Multiplayer

[Krasny 0]

well the thought of 100 player multiplayer on the whole island is already giving me a stiffy  

how will such games be organised? will it be clan v clan? or casual dropin persistant servers?

[EiZei 0]

well the thought of 100 player multiplayer on the whole island is already giving me a stiffy  

Like 40 player coops were'nt chaotic enough already..

[Fires 0]

I'm a noob here to the forums, but old OFP player.

I'd love to see ArmA be a MMOG like WWIIOL.

Does anyone know if there will be a server with a persistant world where you pay like a flat $$ fee a month to play?

Some guys from my WWIIOL squad and myself are looking forward to doing some Multiplayer Ops..

[Goeth 0]

Say no to monthly fee´s.

[martinovic 0]

Add ranks, you put people in command of other people like in the real army. What happens when you do stupid things, disobey orders and backstab in the real army? You get shot in the back of your head by your commander! So... lets mod in a system that allows commanders to choose from a menu anyone from their squad or anyone under their command and execute/kick/ban them.

With a properly built command structure, with good and reasonable people in command this would work (if dumbasses are in charge you lose, but that is the case in real life too), people can get promoted and demoted. Think about it, it works in real life, why isn't it good to abuse this authority you have over your troops? because they will get demoralized, same thing would happen in game and you lose.

There should be a command structure in multiplayer, no more chaos, more discipline.

[Acecombat 0]

@ May 18 2006,15:37)]Say no to monthly fee´s.

amen

[Kin Hil 0]

I would love to play some North Sahrani vs South Sahrani Conquer the Island matches with you folks when the game is out. I'll run you filthy Communists up one side of the island and down the other!

[Commando84 0]

hehee yeah Conquer the island and coop would be king to be a part of great games and would be a fantastic experience i believe im crying out loud every time i hear of delays and armed assault..

[Correction 0]

Add ranks, you put people in command of other people like in the real army. What happens when you do stupid things, disobey orders and backstab in the real army? You get shot in the back of your head by your commander! So... lets mod in a system that allows commanders to choose from a menu anyone from their squad or anyone under their command and execute/kick/ban them.

With a properly built command structure, with good and reasonable people in command this would work (if dumbasses are in charge you lose, but that is the case in real life too), people can get promoted and demoted. Think about it, it works in real life, why isn't it good to abuse this authority you have over your troops? because they will get demoralized, same thing would happen in game and you lose.

There should be a command structure in multiplayer, no more chaos, more discipline.

This is a good idea! It would be neat to have a promotion method based on your accomplishments in the game.

I remember the first Tribes game had a system like this where you could pull up a command console and assign players orders and objectives, but nobody ever followed them. I'd assume that the Armed Assault community would be different, though, or perhaps some kind of punishment for ignoring orders could be arranged. I don't like the idea of giving them abilities to kick players from the game - but perhaps the ability to target them as a deserter so that other players will ignore them, leaving the deserters to fend for themselves. Another method could be a sort of reputation system, and following orders or accomplishing things builds your character's reputation value. That way when commanders are assigning tasks to players, they can tell by looking at their reputation whether they're reliable or not.

Seriously, if this idea could be made to work I would be a strong advocate of it.

[Balschoiw 0]

No ranks. If you want to have ranks, join a squad that has some.

[Correction 0]

What about people like me, though, who would like to follow the chain of command when playing, but probably won't be playing online enough or interested in joining a clan?

[Balschoiw 0]

Erm you already have your chain of command.

[Correction 0]

I get the impression that you and I aren't on the same page. :p

[Acecombat 0]

OFP already has a chain of command , if people abuse it and dont use it then its only the players fault. I dont see what the problem is. Whenever i remember i use to play on CiA server we always had great co-ops because people actually bothered listening to each other and respecting the commander.

The default ingame rank system is good enough for me , no need to ruin it by enforcing some crappy system of rank from battlefield bs where you have to earn guns or whatever. I like it the way it is.

[Correction 0]

I've only played Battlefield 1942, and it had nothing of that sort. But all I was suggesting was that the player gain some kind of reputation for accomplishing goals or following orders so that the commanders know which players are reliable and which are just loonies running around with assault rifles.

This may not have been necessary in Operation: Flashpoint because games consisted of much less people, but I can imagine it getting out of hand pretty fast if over 100 people will be in combat on a 400 square kilometer island all at once.

That's just my opinion, sorry if I jumped on it a little fast. It's just when someone posts an idea that sounds feasable, it gets on my nerves when the response is just "no, keep it the way it is." It sounds like the idea is just being shot down without any consideration whatsoever, even if it wasn't my idea.

[Ramius 0]

I remember playing one of the original CO-OP missions that shipped with OFP. If I remember correctly it was "Seize the city"   . I was in command of a normal squad and giving orders right from the start of the mission. Trying to utilize the tactics that I learned during my army-days. I was trying to get everyone to the border of the forest in line-formation, waiting till everyone was in position to give the command to open fire. I must say that everybody, except for some stupid dude, followed the commands. It was such a fantastic feeling when playing this mission - running - diving for cover while getting fire-support from other squad members. At the end we cleared the city from all remaining enemies, three of us survived the assault.

From all my time playing OFP this is one of my most vivedst and beautiful memories.

I think that OFP and ArMa are such games that for the bigger part attracts the serious gamer, who prefers realism and using real life tactics. Of course there will always be some people trying to screw it up for the rest, but in the end the dedicated people will give this game its long life and keep the servers running. And let us also not forget the newly introduced VOIP that will enhance this experience and dedication even more .

[Zedfragg 0]

martinovic

Not a bad idea on the ranks BUT, It should be an optional thing.

And to be honest i see it being abused way too much, Maybe a "Squads System" like BF2 would be in a good order but an option to "execute" would be over the top because what we must all remember are 50% of gamers are normally asses for at least 2 hours out of every 10 hours play lol wanna know what i mean by that play CSS or BF2....

All teamkills...

Execute would be an option that'd kill multiplayer.

But the choice to kick out of your squad into the "unassigned" bin would be a nice choice.

Personally OFP's system was perfectly fine, Groups with a Group leader...Can't go wrong with "SIMPLE" structures

[Nathan Bedford Forrest 0]

I'd imagine the very large games would be inter clan or inter community affairs. Planned heavily in advance with rosters etc etc

[bravo 6 0]

If you heared on E3 video 16 min (39.7mb) <.10:15mins.> the guy told ARMA needs 3 more months or...

he also said "guys are balancing Multiplayer and designing last hole missions"

what exactly does that mean, balancing multiplayer?

[Guest Ti0n3r]

That they're making sure that the MP mission will have a good balance between gameplay and realism, etc?

[bravo 6 0]

That they're making sure that the MP mission will have a good balance between gameplay and realism, etc?

does that mean we can assume that they are looking for a natural and realistic way to implemente JIP(join in progress) for Multiplayer?

or ... what?

[Yoma 0]

That they're making sure that the MP mission will have a good balance between gameplay and realism, etc?

does that mean we can assume that they are looking for a natural and realistic way to implemente JIP(join in progress) for Multiplayer?

or ... what?  

Or he was just babbling along filling air with words

The only thing i didn't like in Multiplayer ofp is that on veteren mode, when you give multiple players a waypoint, it doesn't appear, making them totally useless unless you want to take the efford of selecting single players and giving them waypoints.

[kernriver 4]

Add ranks, you put people in command of other people like in the real army. What happens when you do stupid things, disobey orders and backstab in the real army? You get shot in the back of your head by your commander! So... lets mod in a system that allows commanders to choose from a menu anyone from their squad or anyone under their command and execute/kick/ban them.

With a properly built command structure, with good and reasonable people in command this would work (if dumbasses are in charge you lose, but that is the case in real life too), people can get promoted and demoted. Think about it, it works in real life, why isn't it good to abuse this authority you have over your troops? because they will get demoralized, same thing would happen in game and you lose.

There should be a command structure in multiplayer, no more chaos, more discipline.

I think that's not such a bad idea for atleast two reasons:

1. With JIP feature, more people would be able to join MP games since they wouldn't have to wait in the lobby anymore. That will make MP games a little frantic in a way that you won't be able to distinguish good players from bad since there will be so many joining...some kind of ranks (or maybe not ranks in terms of military designations, but more as a statistics on players achievements) would be helpfull to make things easier for the commander.

2. Players will know what kind of behaviour they should expect from other players and would stick to good and dedicated ones, rather than poor and troublemaking ones.

At the end, i don't think there should be any banning or stuff like that, we should just politely ask them to leave the game, and if they don't wanna do that then just ignore them.

[Guest Ti0n3r]

Or he was just babbling along filling air with words

Damn, you got me

[bravo 6 0]

In the New multiplayer setup as we can see in the pic below and also in the MP Demo video [25.5 MB]

enlarge

The pool space is kinda small and short on info.

BIS told us there are no limit for players (depending on the server)

So a server can have 100 players or more if server handle it.

With this observation BIS should implement a code or something in order to count the number of players so that the admin knows what mission to pick (by the number of players) instead of counting the players 1 by 1 and then choose a short mission.

Imagine: There are 80 players to play ARMA in a server, do we have to count all players 1 by 1 like the old fashion way?

Would be easyer if BIS add a box with the number or players in that pool.

PS- i know its alpha fase and BIS will change lots. I just want to remmind some insignificant but usefull stuff