Multiplayer Interface

[jaguax 0]

Anyone else feel the the whole interface surrounding the multiplayer game has not evolved much from OFP?

It's very basic, feels kind of loosely put together and not very well organized... Compared to games like Unreal Tournament, where the server list has every single function you can ever need, player lists, favorites, actual PING #'s (not console style check boxes)... Right clicking ability to open a submenu to get more information about the specific server, etc... Just more professional and responsive as compared ArmA...

It's confusing for the n00bies too... I've heard people say multiple times "Am I supposed to be stuck at the receiving screen?"... It doesn't really let you know the progress of the loading or anything.

Then there's the issue of having no admin or having the admin leave during the game... Then you have to convince everyone to type that #vote stuff to come to a decision for a new admin... If the game gets stuck because of someone who decided to go AFK, there should be some autokick feature... Obviously if you don't move an inch within 10 minutes then you are not playing.

Also, by default there is only 2 chat lines that can be displayed at a time, meaning that your message has a high chance of not being seen when there is a lot of people talking or a lot of server messages being displayed.

Don't get me wrong, it is a nice improvement from the HORRID OFP online interface, but I feel that it could be improved upon. All I'm trying to say is that, it's not the most accessible, user friendly online interface.

Anyone agree?

[aus_twisted 0]

Yes I agree, and for the most part the OFP MP setup was better to use simply because you could actually see peoples names and certain text better. The colors that BIS have come up with really amazes me, for example bright yellow and green text on a very light grey color lol. And the chat window hides behind posted text, makes no sense what so ever as OFP didn't have these problems. Sure looks to me ArmA is to much of a OFP Elite conversion which is why it has all these problems that never existed in OFP along with not enough testing before release.

[Bunkers 0]

Anyone agree?

I agree all the way. The multiplayer interface should include the features you mention. I'm not an OFP veteran so this interface was completely new to me. I thought there were ways to see player lists, what mission is being played, the progress/status of the game etc. and that I just had not found the keys to read it yet    So there is definitely room for improvement here.

Still I must say I'm very pleased with this game overall    Even with the bugs we all know.

Edit: also I'm used to being able to type "stat fps" and other commands ingame. I see people use fraps to read their fps here.

[l etranger 5]

The big problem for me, come from the Mission list.

In operation flashpoint missions was diplayed by filename. So by naming the file of your mission correctly you would know what the missions is.

Now the missions are displayed by Missions briefing name. Mean, you must have a briefing with something like Operation Assault (coop 1-16). So you know what is the type of your mission in the mission selection list.

[.kju 3245]

"Armed Assault main focus is MP"

ofp and now arma are so much way behind other proper mp games

[aus_twisted 0]

Another console feature is the ping to servers in the browser list, these boxes with ticks have gotta go. Players want to see there actual ping not some boxes designed for a console

[Visceral_Syn 0]

Not just only ping information refreshed every x-amount of seconds. REALTIME ! As well as, with current mission playing or waiting state. Prolly asking for too much, but when the Linux deddy is released, list whether a server is Winders*yuck*, or Linux. Prolly asking for too much there...

...Syn...

[Turkmenbashi 0]

The 'box ping' on the server list is probably the most annoying. Apart from that it's tolerable. I spent a good 5 mins trying to figure out if more boxes or less boxes were better.

[twisted 128]

definitely needs to be more informative. Numerical ping for sure. players playing yep. map name, game type yep.

also the laoding screen needs to be more informttive. very confusing to me as i sit there and think wtf? is the map loading or am i waiting for something else like an admin or has the connection just slowed down?

this is a design and GUI issue and can be solved by common sense thinking as shown by the suggestions given by people here.

[jaguax 0]

I just don't understand how these guys are supposed to be professional game developers, and what you get is an extremely basic GUI that looks like it was developed by someone just learning programming/GUI design for the first time.

They are a weird company... They put together an extremely entertaining game but it seems that they also got lazy with a lot of things, such as the multiplayer and the fact that there is a HUGE list of bugs as if no testing was done at all.

Don't get me wrong I love BIS for making this game, but the quality control people are not doing their jobs it seems.

[Silverr 0]

What for "CHAT BOX" into multiplayer menu? It always empty and unusable.

Scrolling of chat messages after someone coming with bad files is a nice entertain too. PGUP PGUP PGUP ... Will be good split chat messages and incoming/outgoing events to different parts (top and bottom side of screen for example).

[whisper 0]

Definitely needs improvement.

Player list is unavailable on most of the screens.

Position selection isn't clear.

Need more possible descriptions embedded with missions, etc...

[whisper 0]

"Armed Assault main focus is MP"

ofp and now arma are so much way behind other proper mp games

Which aspects?

Because other MP games are way behind OFP/ArmA in 1 department imho : gameplay (and variety of it). And for me, it's all that counts (or nearly all )

[Rambo-16AAB 0]

The Whole Multiplayer aspect is Clunky to be honest. If fine when yer actually in and playing ( except the huge battle map view changeover time ).

The fact you can join a game in progress is great, its not great that the map controlls your servers player limits because you have to join as an existing AI character. It limits the battle size or you loose loads of players from a previously big map if a smaller one is next on. It needs changing to the 21st Centuary in that aspect.

Servers should controll the player numbers and spawn aspects etc not a map maker.

[whisper 0]

The Whole Multiplayer aspect is Clunky to be honest. If fine when yer actually in and playing ( except the huge battle map view changeover time ).

The fact you can join a game in progress is great, its not great that the map controlls your servers player limits because you have to join as an existing AI character. It limits the battle size or you loose loads of players from a previously big map if a smaller one is next on. It needs changing to the 21st Centuary in that aspect.

Servers should controll the player numbers and spawn aspects etc not a map maker.

Well, a bit difficult for map makers, then. You build your map around an idea, a scenario, and this scenario fits an X number of actors, usually. You're completely cutting down mapping possibilities if you force by server.

Better have a correct server admin who choses the map with a number of players that fits his wishes and make a correct rotation.

[Frantic 0]

Yeah...the multiplayer screen really needs improvement.

Nobody needs this three strange boxes at the end, or which map mode is played on the server.

We need the actual ping and the map name which is played on the server atm.

The design of it needs some overworking too.

As lill hint just look at OFP and u can see that it looks way better than the ArmA screen now...

[Rambo-16AAB 0]

Having servers dictate player numbers is commonplace in just about every other multiplayer game. Having an admin sitting watching a 24/7 server 24 hours a day is a tad unrealistic so he can pick the maps to suit numbers.

Having played FPs game like DF2, BHd & Joint operations, having the server dictate the player numbers has never hinderd map makers and their ideas.

People are still thinking allong the lines of Flashpoint multiplayer, not moving on into the world of Join in progress type servers - why develop the perfect human body then chop off one of its legs ? Thats exactly what happens if you have this great game that can support huge battles and you have maps that are limited to 5 players.

[whisper 0]

Having servers dictate player numbers is commonplace in just about every other multiplayer game. Having an admin sitting watching a 24/7 server 24 hours a day is a tad unrealistic so he can pick the maps to suit numbers.

Having played FPs game like DF2, BHd & Joint operations, having the server dictate the player numbers has never hinderd map makers and their ideas.

People are still thinking allong the lines of Flashpoint multiplayer, not moving on into the world of Join in progress type servers - why develop the perfect human body then chop off one of its legs ? Thats exactly what happens if you have this great game that can support huge battles and you have maps that are limited to 5 players.

All this games lack exactly what makes OFP & ArmA unique : gameplay variety. The gameplay inside theses game is all the same, Assault mode, CTF, etc...

The map are limited in size, and not that numerous, allowing for each X version for X numbers of players.

ArmA is much much much more flexible than that. there's no comparison

And having player number server fixed kind of kill this flexibility, which is imho ArmA #1 attractive caracteristic.

I never asked for an admin to be on server 24/24.

I just pointed to having an admin that set-up the map list properly if he wants to avoid the issues you described. A map list with maps of the same number of player, and having these map correctly in rotation. It's nothing to do with being on server 24/24, but just setting the parameters properly.

And it's doable right now, it's server admin task, not BI.

Tbh it will end EXACTLY like it did on OFP, with "oriented" servers. And you'll find easily the server fitting your taste, the one running big JiP C&H/CTI/CTF maps, for example. You won't find on these the lil coop missions.

[norsu 180]

Nobody needs this three strange boxes at the end, or which map mode is played on the server.

I agree with the first part but I think that game mode texts should stay. It's much easier for a coop player like me to find out which server runs coop and which something else . Also the play mode text should have a button that puts all modes in alphabetical order, just like the server name button .

[Frantic 0]

Nobody needs this three strange boxes at the end, or which map mode is played on the server.

...It's much easier for a coop player like me to find out which server runs coop and which something else...

The game mode is normally written in the map name.

And the shortcuts of the different modes r not really helpfull.

I think CTF is FE atm...but FE can be a C&H too...so i think they r useless.

Its really enough to see the server name, map name, player number, server ping and if its locked or has a password at the multiplayer screen.

I would really appreciate that!

A design overwork can wait till Februar...

[BloodOmen 0]

I agree that its a quick setup, but thats why this community is so great, because someones probely going to customize it, and make it a whole lot better

[libertyordeath776 0]

I played a mp game by remote. I went back to play later and its like im stuck in remote, cant get back to server list?Any ideas?

[UGH 0]

The interface is awful. It really puts me off even bothering to play ArmA.

A huge oversight on BiS's part and will do nothing but put most new people off the game.

[Visceral_Syn 0]

Bad News: Shackers, in droves are having serious issues with the Multiplayer Interface.

I took a gander at the comment thread over at Shacknews, and while alot of former Battlefielders who were interesting in Arma. Instant turn off by the mess of the MP-Interface. That and the lack of actual ping value's makes it nearly impossible to determine whats good or not until the server is joined, *IF* they can join a server. To make matters worse, do they get the same retail server list ? Is the demo capable of joining a retail server?

...Syn...

shacknews has the demo availible for download as well...

i can almost smell it, a boat-load of n00bs to put virtual lead in...

[Hue 0]

The MP interface is really horrid. Are BIS trying to lose customers when they release a mp-demo with a GUI from hell? I mean this is surely gonna turn alot of people off. I like the gameplay so much and the singleplay experience too. I´ve just spent 40 minutes trying to find a decent server with nice ping with no luck. Hopefully this is going to get fixed, too bad the damage is already done marketing wise.