edited December 2, 2013 by DNK

[Greenfist 1863]

Nope that was 4:30 PM Sunday afternoon when I took the screenshot but nice try.

Maybe worldwide there were 4000 at some point but not when I went on to play.

No, it was 8:30AM when you posted. So no wonder there's not many players.

And I thought 1000 players was enough to fill a server? :)

[St. Jimmy 272]

http://arma3.swec.se/images/arma3_popularity.png?1374547935

http://arma3.swec.se/game/statistics

That's why we're calling you out for cherry picking.

The trend is upward, especially at the low points.

"Dying"

Yep :D

The multiplayer isn't dying. It's just getting started.

[bvrettski 10]

http://arma3.swec.se/images/arma3_popularity.png?1374547935

http://arma3.swec.se/game/statistics

That's why we're calling you out for cherry picking.

The trend is upward, especially at the low points.

"Dying"

LOL I love you guys.....

but I'm calling you out for stat padding...since calling people out is what the cool kids do.....

Yup the trend is up on weekends and holidays. So is every other game on the face of the planet.

Your list here is pretty close to what I put in mine...5 types of missions..all community made copies from A2 missions. I took a one time snapshot and yours throw in every single game played online.

34% of your numbers come from coops. 64000+ games of them. More than any single p vs p multiplayer mission. A huge number of which are hosted on home computers.

# Mission Games Played Player Time

1 Stratis Wasteland by Sa-Matra (v9) 403 108209:40:33

2 Breaking Point 1278 104451:04:11

3 Altis Life 537 62619:18:49

4 Altis Life RPG 1181 51388:38:16

5 Altis Wasteland by Sa-Matra (v9) 412 45989:10:15

6 Altis Life by BWG 123 34854:43:56

7 KING OF HILL 0.5.5 | AGIOS DIONYSIOS 628 28537:46:54

8 Stratis Wasteland by Sa-Matra (v8) 95 28345:36:02

9 KING OF HILL 0.5.1 | KAVALA 727 27862:35:47

10 =Olut= Wasteland by Team-WL (Edit by =Olut=) 56 27159:47:24

The only new recent mission in that list is DayZ Breaking Point which half the people in these forums wouldn't even consider to be a part of 'true" Arma gameplay. LOL

I'm not really calling you out. Thats would be a waste of time. Everyone sees things as they want to...but thanks for making some of my points DNK.

No, it was 8:30AM when you posted. So no wonder there's not many players.

And I thought 1000 players was enough to fill a server? :)

Might be 8:30 am where you are but the timestamp on my post says 11:30 PM..thats when I got on to post in the forums not when I took the screenshot...so your just plain wrong. Again

Edited December 2, 2013 by Bvrettski

[NeuroFunker 11]

well, if multiplayer dying in someones opinnion, then let him think so, maybe don't play it, or wats up? Why someone needs to prove its dying anyway, what weirdness is that? Statistics say otherwise anyway.

Arma 3 - badly optimized.

Arma 3 - dumbed down

Arma 3 - lack of content

Arma 3 - my uber highend pc not gud for arma

Arma 3 - multiplayer is dying

I wonder, why so many pessimists on this forums anyway?

[Greenfist 1863]

Might be 8:30 am where you are but the timestamp on my post says 11:30 PM..thats when I got on to post in the forums not when I took the screenshot...so your just plain wrong. Again

That was exactly my point; the time of day matters. Maybe you're just playing at the wrong time.

I thought you meant 1000 players is too low but it's as low as it goes, not average. Thus, a bad example.

I guess your point was that the only bad thing here is that there's not enough variation and PvP in missions. I agree, but that doesn't mean the MP is dying, does it?

Edited December 2, 2013 by Greenfist

[Varanon 892]

Apologies to Neurofunker, this isn't directed specifically at you, but:

well, if multiplayer dying in someones opinnion, then let him think so, maybe don't play it, or wats up? Why someone needs to prove its dying anyway, what weirdness is that? Statistics say otherwise anyway.?

It seems some people don't understand the basic idea behind those "pessimists" on the forum.

People are concerned about some aspect of the game they like. Yes, they LIKE the game. Why else would they bother. You "optimists" always think that when people complain about the game, they hate it. This is wrong.

Now, if someone says that multiplayer performance is bad, they are concerned about this particular topic. They try to point out that this is a point that needs to be addressed. That doesn't mean the criticism is hateful or meant to belittle the effort of the developers. It's for the most part a form of feedback. What is more damaging is the blind defense and downplay of actually existing problems. THIS is counter-productive. Not the constructive criticism. (And note, I'm not judging whether MP is dying or not).

Besides, this forum is NOT meant to be a duck waggling contest about who likes Arma 3 more. The stupid name calling on both sides ("whinier", "hater", "fanboy") and the fruitless bashing of every kind of criticism makes discussion here totally worthless and just drives people away.

This:

Arma 3 - badly optimized.

Arma 3 - dumbed down

Arma 3 - lack of content

Arma 3 - my uber highend pc not gud for arma

Arma 3 - multiplayer is dying

tells me enough about this particular attitude. Evey type of "pessimism" is thrown into one big pot, stirred, and labeled.

People, start a discussion if you think that someone is wrong. You know, with arguments, data, numbers, whatever you can come up with. If you can't come up with anything, don't bother posting. Don't turn every kind of criticism (or praise, for that matter) into a pissing contest. Believe it or not, we are all here for the same damn reasons, and that's because we like Arma.

[Alwarren 2767]

Believe it or not, we are all here for the same damn reasons, and that's because we like Arma.

Well said... Very well said.

[m1lkm8n 411]

Haha I was just getting on to say the same type if thing varanon when I hit refresh and saw your post. I couldnt have said it any better myself. Very well said!!!

[[evo] dan 79]

SNIP.

^this +over 9000^

[katipo66 94]

Nice post Varanon.

[NeuroFunker 11]

Apologies to Neurofunker, this isn't directed specifically at you, but:

It seems some people don't understand the basic idea behind those "pessimists" on the forum.

People are concerned about some aspect of the game they like. Yes, they LIKE the game. Why else would they bother. You "optimists" always think that when people complain about the game, they hate it. This is wrong.

Now, if someone says that multiplayer performance is bad, they are concerned about this particular topic. They try to point out that this is a point that needs to be addressed. That doesn't mean the criticism is hateful or meant to belittle the effort of the developers. It's for the most part a form of feedback. What is more damaging is the blind defense and downplay of actually existing problems. THIS is counter-productive. Not the constructive criticism. (And note, I'm not judging whether MP is dying or not).

Besides, this forum is NOT meant to be a duck waggling contest about who likes Arma 3 more. The stupid name calling on both sides ("whinier", "hater", "fanboy") and the fruitless bashing of every kind of criticism makes discussion here totally worthless and just drives people away.

This:

tells me enough about this particular attitude. Evey type of "pessimism" is thrown into one big pot, stirred, and labeled.

People, start a discussion if you think that someone is wrong. You know, with arguments, data, numbers, whatever you can come up with. If you can't come up with anything, don't bother posting. Don't turn every kind of criticism (or praise, for that matter) into a pissing contest. Believe it or not, we are all here for the same damn reasons, and that's because we like Arma.

that all, doesn't cover the fact, people repeat all the same things over and over, in selfcopying threads. They seem to be lazy or something, to read the forums, where it's being discussed for ages, instead making all the same therads, all the same posts. I'm not denying that arma has it's flaws, and like in everything on our damn world, there is no limit for perfection!

And back to thread: multiplayer dying FAST!, is that true or false at the end? From my perspective, it's not, actually it's living up more and more. Statistics from arma2.swec also show it. Whats the point in discussing here further then?

[windies 11]

Well what he was getting at is that it's fine if you want to contradict or argue someone's post or position with, you know facts. Just because you're pissed off that negativity gets repeated though doesn't mean you need to lump all valid complaints and criticism into one big pot and then shit all over it simply because you're ticked off. Who cares if you want to argue the fact Multiplayer is dying or not, just try doing it with some courtesy and respect.

[NeuroFunker 11]

Well what he was getting at is that it's fine if you want to contradict or argue someone's post or position with, you know facts. Just because you're pissed off that negativity gets repeated though doesn't mean you need to lump all valid complaints and criticism into one big pot and then shit all over it simply because you're ticked off. Who cares if you want to argue the fact Multiplayer is dying or not, just try doing it with some courtesy and respect.

In what way was i disrespectful? I'm not pissed and shit here, maybe you need at least learn some manners instead?

[Varanon 892]

that all, doesn't cover the fact, people repeat all the same things over and over, in selfcopying threads.

You can say the same about both sides, actually. Because valid points are always countered with the same non-arguments.

They seem to be lazy or something, to read the forums, where it's being discussed for ages, instead making all the same therads, all the same posts. I'm not denying that arma has it's flaws, and like in everything on our damn world, there is no limit for perfection!

A good idea then, would be to counter the same threads over and over again, if you want to, with the same arguments. But the key is arguments. Like, for example (getting back to the topic), you say "Statistics say otherwise anyway.?" about the dying MP topic. What statistics ? Numbers ? The only numbers I have seen here are from someone who counters the idea of a healthy MP. So if he can come up with numbers, why can't you ? That's exactly what I mean. If you think it's not so bad with MP, show numbers. Then you have a basis for comparison... "Statistics say otherwise" doesn't say anything at all

And back to thread: multiplayer dying FAST!, is that true or false at the end? From my perspective, it's not, actually it's living up more and more. Statistics from arma2.swec also show it. Whats the point in discussing here further then?

I don't know. Maybe quote the statics or provide a link to it ?

[windies 11]

In what way was i disrespectful? I'm not pissed and shit here, maybe you at least learn some manners instead?

Lumping everyone with an issue into some generic "whiner" label and treating them as such and a general bad attitude and hostile manner towards posts that are critical of BI and towards posters critical of BI. I'm quite content with my manners, I'm not the one who's manners are in question either.

[NeuroFunker 11]

You can say the same about both sides, actually. Because valid points are always countered with the same non-arguments.

A good idea then, would be to counter the same threads over and over again, if you want to, with the same arguments. But the key is arguments. Like, for example (getting back to the topic), you say "Statistics say otherwise anyway.?" about the dying MP topic. What statistics ? Numbers ? The only numbers I have seen here are from someone who counters the idea of a healthy MP. So if he can come up with numbers, why can't you ? That's exactly what I mean. If you think it's not so bad with MP, show numbers. Then you have a basis for comparison... "Statistics say otherwise" doesn't say anything at all

I don't know. Maybe quote the statics or provide a link to it ?

well, if you would read few paged back, there were your statictics. http://arma3.swec.se/game/statistics

If you think the same way, that musltiplayer is dying fast, reading that minimum player graph, shows actually the minimum amunt of player has risen in past month. How is this rilevant to "multiplayer is dying fast" nonsense?

[Alwarren 2767]

Lumping everyone with an issue into some generic "whiner" label and treating them as such and a general bad attitude and hostile manner towards posts that are critical of BI and towards posters critical of BI. I'm quite content with my manners, I'm not the one who's manners are in question either.

Unfortunately, this is a trend recently. If you criticize something, you get bashed, called a whiner, and people will tell you "this game just isn't for you". Discussion is always disrupted by this camp enmity, any sort of decent conversation quickly vanishes in the sludge of insults and counter-insults. As Varanon said, we're all here because we like Arma. Obviously, most of us have different ideas what exactly Arma is for them, but there is no middle ground because, as pointed out, arguments get chocked every time they come up.

The thing that I see the least in such discussions are facts. And usually, if someone brings up some good facts, they get ignored.

Frustrating, to say the least. Counter-productive as well. Genuine concerns get swept under the table.

[NeuroFunker 11]

Lumping everyone with an issue into some generic "whiner" label and treating them as such and a general bad attitude and hostile manner towards posts that are critical of BI and towards posters critical of BI. I'm quite content with my manners, I'm not the one who's manners are in question either.

i'm not labering everyone as a "whiner". People like to repeat same stuff over and over here, and make false testaments like multiplayer is dying fast, or "arma 3 enginge is ancient i have 40 fps with my uber hightd pc, cause i have 120 fps in battlefield"- a like threads. This is what made me tired, reading same stuff, but instead in one thread, in dozens of selfcopying.

.

[windies 11]

Arma 3 - badly optimized.

Arma 3 - dumbed down

Arma 3 - lack of content

Arma 3 - my uber highend pc not gud for arma

Arma 3 - multiplayer is dying

I wonder, why so many pessimists on this forums anyway?

Seems kind of like labeling to me. We're all just pessimists or whiners if we experience problems or voice our opinion or feedback on those problems in your eye's. :rolleyes:

[NeuroFunker 11]

well, its either me or you, don't undrstand what a pssimist is.