Arma needs more arcade-like options....

[bvrettski 10]

op·tion

noun

plural noun: options

1. a thing that is or may be chosen (or not).

Arma needs to be more fun. There I said it. I know this will be a very contentious subject especially around the long time Arma faithful but I think its a worthy discussion to have.

I think everyone has a point on their gaming scale where they think the level or realism vs arcade should be.

1>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<10

Total Realism.................................Total Arcade

For me Arma is about a 3 or 4 most days. I'm suggesting it should able to be between a 3 and a 7.

On one hand the minimalist approach will always appeal to the die hard realism people. Understood. Its what makes some missions play so much differently than any other FPS. If you like it that way great.

On the other hand, to those looking for a more game like experience, than a total realism experience, Arma is pretty darn boring, generic, sterile .... and BIS has made little effort to provide any options for tailoring the experience of any give mission.

For example the lobby is about as boring and uneventful as it gets. You join...pick a faction from a column, pick a slot from a column and go. In terms of game interface sexiness its a zero out of ten. Functional yes but it's the microsoft excel of game lobbies. Who gets excited about that? If you do then check your shirt for a pocket protector. Just kidding. Sort of.

Another example is the score board. Lets be honest. Its so lack luster it almost shouldn't even exist in the game. Its an afterthought on BIS's part that looks more like Egyptian symbols on the side of a pyramid than a scoreboard. Problem is that scoring , like it or not, is the nature of competition and at least for me competition is a big part of why I game. Its part of what makes us want to play better and it gives us a gauge of how we did vs the rest of the players.

You can also throw into the discussion player loadouts. Bulky menus. Digging through crates to swap stuff in and out. Bad HUD designs get in the way of getting right into the game. Some people may get into clicking, mouse wheeling, drag and dripping, shuffling gear around but I'd rather just game than play "Lets accessorize GI Joe" for 10 minutes.

My suggestion to BIS would be this. If your not going to provide any actual multiplayer games ( little coops dont count in my book) then at least add scripts , plugins and other options to the mission designer that would give us more gaming options. Let designers pick and choose how they want people to enter the game. Let it range from minimal to something more graphic and intense. Give designers more options for in game HUD design. Give them the ability display as much or as little scoring as they desire. Why should we care if some mission looks like the worlds most clutter player hud? If it makes the game fun then isnt that the bottom line?

Disclaimer: Everything I am suggesting here is based upon it being an OPTION for the mission designer. I know some of these items may exist and we just never see them because none of the three popular multiplayer missions use them (although Sa-matra built in some pretty nice scoring options in his version of wasteland.) Others may have been created by the community but are never used. in missions. I would argue that BIS is pigeon holing the game by not making these types of options more readily available.

In light of the fact that BIS has their hands more than full trying to maintain, much less finish the game, any suggestions made here probably aren't going anywhere. The issue tracker is full of suggestions that amount to nothing more than virtual memos in a trash can at this point. Its really only being use to address bugs it seems. Any real progress for the game along these lines would have to be attempted by the community.

To those who would oppose any prospect of more "arcadiness" I would suggest that fearing difference in your Arma experiences makes no sense to me and whats the worst that can happen? Arma draws in more players who aren't necessarily looking to play the way you do? That already happened with DayZ. The beauty of Arma is that what succeeds does so on the merits of the mission design and player popularity.....so lets have better and more options...not more limits.

I look forward to reading other peoples thoughts.

Please stick to the subject and keep the discussion constructive if possible.

Thanks for playing...

Edited November 27, 2013 by Bvrettski

[antoineflemming 14]

With respect, this is like asking COD or BF to add in a simulation game mode. You can't expect them to do that, though. That's not their genre. They didn't make their game as a "make of it as you will" type game. And quite frankly, neither is Arma 3.

Edited November 28, 2013 by antoineflemming

[Smurf 12]

This is little to do with arcade-ness of the game. It is about User Interface!

I agree with it, see: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?158503-ArmA-Multiplayer-and-humans

And if you check the modules on the editor, can see that they're slowly adding more functions to the "gamemodes" tab.

antoine, that quote was really necessary?

[Vibrant_Viper 0]

I like when they changed that you had to stand still when reloading to being able to run while reloading (That's a while ago). In the same way I like what they have done with regards to movement and physx.

What I like about the game is that to have "fun" you need to work together and have a community/group of individuals who are like-minded. The fact that such a situation requires a larger investment of your time is, in my opinion, all okay.

Also I don't buy the argument that such entertainment requires "closed" communities and locked servers in order to function. I've been playing with the lovely community from The-Wrecking-Crew who has an A2OA server with ACE/ACRE that is DEDICATED to being an open public server. I see new people joining regularly and getting the help needed to understand ACE/ACRE and the teamplay/tactics, all taught and guided by the people who frequent the server.

I'm unsure if I'm allowed to name communities. If I'm not then I'm sorry and will of course edit.

[mamasan8 11]

Did not read all but...

Menus: I have never seen a sexy menu in any game, EVAH. What I love about Arma-series is that Alt-F4 shuts down the game. Only works in a few games. And the tiny fact that when I click 'PLAY', the mouse cursor stays over 'MULTIPLAYER' next. The most common choice I assume. For me it is, 99% of the time. It's the little things. Entering or backing out of menus, not having to drag the mouse across the screen...big bonus. Menu should be useful, otherwise it is USELESS!!

The scoreboard sux, I agree. Half the time I can't even see my own score. You know, like the most relevant thing I want to see in the scoreboard...I only play Coop but I still want to see how its going for me, K/D ratio.

Last, if you don't like the missions, do your own. You can use the scripting language for exciting scenarios etc.

[UltimateBawb 1]

-snip-

To those who would oppose any prospect of more "arcadiness" I would suggest that fearing difference in your Arma experiences makes no sense to me and whats the worst that can happen? Arma draws in more players who aren't necessarily looking to play the way you do? That already happened with DayZ. The beauty of Arma is that what succeeds does so on the merits of the mission design and player popularity.....so lets have better and more options...not more limits.

I look forward to reading other peoples thoughts.

Please stick to the subject and keep the discussion constructive if possible.

Thanks for playing...

With regards to DayZ, it has affected people playing Arma 2 vanilla (how it was originally intended). The server browser is full of "DayZ start with DMR recruit deathmatch" servers, and it's nearly impossible to find a legitimate Arma 2 server even with the filters.

Scripting options already exist as far as they need to.

"Arcade" has no place in Arma.

[sorophx 25]

what Arma 3 needs is to be more focused on multiplayer performance.

[bad benson 1733]

This is little to do with arcade-ness of the game. It is about User Interface!

I agree with it, see: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?158503-ArmA-Multiplayer-and-humans

And if you check the modules on the editor, can see that they're slowly adding more functions to the "gamemodes" tab.

antoine, that quote was really necessary?

exactly my thoughts. bad choice of words here by the OP (no offence). you can have a super serious simulation (like really serious, not like arma :P) and still have intuitive well designed (visually and functionally) menus. the reason that doesn't happen often is priorities of resources. if your game is hollow and super simple like COD you need lots of action to distract people from that fact :D. i like where the module thing seems to be going. but it's FAR from where it needs to be. sector modules that don't support JIP (maybe they do now)? task modules that don't support JIP either? seriously?

not only that. i'm also totally in favour of BI themselves making stuff like VAS and different more detailed respawn modules. this would free up people from having to do so much UI coding just to get something that is more than what is "the vanilla state" since ofp. a mute map with a few lines of text. it needs to look more like a TOC or something. 2035 my ass.

again. arma doesn't need to be dry and dusty to be a challenging serious game. i still remember r6 rogue spear. the briefings and all that set a great mood before the mission. things like that immerse you. they get you in the mood to succeed your mission. i would even go that far to say that some of the lost people wandering around bases shooting at empty choppers in big coops could be avoided if the whole mission interface would be more streamlined. yes i said it. streamlined. and accessible. as i said in the dramatic thread about the death of MP. peopel who want hardcore simple stuff can still do that.

[ProfTournesol 956]

IMHO ArmA is precisely trying to be at the same time fun and realistic, without trying to be a military training program, nor an arcade game. With success, even if i'm defending some more "fun" options such as melee or gore.

[NeuroFunker 11]

NO. That said.

[timmo1982 10]

exactly my thoughts. bad choice of words here by the OP (no offence). you can have a super serious simulation (like really serious, not like arma :P) and still have intuitive well designed (visually and functionally) menus.

Yes, agree totally.

It is fine to have complex key bindings and actions to achieve complex things, but it makes it difficult when there are no pointers on how to achieve that the first time. It's fine to have a realistic map, compass, GPS and radio but perhaps it would help new players get 'into' ARMA if there were 'tool tips' when opening it the first time etc.

In other words, don't dumb Arma down, increase the intelligence of the player through a better interface that teaches the player how to use it.

[jaemn 10]

For example the lobby is about as boring and uneventful as it gets. You join...pick a faction from a column, pick a slot from a column and go. In terms of game interface sexiness its a zero out of ten. Functional yes but it's the microsoft excel of game lobbies.

The ArmA series has always had some serious UI flaws (such as the action menu), but that has little to do with how exciting the UI is. A UI isn't supposed to be exciting, it's supposed to be functional - not that what we have is functional, by any means.

To those who would oppose any prospect of more "arcadiness" I would suggest that fearing difference in your Arma experiences makes no sense to me and whats the worst that can happen?

The ArmA UI is atrocious, but a better UI would benefit realistic gameplay too. Nothing in your post has anything to do with realism.

As far as arcadey gameplay goes, I would say that the majority of ArmA pubs are already about as arcade as it gets. Finding a public server without third person, crosshairs, player icons on the map, and death messages is nearly impossible. Hopefully this will change once ACE gets released.

[mistyronin 1181]

IMO Arma should stay in its niche and improve the features they already cover. There are other games that fulfill the rest of the market.

[xendance 3]

NO. That said.

Congratulations on not reading the post at all and not realizing he's talking about the UI, not gameplay.

[almanzo 144]

Small coop sessions? Really? ARMA is famous for hosting coop sessions with up to and sometimes over 100 players. You can dislike it as much as you like, but the coop scene in ARMA is quite huge, and is going to stay that way.

Now, I am a bit confused about what you are trying to achieve. There is and has been more "arcade" game modes made for ARMA, also by BIS. The game lobby has nothing to do with arcade or realism, it's a design choice. I hate the server browser, yet I love the game lobby. And as many game modes has shown, for porpuses other than defined and confined roles for a particular mission, it's not a problem to have a more arcade role selection after joining the match. Even ARMA II Operation Arrowhead featured this in a vanilla mission or game mode called "sector control" on Zargabad.

The same can be said about scoring. Ultimately, ARMA has been known to be goal oriented and oriented towards cooperation rather than scores. The focal point has not been on individual achievements, but rather on goals achieved by your squad or team. That is not an alien concept to PvP, in fact I find it rather intriquing to play a PvP match oriented towards common goals instead of generic and stupid point accumilation through head shots and the like. There is nothing that bothers me more with Battlefield than the fucking xp points and constant "gratification" of killing someone or gaining a headshot. I find it stupid.

Now, there are several game modes that ar PvP that is oriented towards the common goal of your side, and it is what makes ARMA stand out as different. I simply end up asking myself why you are playing ARMA. I know "go play battlefield" is a very common response, but in all honesty, why are you not doing exactly that? ARMA is of a different nature than what you are requesting, and that is exactly it's selling point, it's nichè, and the reason it has survived as a franchise for so long. It would be stupid to deviate from this formula in favour of a more mainstream approuch, since it would alianate the current player base, while at the same time contribute little to the casual or arcade crowd.

If you like arcade style gameplay, Battlefield is a better game for you. ARMA has other strong points. I struggle with understanding your approach to this. Just consider the few, yet substantial steps towards a more arcadeic gameplay ARMA III have taken in regards to OFP, ARMA and ARMA II, with it's artificial balancing between teams and such. The majority of the community feels that this is a step back for the series, and I hold that opinion myself.

I understand why it's like that in games like Battlefield. They are competative games, geared towards a different logic, serving different urges. I too, sometimes play battlefield, but my reasons for playing it, the urges it satisfies are completely different from the urges ARMA satisfies. They serve different markeds, they are not competators in the same way COD and BF are.

[james2464 177]

You should try Project Reality Arma 3 when it's released. ;)

If you're looking for structure in the public MP environment.

Edited November 28, 2013 by James2464

[progamer 14]

Why do you want to have the game be stuck between two sides with no one happy? The Arma series have been realistic while other games like Bf or COD offer arcade gameplay.

We do not need some game stuck in limbo with no one happy.

An arcade like experience is for mods and mission makers, not BI!

---------- Post added at 04:23 ---------- Previous post was at 04:14 ----------

We don't need to draw in players expecting "arcade" gameplay. Arma is a niche game for realism and not some 100% sandbox as you seem to think.

The arcade like features and issues we have now will hopefully be fixed by BI. They are highly likely due to time and resources.

---------- Post added at 04:30 ---------- Previous post was at 04:23 ----------

The ArmA series has always had some serious UI flaws (such as the action menu), but that has little to do with how exciting the UI is. A UI isn't supposed to be exciting, it's supposed to be functional - not that what we have is functional, by any means.

The ArmA UI is atrocious, but a better UI would benefit realistic gameplay too. Nothing in your post has anything to do with realism.

As far as arcadey gameplay goes, I would say that the majority of ArmA pubs are already about as arcade as it gets. Finding a public server without third person, crosshairs, player icons on the map, and death messages is nearly impossible. Hopefully this will change once ACE gets released.

Remember back when everybody was excited for Arma 3 being like ACE2? Those were the good times. Many fans already feel alienated, there is no need to make more. There is a need to make those alienated fans feel like they are not.

It feels like the current project lead is trying to make Arma more arcade like though. But who knows, the project lead has changed many times before, maybe again...

[dnk 13]

First, I find the idea of options totally reasonable. As much as I prefer realism, if the game can be both I don't mind, so long as that realism isn't sacrificed constantly (as an option).

For example the lobby is about as boring and uneventful as it gets. You join...pick a faction from a column, pick a slot from a column and go. In terms of game interface sexiness its a zero out of ten. Functional yes but it's the microsoft excel of game lobbies. Who gets excited about that? If you do then check your shirt for a pocket protector. Just kidding. Sort of.

I've never been excited by a game lobby. They're usually the least important part of the experience, as well as the shortest. Being purely utilitarian is reasonable then.

Another example is the score board. Lets be honest. Its so lack luster it almost shouldn't even exist in the game. Its an afterthought on BIS's part that looks more like Egyptian symbols on the side of a pyramid than a scoreboard. Problem is that scoring , like it or not, is the nature of competition and at least for me competition is a big part of why I game. Its part of what makes us want to play better and it gives us a gauge of how we did vs the rest of the players.

I don't get this - it seems fine to me. Provide pictures of better scoreboards.

You can also throw into the discussion player loadouts. Bulky menus. Digging through crates to swap stuff in and out. Bad HUD designs get in the way of getting right into the game. Some people may get into clicking, mouse wheeling, drag and dripping, shuffling gear around but I'd rather just game than play "Lets accessorize GI Joe" for 10 minutes.

VAS. You can create presets one time and then apply them quickly on any mission with VAS. It's a huge improvement over A2's system, though it's not quite as responsive as I'd like yet (3sec pauses for sort commands).

[roshnak 41]

I think it's pretty great that you can tell exactly who read the OP and who just read the thread title before posting.

[St. Jimmy 272]

I think it's pretty great that you can tell exactly who read the OP and who just read the thread title before posting.

Yep the title is pretty misleading. Should be something like suggestion for better/different lobby interaction and UI. This is what happens when you mention only arcade in the title.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Yep the title is pretty misleading. Should be something like suggestion for better/different lobby interaction and UI. This is what happens when you mention only arcade in the title.

I'd say the OP is misleading too.

[bvrettski 10]

Your right. My choice of a title was probably a little off but I can't edit the title now.

To be clear I'm not a BF3,4,5 guy (not a big fan of too many assets in a relatively small area, unlocks, perks, rankups and the money pit mentality of premium packages, etc) or CoD BO (small map twitch shooter CoD fan.)

I choose to play / support Arma because its not BF4 or CoD and I believe in the open model and community involvement. thats said I'm also not a member of the fanboy faithful who thinks Arma should be limited to any one set of gaming ideals. If some kid wants to model a T-Rex and some Ratpors...drop them in Stratis and create the Arma version of Jurassic Park then I say 'Go kid, go!" If sombody wants to model up some melee weapons, throw in some knights in armor and horse for a jousting competition...Right on.

Now if BIS actually wants to give us a game with some multiplayer and define what Arma is (and is not)...close the loop on modding and missions then so be it. Until then I'll push for more tools,options and more fun.

Edited November 28, 2013 by Bvrettski

[sorophx 25]

IMO Arma should stay in its niche and improve the features they already cover. There are other games that fulfill the rest of the market.

for me there aren't :( I've been trying to find a good MP military shooter for the longest time. Battlefield 3? shit. CoD? an even bigger turd. Project Reality for BF2? not very enjoyable without a couple of friends. the best experience online I ever had was in vanilla Arma 2, playing Domination on public servers. most of the time it would be crap. but once in a while a bunch of us would team up, assign each other roles, go out and take that town. it would take an hour or two, but the feeling of accomplishing something would be overwhelming.

3 years go by, and I'm hoping BIS have learned something from the modding community, and Arma 3 will finally make MP awesome. instead, it's even worse than in A2.

in short, I agree with the OP, for the sake of public gaming Arma 3 needs more arcade-like options, to make MP games easy to jump into and enjoyable enough to stay

[dnk 13]

^ You should really look for a community. Pubbing is a miserable way to get the experience you're after. I'd personally recommend 15th MEU.

[iceman77 18]

I'm your savior! Check out my arcade HUD! On a serious note, I can agree with the OP on some points. Though the thread title is very misleading.