Multiplayer?

[Brendon 0]

One thing we haven't heard about is Multiplayer as much as the other features. My question is that in ArmA 1, I found it very hard to get into the Multiplayer, since the Multiplayer UI was so confusing. Do you think this issue will be cleared up in ArmA2? Thanks in advance.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

I have no idea, really. I don't *expect* though, any big changes to the interface. But, what is confusing about it? You select a server and join it, then select a player on a side and click go.

Only thing is now, that many addons are "rejected" and many servers will kick you out without warning without any notification as to why. I'm *hoping* for an additional comment field that will download from the server without having to join it, but I don't expect it to happen.

[Call911-AGE- 0]

Would be nice to have a better players list of who's in current servers, an maybe a favs server list u can save probably lil late now.

[Praelium 0]

My favorite multiplayer GI has to be Counter-Strike: Source. Overall it's very clean and organized, and you're able to right-click the server and select properties to provide additional information, like the IP address and list of players.

I think for Arma II, BIS should remove some of the information in the box at the bottom of the server list that requires more room than what is provided, for example, the list of players, as well as other trivial information like patch number and server language. Those can then be added in a new properties box, that, as in CSS, can be accessed by right-clicking the server and selecting properties.

Then, I think for Arma it could be useful to give a couple lines in the box below the server list where an admin can type a message to potential players. Something like "No addons excepted", "Teamplay required", or an introduction to the clan and the website URL are all acceptable, though obviously BIS would have no control over what people say so anything goes.

[stilpu 0]

I have a completely different issue with the multiplayer in ArmA. In my point of view, one of the biggest drawbacks for an increased popularity of the game are the pick-up-game unfriendliness and the comms setup.

It's been proven times and times again that, by enforcing certain limitations and game rules, proper teamplay can be achieved even with the crowds on public servers. Probably the best example right now is the Project Reality mod for BF2. As long as you use the technology to enforce rules and you have a proper comms setup, this can be done and is likely to bring quite a big amount of players. If you expect the players to willingly follow some rules or the chain of command though, things will eventually go bananas in one way or another.

ArmA's issues right now regarding this are some scripting limitations (like the lack of a possibility to properly teambalance players and the lack of tools to enforce server rules - basically you can't correlate a name with a userid in order to kick/ban it by scripting) and, most important, the voice comms setup (everyone can talk in side channel, there's no possibility to deny/assign only certain players to certain channels). Everything else can be done using scripting to some extent.

[wamingo 1]

ArmA's issues right now regarding this are some scripting limitations (like the lack of a possibility to properly teambalance players and the lack of tools to enforce server rules - basically you can't correlate a name with a userid in order to kick/ban it by scripting) and, most important, the voice comms setup (everyone can talk in side channel, there's no possibility to deny/assign only certain players to certain channels). Everything else can be done using scripting to some extent.

Well I for one would certainly not enjoy such facist missions. And I'm not sure I would want to give the mission designer too much power either (eg kick/ban)

It would be better with an easier client interface to reduce the number of written commands (eg to kick players).

Besides, gameplay that greatly encourages teamplay (eg laser+gbu, and hopefully soon: revive), is much better than greatly discouraging solo play.

I'd much rather have a morale-boosting feature when soldiers are close to eachother, than a system that would potentially kick you or stop you from talking to one another.

Make positive rewards instead of negative punishment. The former encourages teamplay, while the latter discourage playing altogether.

[stilpu 0]

@wamigno: You don't have that possibility in the missions scripting, the VM for server commands runs per server, not per mission, and is completely separated from the one in the missions. As for the voice comms separation, this is needed in larger scale missions in order not to clutter the comms (e.g. squad channel only for leaders, group for a squad/fireteam etc)

[ahmedjbh 0]

project reality, now theres a game.

If they can make Arma 2 like that, then they are on to a winner.