BUILT IN MP SQUAD/"BATTLEGROUP" CREATOR

[POTS 0]

I had this amazing idea. People were really frustrated in ArmA because they felt all alone when they played and felt nobody on the servers cared about teamwork because nobody had a chance to know eachother. Lots of people found there own tournaments yes, but 1000's were driven away from multiplayer because it was so disorganized online.

I propose a tool that will let you create your own squads that almost act as miniature "clans". A qualified person through some means of experience such as time in other squads, time online, or a singleplayer training system like America's Army, can form squads online using built in tools. People can then join one of these squads listed online on some view box or something. Then these squads can be organized into battlegroups, again, using a built in tool. It too will be only made by experienced people. Because ArmA is supposed to be realism, it can be built in that ranks matter for these battle groups. Like having to look up to a NCO. These battlegroups can be called platoons or companies or whatever the ArmA2 creators decide on calling them(Preferably something realistic). Then it is up to the people in the battlegroup to form their own forum out of game or TS server or something.

What this ultimately does is bring the people in ArmA2 closer together, giving them opportunities to experience organized combat. Battlegroups may go to war with eachother, or decide on a time to battle maybe using ingame features or whatever maps they've created. Of coarse private servers and public servers are the peoples responsibility as well, but the ingame organizing system will really benefit the average clueless player.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Its up to the people on public servers - if they arent able communicate and organize in a proper way why should someone else or BIS do it for them? If those clueless player only want run-n-gun or somekind of rambo/shooter action they have to face their own disappointment.

Whats wrong with clans like they are now? Frustrated players can simple tryout teamwork and play in some clans. If some of them to lazy to look around and search for good teams - no mercy for this kind of "average clueless player".

Btw how will you or the tool judge who is qualified/expert enough, in a game thats not played because of shiny stats/medals etc? Are "experienced people" really those who have 100000000 points/kills?

[Rak 0]

What's wrong with encouraging people to have teamwork through an interface? I think it's a good idea (and that's a standart in gaming nowadays).

Currently it's so damn hard to have a teamwork with a complete stranger in a game. A built-in interface to create organised squads, proper respawning, let people be rewarded for teamwork would make multiplayer much more fun and would make MP much more popular.

Also, ArmA is not people's job. Most people just don't have time to devote to a clan. They just want to hop-on to multiplayer and have 1 hours of evening fun. So, unfortunately most of the people are "average clueless players". Suggesting them to look for a clan is ridiculous.

A good example is Project Reality, where complete strangers teaming up can usually put most of the ArmA clans in shame in terms of organisation It's also what makes it so fun, knowing that you can hop on to a public game anytime, and you're gonna have a blast of a time with other people.

[Pulverizer 0]

That's not comparable at all. Project Reality is a mod for BF2. Same exact thing happens in OFP/ArmA mods. It's like a simple test that filters out the laziest and dumbest people so naturally you get better teamwork. It's all about the players you play with.

[ck-claw 1]

Most people just don't have time to devote to a clan. They just want to hop-on to multiplayer and have 1 hours of evening fun.

That dont make sense either?

Most clans have no time restrictions on when you can be active.

Hopping on teamspeak for just an hour within a clan-im sure can be an enjoyable time with like minded ppl.

If only just for that hour of play.

[Rak 0]

Most people just don't have time to devote to a clan. They just want to hop-on to multiplayer and have 1 hours of evening fun.

That dont make sense either?

Most clans have no time restrictions on when you can be active.

Hopping on teamspeak for just an hour within a clan-im sure can be an enjoyable time with like minded ppl.

If only just for that hour of play.

Good luck gathering people from your clan when YOU want to play

[ck-claw 1]

Most people just don't have time to devote to a clan. They just want to hop-on to multiplayer and have 1 hours of evening fun.

That dont make sense either?

Most clans have no time restrictions on when you can be active.

Hopping on teamspeak for just an hour within a clan-im sure can be an enjoyable time with like minded ppl.

If only just for that hour of play.

Good luck gathering people from your clan when YOU want to play

Hasn't been a problem so far!

Our members are on almost if not everynight,so if sed person was coming on for one hr a night there would be plenty of members on for him to have an enjoyable game for that hr with teamwork on ts

[POTS 0]

The built in squad process would increase the ability for people to work together. Because it isn't an element they must add to the ingame graphical interface or a new model, it should be quit easy to add in compared to everything else. They probably just have to host a public utility server, then have it interface with the game so when clients get on they will see all the available squads and Battlegroups. It would work wonders for clans and tournaments to get new players. I'm apart of arma theatre of war, and being allowed to use a battlegroup tool for our side in the tournament would give us an acceleration in players joining atow. A squad/battlegroup interface would really give ArmA2 a boost in popularity, and might drasticaly increase their profits.

[POTS 0]

Its up to the people on public servers - if they arent able communicate and organize in a proper way why should someone else or BIS do it for them? If those clueless player only want run-n-gun or somekind of rambo/shooter action they have to face their own disappointment.

Whats wrong with clans like they are now? Frustrated players can simple tryout teamwork and play in some clans. If some of them to lazy to look around and search for good teams - no mercy for this kind of "average clueless player".

Btw how will you or the tool judge who is qualified/expert enough, in a game thats not played because of shiny stats/medals etc? Are "experienced people" really those who have 100000000 points/kills?

lols, i said whatever BIS decides. Preferably a combination of single player training (very difficult training btw) and online experience will give them the ability to be above squads in whatever the proposed battle group structure may be. That way you wouldn't have tomyLOVEShalo lead multiple squads.

[JeRK 0]

Protip: In the slot selection you choose a squad. It's just that shitty missions that many play don't use this.

[POTS 0]

Protip: In the slot selection you choose a squad. It's just that shitty missions that many play don't use this.

Well see, the difference between my squad idea and the ones in the game are only temporary to the mission. Mine are permanent for as long as the players want the squad. People are free to leave the squad if they don't like it anymore, but these squads could last a long time, maybe months. This gives people the opportunity to find tournaments and clans easier and lets people organize big battles with lots of teamwork rather than tomyLOVEShalo camping on the castle keep with a scoped ak-74.

[max power 20]

What POTS is suggesting is more like a ranked friend's list type thing, I think, than an in mission squad thing.