Newbie - Arma 3 - wat's the big deal?

[machoman121 10]

I've had Arma 3 for 6 days now and my keyboard controls are getting better. But i'm still not understanding the fuss about Arma 3. I'm playing scenarios - they are like campaigns in BF. and u play according to the script - go there, do this....hunt/look out enemy who is supposed to be somewhere....is this the highlight of Arma? Do u guys like playing campaigns that much? - people say Arma is a smarter game - really? I appreciate the numerous user created scenarios but they are still like BF campaigns. I don't like campaigns as AI can be either too strong or too weak and never perfect. In BF i only played the multiplayer - they were just pure fun. It was fun to shoot someone and think it was a real human on the end that u had just 'killed'.

Can Arma be like BF's multiplayer? I have not gotten into arma's multiplayer yet as i wanted to learn the controls better before i frustrate other players?

[mr_centipede 31]

Go to the editor, that's where ARMA series shine

[machoman121 10]

i've have not yet played multiplayer on Arma - wat is it like? is it human players against human players like BF/CoD?

[instagoat 133]

Anything and everything, the limits are set by the mission designer. Arma is heavily community group play based, because you get much higher organization that way (clans, as they are known elsewhere), with some of the bigger ones playing missions of 60 vs 60 or 120 vs AI, some even manage higher headcounts than that.

Public MP is hit and miss, as far as I know, but I´ve not done much of it. I rather more enjoy playing coops with friends.

[simon1279 51]

Arma isn't like CoD or BF gameplay, arma is near to real war, where you have objectives to complete and not amount of kill to collect, even in player Vs player multiplayer, kills are nothing you have to conquer the areas (for an example), kills doesn't give you any reward, no unlocks, at the end arma is a serious game that tries to simulate real war and you definitely have to find a group to join, playing arma alone and thinking to play a game such as Cod or BF will result in: you die & respawn die & respawn die & respawn and nothing else than die & respawn

[chow860 17]

You really should look into joining a clan or group to get the most out of ArmA. The game really shines when it's you and your mates working together to accomplish a mission which could be a simple village clearing to a full on Company size offensive on an enemy base. It's only limited by the creativity of the mission designer and you willingness to interact and work as a group.

For example go on Youtube and look up gameplay videos of groups like Shacktac.

[chortles 263]

@ OP: Ignore Simon1279, take it from InstaGoat and myself! :lol:

Arma multiplayer can be anything from co-op vs. AI (I should point out that both Black Ops II and Ghosts offer this for COD, plus BF3 before them), to "team vs. team" (TvT), to player vs. player (PvP, more in the sense of everyone-for-themselves free-for-all aka Deathmatch or FFA) to... I don't even know what exactly to categorize the "Life RPG" gameplay modes as, the closest "AAA" analogy I have is GTA Online's Free Mode... but unlike COD/BF, "no capped player limit" in the engine, it varies by the mission/mode.

Note though that there are no official servers, it's not "public servers vs. private servers" in the COD/BF sense because there's no stat/loadout progression (by default) to carry over between servers which themselves are differentiated by use of official rulesets or custom rules, in Arma public vs. private tends to more literally be just that... whether or not the server is password-protected. :p There's a few official MP modes (co-op missions plus the Seize and Defend missions where the players can turn on each other), but "the MP scene" (in the sense of what public servers are running -- think "map rotation") is overwhelmingly comprised of missions/modes created and uploaded by players through the in-game Editor.

Heck, as of this post I'm playing a user-created Capture & Hold mission on a public server, whose basic rules seem to be like CoD Domination (score going up, not tickets-going-down as with BF Conquest and Domination) with no score threshold, only "team with higher points at the end of the round wins", Counter-Strike-style "paid" loadouts, gaining Funds from kills and control point captures (and Funds every minute depending on how many control points one's team holds) instead of XP, only being able to do emergency field repairs in-field and having to return to the team's main base or to a Repair truck to rearm/refuel/repair, etc.

Unfortunately a downside of this "freedom" -- by "freedom", I mean no chance of BI shutting down the servers like EA did to a bunch of console titles in mid-2011 and even the Battlefield 2142 demo and Need for Speed: Most Wanted (original) on PC -- is that there's no quality control by BI over these servers or what missions/modes they're hosting... for example, the basic "Wasteland" gameplay concept has been done up a bunch of times by multiple people, but "Wasteland by Sa-Matra" developed a reputation earlier on for running noticeably better (i.e. framerate) than other versions such as "GoT" or "404 Wasteland", and there's a chance that a 'server' may actually be someone's computer, player-hosted "console matchmaking" style, instead of a true dedicated server. I'd know about that, because there's at least one time where I got a bunch of guys together, created a 'server' (think a "lobby") to host a DM/FFA match using my computer and had them all search for and connect to it to play. Sometimes the "server" sucks, sometimes the user-generated "mission" itself sucks... none of that is (directly) due to the devs, but neither will they be (directly) able to help.

Heck, there's actually another MP scene, in the form of dev branch... TL;DR: players who opt into the development build ("dev branch") can get early access to certain builds/features-that-are-in-development at no extra charge in return for basically playing beta tester before that stuff gets patched into the regular game, but its servers don't appear in the regular game's server list and vice versa.

Edited November 16, 2013 by Chortles

[chrisb 196]

You really should look into joining a clan or group to get the most out of ArmA. The game really shines when it's you and your mates working together to accomplish a mission which could be a simple village clearing to a full on Company size offensive on an enemy base. It's only limited by the creativity of the mission designer and you willingness to interact and work as a group.

For example go on Youtube and look up gameplay videos of groups like Shacktac.

That's the right way, try and get into a group/clan with like minded players, user made missions, preferably your own or the groups. Then as @chow860 said, arma shines, although better still do it with arma2, far more realistic game-play wise, although not as graphically pleasing, but really that is not important when looking for a really good gaming experience. ;).

[Alwarren 2766]

I've had Arma 3 for 6 days now and my keyboard controls are getting better. But i'm still not understanding the fuss about Arma 3. I'm playing scenarios - they are like campaigns in BF. and u play according to the script - go there, do this....hunt/look out enemy who is supposed to be somewhere....is this the highlight of Arma? Do u guys like playing campaigns that much? - people say Arma is a smarter game - really?

Yes. it is a smarter game.

While the showcases are meant to make things easier for the newbies, the real difference is that while games like BF3 and CoD narrow you down into a corridor, Arma lets you approach a goal any way you like. Take the AA in MW2'S main campaign, the guns in the Arcadia level. You don't have any other choice but to walk right in on the front door. Arma lets you CHOOSE your path, let's you try to find out alternatives to approach a target. No other game does it like that.

appreciate the numerous user created scenarios but they are still like BF campaigns.

That's an insult to all mission makers :D

I don't like campaigns as AI can be either too strong or too weak and never perfect.

Thats actually quite untrue. Current AI in Arma 3 has issues, but it is a matter of fine tuning the mission to get a good result. AI in Battlefield always picks you to shoot at anyway, and your squad mates are usually idiots that randomly shoot at what they see or a pre-scripted target.

In BF i only played the multiplayer - they were just pure fun. It was fun to shoot someone and think it was a real human on the end that u had just 'killed'.

Well, the last part speaks volumes.

Can Arma be like BF's multiplayer? I have not gotten into arma's multiplayer yet as i wanted to learn the controls better before i frustrate other players?

No, it won't. It's a different game which aims at a different kind of experience. Which is good, since if you want to play Battlefield, the easy solution is to play Battlefield. Even CoD and BF aim for different experience. So does Arma. Only that Arma has the unique possibility of adapting to a lot of different play styles, while most other games are fixed.

Don't get me wrong. Battlefield does what it does very well. It's just not the same game. Thank goodness for that.

---------- Post added at 13:11 ---------- Previous post was at 13:10 ----------

to player vs. player

And in Arma 2, it could be dog vs. boar too :) Too bad there are so few "playable" animals in Arma 3

Edited November 16, 2013 by Alwarren
correcting quotes, need to get used to my new keyboard -_-

[chortles 263]

That's an insult to all mission makers :D

And 90% of them deserve it! :lol:

Mind you, this is coming from someone who outright told the OP to ignore the response of a guy who replied above me... come to think of it, I pretty much think negatively of "join a clan" advice for newcomers, because clans can be rife with drama.

Funny thing is, after playing in that Capture & Hold match, it was really like a "bigger scale, more remote, and thereby less action-y" game of Conquest Large (as per Battlefield), albeit as said before like CoD Domination in ascending score instead of descending ticket counts and with CS-like "cost of loadout" -- you can customize your loadout to whatever, but affordability determines what you can actually spawn in with -- but I will say that it had a really polished UI relative to a bunch of other user-made mission GUIs, which was a very solid plus in its favor.

Definitely not just "different scale, slower tempo BF Conquest", but it was an interesting example of (and in a way actually signals) just how customizable the Arma experience can be. ;)

Edited November 16, 2013 by Chortles

[Alwarren 2766]

And 90% of them deserve it! :lol:

I don't think so. Granted, there are some bad missions out there, made by people that put zero effort into them, but just because I do not like a mission doesn't make it bad. It is difficult to find a mission that appeals to you, or a mission maker that (at least most of the time) makes missions I like, but in general, mission makers are doing a good job.

Mind you, this is coming from someone who outright told the OP to ignore the response of a guy who replied above me...

Yes. and quite frankly, that was an insult too. Good thing you didn'T ask to ignore me.

come to think of it, I pretty much think negatively of "join a clan" advice for newcomers, because clans can be rife with drama.

The same goes for relationships. Just because something CAN go wrong doesn't mean you shouldn't attempt it. Clans in Arma games will most likely offer a different experience than other games. It obviously depends on what clan you try, but to get the most out of the "being different than other games", I think it makes sense to join a clan, and frankly, I don't know if you have ever tried one but drama, while possible, is the exception, not the rule.

Again, I think that Arma (usually) offers a different kind of gameplay than CoD and BF. You can, with the right mission selection, make it a lot LIKE these, but the usual mission you get will be different, and the people you play it with also greatly influence the way that you experience it. Which is why I think that Arma is an entirely different game than the others. Which is also why I think that if you are looking for a CoD-like experience, you should stick to CoD, not even to BF, because they are different.

[iceman77 18]

Can Arma be like BF's multiplayer? I have not gotten into arma's multiplayer yet as i wanted to learn the controls better before i frustrate other players?

You can play Arma anyway you like. Here's an example of 'conquest mode' for Arma3.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?167056-Warfront-2035-Capture-amp-Hold-%28SC%29

Here's a similar example, but a bit different

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?168426-KillZone-TvT-Coop-sector-control

Those are just scratching the surface. Infinite game modes are possible. It's limited to your/the community's imagination.

[infiltrator_2k 29]

I've had Arma 3 for 6 days now and my keyboard controls are getting better. But i'm still not understanding the fuss about Arma 3. I'm playing scenarios - they are like campaigns in BF. and u play according to the script - go there, do this....hunt/look out enemy who is supposed to be somewhere....is this the highlight of Arma? Do u guys like playing campaigns that much? - people say Arma is a smarter game - really? I appreciate the numerous user created scenarios but they are still like BF campaigns. I don't like campaigns as AI can be either too strong or too weak and never perfect. In BF i only played the multiplayer - they were just pure fun. It was fun to shoot someone and think it was a real human on the end that u had just 'killed'.

Can Arma be like BF's multiplayer? I have not gotten into arma's multiplayer yet as i wanted to learn the controls better before i frustrate other players?

Quote: "and u play according to the script"

First of all you need to forget about Battlefield and avoid any comparison, because ArmA is nothing like BF or COD. ArmA is a sandbox and its scenarios and possibilities are endless. Console games are scripted in a way that they control and limit what you can do and where a player can go. Console games are pretty much predetermined and limited, where as with ArmA it's very dynamic and fluid.

[warlord554 2065]

Quote: "and u play according to the script"

First of all you need to forget about Battlefield and avoid any comparison, because ArmA is nothing like BF or COD. ArmA is a sandbox and its scenarios and possibilities are endless. Console games are scripted in a way that they control and limit what you can do and where a player can go. Console games are pretty much predetermined and limited, where as with ArmA it's very dynamic and fluid.

Exactly right. ARMA is war simulation, period. Missions are limited only to your imagination and time. War isn't flying a helo to the tallest tower, jumping out, and sniping everyone. Sorry it just isn't. Guys like Alwarren work hard to bring us unbelievable content to add realism and excitement, and they deserve to have pretty girls feed them grapes on the sandy beaches of Altis ;) There is no comparison as these are two different styles of play, both are fun and exciting in their own way

[antoineflemming 14]

Arma is not war simulation. It's weapon simulation and vehicle simulation and aircraft simulation and fatigue simulation, and time cycle simulation It is not war simulation. Arma does not play out like war. The main draw of Arma 3, and all previous Arma games, is that it simulates much (without gimmicks/perks/etc) in a terrain-realistic, relatively-easily moddable sandbox environment. That's the highlight of Arma. Not its campaign. Not its scenarios. Not its multiplayer. Without the realistic terrain, moddability, and sandbox nature of the editor, Arma wouldn't sell. Period. The AI is clunky, despite it taking in a lot of different factors, the audio is so-so, the performance even more dodgy on high-end computers. It doesn't give a realistic depiction of war while also failing to properly depict small unit tactics of the units they present in the game (in Operation Arrowhead's and Arma 3's case, the U.S. Army). It doesn't even represent proper Army customs and courtesies. So, please, war simulation is certainly NOT what Arma is, although many "armchair generals" here would like to believe it.

To the OP: If you're looking for a fast, fun, "cool" player vs player (PVP) experience a la Battlefield 4 or even Call of Duty, then Arma 3 is not the game for you as you won't find that here. If tactical shooters are more to your tastes (think Ghost Recon 1 to Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter, or Rainbow Six), then that's the closest type of game to what Arma 3 is, where you'd find enjoyment in playing as a team, working together to accomplish objectives. That's what the "clans" and other milsim communities are like. Public Arma 3? That's either RPG-like servers, where you play as good guys, bad guys, and civilians, or it's a COOP that's basically a wild west kind of thing (Domination). You're on the same team, and you may work together like in your milsim communities, but nothing's stopping you from going solo. Your milsim communities are mostly COOP vs AI though. But you may find some public or private community PvP. Don't expect to play any other public servers with mods though, as most now have kind stopped that. They require only certain mods, or no mods at all, and of course that's how Arma 2 ended up. What that results in is players rejecting all mods altogether to play vanilla, players joining milsim communities so that they only play with a certain set of mods shared between members, or they don't play MP at all and just stick to the editor. But you won't find public servers that allow all mods. Nor will you really just hop on and join a public server with only certain allowable mods because you might as well join a private community that does the same thing. Hope this helps.

In short, if you're looking for a "hop on and play" experience like you'll find in BF or COD, then Arma 3's not going to be the game for you. If you are going to be dedicated to this game, and commit to joining a community that uses certain mods, or playing public vanilla servers where you won't experience one of Arma's selling points, mods, OR if you'll spend a lot of time in the editor making your own scenarios or mods, then this is the game for you.

But ignore all the BF and COD bashing that you'll get from members of this community. Take those posts with a grain of salt because usually those are biased and sometimes inaccurate. There are some here who want to feel elitist by saying how this game is better than other games. But, what they don't understand is that its not required nor universal that games strive to simulate reality. If all games were trying to simulate reality, then certainly Arma 3 would be the best. But some games strive to present an arcade style, twitch action gameplay. They aren't striving to be realistic, and there's honestly nothing wrong with that. Just like there's nothing wrong with Arma 3 trying to simulate reality. Just recognize that its all about different gameplay styles. That's all it comes down to. Hopefully this helps you.

[progamer 14]

To the OP: If you're looking for a fast, fun, "cool" player vs player (PVP) experience a la Battlefield 4 or even Call of Duty, then Arma 3 is not the game for you as you won't find that here. If tactical shooters are more to your tastes (think Ghost Recon 1 to Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter, or Rainbow Six), then that's the closest type of game to what Arma 3 is, where you'd find enjoyment in playing as a team, working together to accomplish objectives. That's what the "clans" and other milsim communities are like. Public Arma 3? That's either RPG-like servers, where you play as good guys, bad guys, and civilians, or it's a COOP that's basically a wild west kind of thing (Domination). You're on the same team, and you may work together like in your milsim communities, but nothing's stopping you from going solo. Your milsim communities are mostly COOP vs AI though. But you may find some public or private community PvP. Don't expect to play any other public servers with mods though, as most now have kind stopped that. They require only certain mods, or no mods at all, and of course that's how Arma 2 ended up. What that results in is players rejecting all mods altogether to play vanilla, players joining milsim communities so that they only play with a certain set of mods shared between members, or they don't play MP at all and just stick to the editor. But you won't find public servers that allow all mods. Nor will you really just hop on and join a public server with only certain allowable mods because you might as well join a private community that does the same thing. Hope this helps.

In short, if you're looking for a "hop on and play" experience like you'll find in BF or COD, then Arma 3's not going to be the game for you. If you are going to be dedicated to this game, and commit to joining a community that uses certain mods, or playing public vanilla servers where you won't experience one of Arma's selling points, mods, OR if you'll spend a lot of time in the editor making your own scenarios or mods, then this is the game for you.

But ignore all the BF and COD bashing that you'll get from members of this community. Take those posts with a grain of salt because usually those are biased and sometimes inaccurate. There are some here who want to feel elitist by saying how this game is better than other games. But, what they don't understand is that its not required nor universal that games strive to simulate reality. If all games were trying to simulate reality, then certainly Arma 3 would be the best. But some games strive to present an arcade style, twitch action gameplay. They aren't striving to be realistic, and there's honestly nothing wrong with that. Just like there's nothing wrong with Arma 3 trying to simulate reality. Just recognize that its all about different gameplay styles. That's all it comes down to. Hopefully this helps you.

The difference between Arma and other games is Arma aims for a realistic experience while games like BF and CoD aim for a more balanced and quick fun approach. A lot of Arma mission are on the more realistic end but many popular missions like wasteland are not.

Arma is more of a Combined Arms Simulation that is still WIP with parts of the game getting better and more realistic all the time like the fatigue system and weapon sway.

Edited November 16, 2013 by ProGamer

[chortles 263]

Arma is not war simulation. It's weapon simulation and vehicle simulation and aircraft simulation and fatigue simulation, and time cycle simulation It is not war simulation. Arma does not play out like war. The main draw of Arma 3, and all previous Arma games, is that it simulates much (without gimmicks/perks/etc) in a terrain-realistic, relatively-easily moddable sandbox environment. That's the highlight of Arma. Not its campaign. Not its scenarios. Not its multiplayer. Without the realistic terrain, moddability, and sandbox nature of the editor, Arma wouldn't sell. Period. The AI is clunky, despite it taking in a lot of different factors, the audio is so-so, the performance even more dodgy on high-end computers. It doesn't give a realistic depiction of war while also failing to properly depict small unit tactics of the units they present in the game (in Operation Arrowhead's and Arma 3's case, the U.S. Army). It doesn't even represent proper Army customs and courtesies. So, please, war simulation is certainly NOT what Arma is, although many "armchair generals" here would like to believe it.

Quality posting right here.

I would also moreover tweak things to say that it has many assets with which to simulate 'combined arms' without necessarily being a combined arms simulation, simply because the extent of the assets involved in a given mission/match is up to the mission maker... which is more than what Call of Duty or Battlefield can do in that sense. ;)

But ignore all the BF and COD bashing that you'll get from members of this community. Take those posts with a grain of salt because usually those are biased and sometimes inaccurate. There are some here who want to feel elitist by saying how this game is better than other games. But, what they don't understand is that its not required nor universal that games strive to simulate reality. If all games were trying to simulate reality, then certainly Arma 3 would be the best. But some games strive to present an arcade style, twitch action gameplay. They aren't striving to be realistic, and there's honestly nothing wrong with that. Just like there's nothing wrong with Arma 3 trying to simulate reality. Just recognize that its all about different gameplay styles. That's all it comes down to. Hopefully this helps you.

I'll add that "realistic" is even only 'default' (read: moddable) for Arma, and only along the factors that antoineflemming described in the prior quoted excerpt anyway*, and that Arma 3 is heavily WIP whereas COD and BF are "feature complete" in the space of a year or two (MOH: Warfighter was supposed to space out BF, but then the MOH franchise got shuttered), presumably because they're already working on the next one while marketing the current one anyway.

* An example I'd give is that the default Arma 3 helicopters don't auto-regenerate Health or Ammo, even as long as that may take in Battlefield 4 compared to Battlefield 3... but they're otherwise not that much more realistically simulated than in Battlefield, by which I mean that if anything it's actually closer to Battlefield on the realism scale than to the Digital Combat Simulator series' helicopters... although I'll point to this AH-64D Apache Longbow mod as the closest that we've gotten in Arma!

Edited November 16, 2013 by Chortles

[VanZant 48]

I've had Arma 3 for 6 days now and my keyboard controls are getting better. But i'm still not understanding the fuss about Arma 3. I'm playing scenarios - they are like campaigns in BF. and u play according to the script - go there, do this....hunt/look out enemy who is supposed to be somewhere....is this the highlight of Arma? Do u guys like playing campaigns that much? - people say Arma is a smarter game - really? I appreciate the numerous user created scenarios but they are still like BF campaigns. I don't like campaigns as AI can be either too strong or too weak and never perfect. In BF i only played the multiplayer - they were just pure fun. It was fun to shoot someone and think it was a real human on the end that u had just 'killed'.

Can Arma be like BF's multiplayer? I have not gotten into arma's multiplayer yet as i wanted to learn the controls better before i frustrate other players?

Check yourself. This one is a very good coop example.

SP is not very different, more slow as you usually have to use commands, but the essence is the same.

[Gunter Severloh 3951]

In short, if you're looking for a "hop on and play" experience like you'll find in BF or COD, then Arma 3's not going to be the game for you.

I agree with antoineflemming in his post about describing Arma3, as well as other things, but his statement here is true and untrue.

As you should already understand from those already posted, the game is revolved around being a sandbox, its free, fluid, and you can do anything you want.

Limits in the game are only of your imagination and knowledge to do what you'd like to do.

There is no one way to play the game, this imo is the beauty of the game, and is what makes Arma stand unique amongst

all the games like COD, and BF, not saying they aren't good games, they are in their own right, but if you want diversity, and options without

limitations then Arma is ideal, it may have a steep learning curve but once you get your controls down, get familiar with the community, and see

the endless possibilities of what you can do, create, and play you'll find your niche in the game.

You can create any scenario you like in the game, it can be a run n gun, or anything you want, its a matter of design.

As for joining clans, idk what you guys are thinking, i been in clans, ran a clan, lead 2 realism units, trained with realism units ct,.

for this game its really about how you want to play the game, if you like playing by yourself then sp, or even a hosted mp game is fine,

if you like to play in groups, you could join a clan, or squad, or you and a bunch of friends could play, or maybe your like me and just

like to play coop with a friend or two on your own server, thing is it dont matter, what matters is how do you want to play, when you

figure that out after getting familiar with the features and some available missions you'll know where you want to go.

People telling a newcomer they should join a clan isn't right, the game is about options, new folks need to first learn about the

game and what they can do in it, and find out whats available to them, then let their interest lead them to what they would like to do.