Multiplayer dying fast??

[bvrettski 10]

With all due respect, this 'complaint' is ~13 years old, yet you act as if this release "dropped the ball on official MP content".

We will just have to agree to disagree here....

This release dropped the ball on a number of fronts so far. Content, optimization, stability, playability, for starters.

From your description it's another Arma 2 or 2+...

Welcome to the usual 4 year cycle of delayed content, patches, updates, fixes and additions that is the Arma series. By that definition your asking everyone to pay for what amounts to a long term beta where a huge portion of the games content will have to be provided others and not by the games designer. If so, then stop billing it as a game and call it a gamers toolbox. The deluxe lego play set set of gaming.

When I started playing Arma 2 I was told.."BIS puts out the game and leaves it for the open community to fix it." Here we are again. If they ever want to appeal to larger audience that the currently installed playerbase of Arma fanboys they are going to have to commit to releasing a more mature product. Arma 3 is not that product on many, well documented, fronts...including multiplayer.

You only have a limited time to make a first impression and it sure feels like a large number of players are moving on to other things thanks to limits and shortcomings of Arma 3.

Like one reviewer said " For now, I think it means you're better off sticking with Arma II. Underwater missions, accomplished vehicle physics, an impressive array of player stances and fantastic visuals can't make up for a too-big map full of nothing and a handful of missions most computers and servers can't fully handle. I'll tell you what though, Arma III is going to be a great game in 2015."

From my experience most gamers don't have that kind of patience and there are way too many other choices that they can explore in 2- 4 years.

So yes I had hoped for something more / better this time around.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Bvrettski

[aussiebobby 1]

We will just have to agree to disagree here....

This release dropped the ball on a number of fronts so far. Content, optimization, stability, playability, for starters.

From your description it's another Arma 2 or 2+...

Welcome to the usual 4 year cycle of delayed content, patches, updates, fixes and additions that is the Arma series. By that definition your asking everyone to pay for what amounts to a long term beta where a huge portion of the games content will have to be provided others and not by the games designer. If so, then stop billing it as a game and call it a gamers toolbox. The deluxe lego play set set of gaming.

When I started playing Arma 2 I was told.."BIS puts out the game and leaves it for the open community to fix it." Here we are again. If they ever want to appeal to larger audience that the currently installed playerbase of Arma fanboys they are going to have to commit to releasing a more mature product. Arma 3 is not that product on many, well documented, fronts...including multiplayer.

You only have a limited time to make a first impression and it sure feels like a large number of players are moving on to other things thanks to limits and shortcomings of Arma 3.

Like one reviewer said " For now, I think it means you're better off sticking with Arma II. Underwater missions, accomplished vehicle physics, an impressive array of player stances and fantastic visuals can't make up for a too-big map full of nothing and a handful of missions most computers and servers can't fully handle. I'll tell you what though, Arma III is going to be a great game in 2015."

From my experience most gamers don't have that kind of patience and there are way too many other choices that they can explore in 2- 4 years.

So yes I had hoped for something more / better this time around.

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

If we look at the Most Played Mission (last 30 days) is prof of what you say"."BIS puts out the game and leaves it for the open community to fix it."

Not one BIS mission in the top ten,only the community missions.

And the ARMA 3 Popularity over time stats shows a decline in MP

[dnk 13]

While there are things to complain about, you're going a bit off the rails, sir.

I don't recall Arma 2/OA having a huge amount of non-community MP content. Mostly, it was Insurgency, Domi, Evo, Life, Warfare, (later) Wasteland, and DayZ. Currently, in A3, we have Insurgency, Domi, Life, Warfare, Wasteland, and Breaking Point. For every other COOP mission I played, it was community-made by TG or 15thMEU (usually using ACE), who I played with at the time. As has been said, some of these aren't matured yet.

Not sure what "optimization" means. Everyone throws that word around to mean "I don't like the performance". Seems you triple-counted that one with "stability" and "playability"... I agree these seem to be issues for many in MP, though. Also seems many don't have these issues and are happy to play MP. You might just be one of the unlucky few.

I think it has been called a "lego box of gaming". You've been around at least 3 years, so why are you suddenly confused about what the Arma series is :D Long-time players can't use the "ignorant noob" card...

BIS is constantly working on the game. Saying they just "leave it for the community to fix" is just clearly false. This game has an extreme amount of post-release support for an FPS, on the order of MP-only MMOs in terms of that support. It doesn't come out of the box as shiny and defect-free as those, but it also has like 1/50th the budget with the same amount of features, if not more.

Arma 1 and 2 had the same sorts of initial shortcomings. This is an old song and dance, been going on for quite some time now. It's a game/community that you invest in. It pays out over years. If you want the newest game-du-jour to play for 2 months and ditch, then Arma isn't for you, or you should wait a year or so to buy it on sale when it's nice and patched/modded up. That's probably true for most any game these days anyway.

Map full of nothing? :D What did Chernarus and Taki have exactly? This map has more than either. What do you want, exactly? Say it, say precisely what would make the map "not full of nothing", given that it's already full of farms, towns, military outposts, and cities. You want BF4 metropolises or something? You want a megacity map? You literally could see exactly what you were getting about a year before release when BI said the exact real-world island the game was based off of. If that was too "empty" for you, why did you buy the game? :D

Good God, man. Complaining about yourself more like it.

[chortles 263]

More like the only way to hold people's interest as "quickly" as newer, shinier stuff is to essentially resort to the "annual franchise" model with multiple games being worked on years in advance of their staggered annual releases...

[progamer 14]

More like the only way to hold people's interest as "quickly" as newer, shinier stuff is to essentially resort to the "annual franchise" model with multiple games being worked on years in advance of their staggered annual releases...

Some peoples interest. I would suspect a lot of Arma players would not fall under that category though.

---------- Post added at 07:05 ---------- Previous post was at 07:02 ----------

We will just have to agree to disagree here....

This release dropped the ball on a number of fronts so far. Content, optimization, stability, playability, for starters.

From your description it's another Arma 2 or 2+...

Welcome to the usual 4 year cycle of delayed content, patches, updates, fixes and additions that is the Arma series. By that definition your asking everyone to pay for what amounts to a long term beta where a huge portion of the games content will have to be provided others and not by the games designer. If so, then stop billing it as a game and call it a gamers toolbox. The deluxe lego play set set of gaming.

When I started playing Arma 2 I was told.."BIS puts out the game and leaves it for the open community to fix it." Here we are again. If they ever want to appeal to larger audience that the currently installed playerbase of Arma fanboys they are going to have to commit to releasing a more mature product. Arma 3 is not that product on many, well documented, fronts...including multiplayer.

You only have a limited time to make a first impression and it sure feels like a large number of players are moving on to other things thanks to limits and shortcomings of Arma 3.

Like one reviewer said " For now, I think it means you're better off sticking with Arma II. Underwater missions, accomplished vehicle physics, an impressive array of player stances and fantastic visuals can't make up for a too-big map full of nothing and a handful of missions most computers and servers can't fully handle. I'll tell you what though, Arma III is going to be a great game in 2015."

From my experience most gamers don't have that kind of patience and there are way too many other choices that they can explore in 2- 4 years.

So yes I had hoped for something more / better this time around.

That reviewer you quoted who's complaining about the terrain being too big or not ridiculously detailed to the point were its unrealistic is likely someone who doesn't like Arma too begin with as large terrain that is essentially a copy of a real life location is one of Arma's signature features.

He is right though that Arma games tend to be designed to challenge future computers so that the game can be supported for 5 years after release. Though optimizations come slowly over time. Most games remove stuff or hide things to optimize the game. These optimizations can have serious issues in a game like Arma. Look at Planetside 2's optimization methods, friendliest aren't rendered, only close enemies are and bullets disappear extremely quick. This is not something arma needs, but rather proper optimization of the existing game.

Edited November 21, 2013 by ProGamer

[Maxzy 12]

This song about something dying I'm hearing since I first laid my eyes upon gaming magazine some 20 years ago - PC gaming is dying, adventure genre is dying, racing/flight/combat simulators are dying. This stupid song is as old as world itself. And this "map full of nothing" bullshit - what exactly there should be? Crashing helicopters, carpet bombings, thousands of enemy soldiers and collapsing skyscrapers at every square inch of the map as default ambience? Or what? I honestly don't understand. Could someone complaining please elaborate on this?

[dnk 13]

Yet... we all are dying, aren't we?

[.kju 3244]

Look at the player number stats and you can see the trend very clearly.

[bigpickle 0]

I did type a big reasonable and balanced explanation of how I feel but the page wanted to refresh when I was typing so when I tried to post I lost my written text :mad:

So now you get the short version, sorry.

The game is fading already. For those who say it will come and over take ArmA II, as I once believed...why would it? I mean if you have a perfectly good game full of content and relatively bug free, then you have a game relatively buggy and lacks content, both are using the same engine and code structure, one pushes to the limits of the code causing issues and little room for improvement in certain areas and the other has had years of fixing and tweaking...which would you choose?

Even if they totally discontinue support for ArmA II its modding status ensures that the community can still improve the game somewhat and in the direction players want.

I personally cannot go back to ArmA II but the more patch tweaking that happens to ArmA III the more BIS are returning it to how ArmA II felt to play, so whats the point in trying to play ArmA III? Especially when ArmA III started out with nice and fluid movement for the players character.

Sorry for the negativity but I just don't feel positive about this game anymore.

[Smurf 12]

I did type a big reasonable and balanced explanation of how I feel but the page wanted to refresh when I was typing so when I tried to post I lost my written text :mad:

So now you get the short version, sorry.

You have the "Restore Auto-Saved Content" button down here on the typing box, try it next time!

But I can't agree with you, A3 is incomplete and just starting. Give it a year and lets see where we go from there.

[chrisb 196]

Certainly there are players that have come across from less realistic shooter games, they find A3 refreshingly realistic, which it is to most other games about war. Arma 2, as most would agree, is more realistic, but less great on the eye and some other things, for some, not me.

Arma 3 has got the engine running at its limits, for the eye candy and other bits that are really not needed, for example pip, overly heavy clouds, need I say underwater, etc, its causing its own problems. The lack of any reasonable ai is one of them, along with content and some of the mod makers from the past, who could help pick the game up.

I don’t play mp (public), so don’t know how its fairing in actual playing terms, but I can imagine some of those players that came across are going back again to bf etc, maybe not a bad thing, but bad for BI. This middle ground they find themselves in, I know I’ve said it before, but they are in a middle ground, neither realistic enough for some, or gamey enough for others. The game has been put in the wrong place, more realistic and it would keep the faithful that want decent ‘sim like’ gaming (not sim, but sim like) happy. Or, on the other hand, gamey enough to keep the majority of new comers from other shooters happy, without this endless updating problem that was experienced with A2 for so long. It finds itself in neither place, perhaps that is why the trend seems downwards, only going off what I have read here and elsewhere, for mp.

It won’t die, no game really dies, there is always some fans somewhere, but it’s the lifespan of the series that might die, which would be a shame, i.e. no A4, because they realise there’s no big call for it, enough to make any money, therefore the series ends.

I like A3 for some things, it does graphics better, but they need to drop other things to concentrate on the really needed, from my point that would be ai, others would want other things, but just drop the really un-needed.

For me, its too over zealous, it wants to be too much, one day it maybe a classic, players will say, yes remember Arma 3, it had this and that and what about the other things it had. But they never play it, just reminisce, ofp is like that now, no one really plays it anymore, but many hanker over its gaming type. That is what may happen with A3 in a different way, but the difference is, the ofp crowd moved onto arma, then arma2, the arma 3 crowd may have nowhere to move on to.

I believe that its aimed at mp, if it doesn’t do well there, then the continuation of the whole series, could be in doubt.

That’s only my opinion.

[Tonci87 163]

http://steamgraph.net

Put Arma 2 OA and Arma 3 into one graph. Remember that everybody who owns Arma 3 has to use steam while a big number of people play the boxed, or Sprocket version of Arma 2OA and therefore are not listed in this graph. The difference in numbers is around ~2500 people.

I guess that there are actually more people playing Arma 2 OA than the new Arma 3. Pretty sad if a sequel gets played less than the previous game and quite telling too.

If BIS gives me the percentage of people who prefered to buy Arma 2 OA through steam compared to the boxed and Sprocket versions then we could do more than just guess.

[VanZant 48]

Aside from the current technical issues and that is totally respectable that people like certain game modes, I cannot understand those people who expect and demand almost literally the same gaming experience that offer COD or Battlefield, for instance. I mean, thanks to the sandbox nature can be done almost everything and there are endless options, in fact there are many game modes right now and will be more if things are well done, but this game is not intended to be the same as COD and its fancy dogs, at least for now and fortunately.

The terrain design and size, stances, animations, inventory system, editor, everything in this game is not designed for 30 min of fast play after work. It is ridiculous to come here and say "hey, this game is boring, i want huge TD, CTD, satellites shooting missiles ... this is dead".

On the other hand I also think that BIS has tried to make the game more accesible to common MP modes (not coop) and casuals, but with a market saturated of better FPS in its genre and without competition in the milsim side this tendency could damage the saga in the medium-long term, in my opinion.

[spanishsurfer 58]

http://steamgraph.net

Put Arma 2 OA and Arma 3 into one graph. Remember that everybody who owns Arma 3 has to use steam while a big number of people play the boxed, or Sprocket version of Arma 2OA and therefore are not listed in this graph. The difference in numbers is around ~2500 people.

I guess that there are actually more people playing Arma 2 OA than the new Arma 3. Pretty sad if a sequel gets played less than the previous game and quite telling too.

If BIS gives me the percentage of people who prefered to buy Arma 2 OA through steam compared to the boxed and Sprocket versions then we could do more than just guess.

You're assuming too much. I just used that graph, and on 21NOV2013 it shows that Arma 3 had over 2,300 MORE players then Arma 2. Not sure how you're reading this data.

This whole topic is really stupid and pointless. Anyone who's been with the Arma series for over a decade (as I have) knows that every time a new Arma is released there are growing pains but they typically get resolved (Arma 3 has had the least amount of pain in the series). Arma 2 will be phased out with time and the Arma 3 player base is only going to increase, period.

[zimms 22]

Those graphs show Arma 3 at about 6-8k while COD is at about 9-11k. Doesn't look too bad, considering COD is as "mainstream" as can be.

How many players would you think would be ok in comparison?

[.kju 3244]

The problem is you cannot compare Arma with other games as these normally just have 1-3 actively played game modes.

In Arma you have the PvP vs AI split as a start.

However in player terms it comes down to Warfare, Domination, COOP, Infiltration, DayZ, Wasteland, AAS, CTF, C&H, etc.

So you end up for all but the handful of popular game modes with 1-3 servers running the given game mode a few hours each day at best with playable numbers.

[chrisb 196]

Those graphs show Arma 3 at about 6-8k while COD is at about 9-11k. Doesn't look too bad, considering COD is as "mainstream" as can be.

How many players would you think would be ok in comparison?

I just did a quick A3 v COD 'ghosts' that was 27,000 for cod and 7,000 for A3, that's more of a comparison I would have thought as the two games are recent releases. But yes, it depends on time, day and the rest. Regards A2OA, there are a lot of private group servers I would think, not shown, its a very hobbyist game A2, more so than A3 I would think, maybe a year down the road A3 might be the same, doubt it though.

I view A2CO as a hobby, I did the same with Arma prior to that, A3 however doesn't feel right for me, at the moment, may change. Not sure if that many ever played mp in either of the series, its not that the game is as popular as the real mainstream stuff. It fairs o.k. but really I would have thought BI wanted more than that from A3. Still fingers crossed it improves over time for them.

[bvrettski 10]

Its early in the US (10:40 am EST) but here are the current Steam numbers.

Steam: Top games by current player count

Current Players Peak Today Game

438,073 534,578 Dota 2

46,492 51,614 Team Fortress 2

35,332 58,104 Football Manager 2014

32,035 47,758 Counter-Strike: Global Offensive

28,898 35,414 Counter-Strike

21,969 32,705 Sid Meier's Civilization V

20,894 26,317 Counter-Strike: Source

20,184 28,127 The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

14,539 14,976 Warframe

13,318 21,011 Call of Duty: Ghosts - Multiplayer

12,919 20,698 Football Manager 2013

12,144 20,877 Garry's Mod

11,988 20,556 Path of Exile

10,613 13,257 Terraria

10,463 16,626 Total War: ROME II

10,451 16,868 XCOM: Enemy Unknown

8,121 11,063 Call of Duty: Black Ops II - Multiplayer

7,415 10,285 PAYDAY 2

7,024 9,416 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 - Multiplayer

5,984 7,780 War Thunder

5,892 7,518 Left 4 Dead 2

5,352 9,252 Borderlands 2

4,493 6,327 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 - Multiplayer

3,626 4,691 RIFTâ„¢

3,599 5,800 Arma 3

3,496 6,114 Football Manager 2012

3,468 6,035 X Rebirth

3,263 3,725 No More Room in Hell

3,176 4,914 Might & Magic: Duel of Champions

3,048 4,433 Empire: Total War

3,027 5,151 Fallout: New Vegas

3,008 5,437 Kerbal Space Program

2,951 5,375 Mount & Blade: Warband

2,932 3,601 Stronghold Kingdoms

2,762 3,834 Infestation: Survivor Stories

2,621 4,046 Company of Heroes 2

2,610 3,989 Batman: Arkham City GOTY

2,555 4,421 Crusader Kings II

2,467 3,265 Call of Duty: Ghosts

2,318 3,239 Batmanâ„¢: Arkham Origins

2,214 3,727 Europa Universalis IV

2,198 3,466 Arma 2: Operation Arrowhead

Thanks gawd we are still edging out War Z...err I mean Infestation: Survivor Stories

From Gametracker:

Arma 3

Game Rank

#17

Servers: 664

Players: 1852

Arma 2

Game Rank

#21

Servers: 508

Players: 1583

DayZ

#10

Servers: 2891

Players: 10533

Battlefield 4

Game Rank

#3

Servers: 9106

Players: 49166

Battlefield 3

Game Rank

#13

Servers: 1973

Players: 13413

COD Ghosts was not listed.

Call of Duty 2 (2005)

Game Rank

#15

Servers: 1021

Players: 3499

Counterstrike

Game Rank

#1

Servers: 17928

Players: 136616

Edited November 21, 2013 by Bvrettski

[chortles 263]

Does Gametracker list OA separately from Arma 2?

I will safely say that due to Arma not being a "gain XP, level up" shooter and thereby not having the "don't fall behind" pressure, I find it much easier to put down than COD/BF... but then again, it's due to that very same "don't fall behind" pressure COD/BF that I don't pick those up to begin with!

[Tonci87 163]

You're assuming too much. I just used that graph, and on 21NOV2013 it shows that Arma 3 had over 2,300 MORE players then Arma 2. Not sure how you're reading this data.

This whole topic is really stupid and pointless. Anyone who's been with the Arma series for over a decade (as I have) knows that every time a new Arma is released there are growing pains but they typically get resolved (Arma 3 has had the least amount of pain in the series). Arma 2 will be phased out with time and the Arma 3 player base is only going to increase, period.

You must have skipped the underlined part of my post.

Remember that Steamgraph only keeps track of the people who play the game through steam. 100% of the people who play Arma 3 in MP use Steam to do so. How many % of Arma 2 CO Players start the game through steam? (I believe you can launch a Steam copy of Arma OA without starting steam, am I right?)

[spanishsurfer 58]

Check out gametracker Tonci. Arma 3 is rated #16 and Arma 2 is #21. So there's another sources telling you that Arma 2 does not have more players then Arma 3.

Interesting find while analyzing GameTracker data; I noticed that Germany is the country that plays Arma 2 the most, USA a close 2nd. However, when you look at Arma 3 the United States is #1 and Germany is #2 but they are far behind in #'s. This may be the reason (from your point of view) that you believe Arma 2 is played more then Arma 3; more of your countrymen are playing Arma 2. However the data clearly shows that Arma 3 has more players then Arma 2, and BTW....IT SHOWS NO DECLINE.

Edited November 21, 2013 by SpanishSurfer

[L3TUC3 32]

You must have skipped the underlined part of my post.

Remember that Steamgraph only keeps track of the people who play the game through steam. 100% of the people who play Arma 3 in MP use Steam to do so. How many % of Arma 2 CO Players start the game through steam? (I believe you can launch a Steam copy of Arma OA without starting steam, am I right?)

You are correct. There are non-steam versions, and the steam version does not require steam to actually run.

[iceman77 18]

As with all games, it sets off with a bang and then evens out after a bit. Give it a year. This is the same old Arma routine... nothing new in this regard. And comparing game tracker population stats with other games isn't really fair. Ofcourse there are going to be 50k+ playing Battlefield / COD omg headshot games.

[St. Jimmy 272]

As with all games, it sets off with a bang and then evens out after a bit. Give it a year. This is the same old Arma routine... nothing new in this regard. And comparing game tracker population stats with other games isn't really fair. Ofcourse there are going to be 50k+ playing Battlefield / COD omg headshot games.

This. Multiplayer can't be dying when it really hasn't even started yet.

[katipo66 94]

Ofcourse there are going to be 50k+ playing Battlefield / COD omg headshot games.

probably because they are well setup and easy to join? There was a lot of interest and momentum for MP from the Alpha that has gone absolutely no where, surely that would have been a priority even over the campaign that is never going to compete with triple A titles, disappointing.