ArmA2 1.03 Impressions - ALL Impressions/Videos/Screenies Here

[Momaw 10]

While I don't have any real objection to the way the character moves in Arma2 (it's quite realistic and suits the pacing and intent of the game), I find the lighting effects extremely distracting and sometimes nearly unplayable. Like it gets to be afternoon, and everything turns into shades of black and white from the massive over-exposure. It makes it hard to even find the enemy, which is doubly frustrating since the AI doesn't suffer from the same effect and I've died over and over to taking accurate fire out of the middle of a wall of black.

I wouldn't take the feature out totally, it's very immersive when it works properly. The extremes are just... too extreme.

[LJF 0]

I bought the game through Steam.

Eeeeeww ...

And while I can appreciate what the developers were trying to do, the user interface is so very clumsy that it prevents me from enjoying the game.

I quite like the interface to be honest, though I miss being able to drag the windows.

Simple user friendly features are not present, such as a Mini Map, and better Overlays on the interface.

I'd like LESS overlays myself.

This isn't the first 'simulation' styled game on the market, Ghost Recon is similar and the interface for that title was just so much better.

Ghost Recon ... um ... ghost recon to me at least, felt much more "game-ey".

It's difficult to read what is happening on the battlefield, objectives come and go. Driving the vehicles, selecting positions etc. feels very clumsy. There are no icons to click to do what you need to.

It's much more dynamic than most games, sometimes objectives can be completed without your input, and the clumsiness is what I fell in love with all those years ago in OFP.

The graphics are also very strange, the screen brightens and darkens in very odd ways all the time. The game seems to look the best when it pauses to Save Game. The Audio also seems to come from strange directions and I have difficulty hearing spoken directions during the scripted scenes such as at the very start of a mission.

HDR, it is a bit over-the-top sometimes, but I like it like that.

I have played up to the stage where you need to find the Sniper. I feel the game could be so much better, if it just had more polish and time taken to make the user interface easy, without necessarily cutting back on the physics and other simulation aspects of the game.

The campaign is not ArmA2 ... try the editor out :D

All of those things are why ArmA2 is unique, without them it would be just another FPS. For me and I'm sure quite a lot of others, these are the reasons we play it.

Edited July 19, 2009 by LJF

[Petko 10]

Well i bought it and really tried hard for weeks, but i still cant get on with it.

Im a hardcore military sim fan, and would like to see monumental warfare sims which can recreate real world warefare with all technological aspects but i still think that arma is as far from that as it can get.

There are at least 236 people here that can only bark every second that this is a sim and you dont have minimap and shit in real life, but i honestly think this is the biggest bullshit ever said in gaming history.

Anyone with a bit of sense understands the basic concept, that the game should somehow recreate or substitute your real world cognitive sensory inputs as good as it can. And if you loose 90% of this cognitive situtation awareness by loosing your almost 180° motion ultra sensitive peripherial vision, and your degree precise directional hearing you can sense only jackshit.

Thats why even other arcade game like bf can be closer to a military simulation than arma, because even though the weapons systems, the ranges the ballistics, the damages are bullshit the players are more aware where they are, what is around them, where are their squadmates etc. and they can act more like a life soldier.

I tried all the multi missions in arma2 which are loaded on the servers, and everytime i got in one i just saw a chaotic sensless clowning around without any point. Nowbody really know what to do, with whom to do, just goes randomly somewhere to try to shot someone. Even doom had more strategy and tactics than this.

And yes i know that this should be played with an organised commnuity and with teamspeak, but i think that if you cant hardcode in the game the basic military simulation that even random people on a public server act like some kind of organised military system its worth jackshit. If you want to simulate outside the game by chatting on teamspeak you can also try to play the sim with a classic book and dice rpg style and you dont even need a fucking expensive rig to do that.

You should look at the example of Planetside. Even though nobody ever called it a military sim, and the theme setting, the weapons etc. are all pure fiction, thats the only fucking game i ever saw organicly developed military campaings. There was no scripted bullshit just hundred of random players and they acted together like in real life. There were giant sieges, frontlines, supporting units behind the lines, forward bases, squads and platoons working together, strategic command giving objectives, air squadrons supporting and achieving air superiority, supply lines, covert operations and imho it was a thousands times more a military sim than arma.

[LJF 0]

Hmm, I'd like to see more real warfare too, instead of the "gametypes" that exist at the moment. I wouldn't for a second argue that ArmA2 is a "sim", it is a game, a military game, but not a sim - it just happens to be more realistic than ... every other FPS out there.

It is true about your senses, but I really don't think that all of those "hud" elements improve the realness, I'd prefer to lose them and some of my situational awareness and be more immersed. BF2 was good and it worked, but it was a "game", and that is all, it wasn't serious and what it offered was very shallow.

I will agree however with your next point, the multiplayer missions for ArmA2 are not exactly "simulation" in style. Then again, it IS a game, and I'm glad that these sort of things aren't forced as they are in most games. They are public servers anyway, generally if you have people joining and leaving throughout a game there will be only moderate cohesion at best, unless it is forced in which case it stops being fun. If you force creativity you kill creativity, same with a game, if you try to force people to have fun they won't.

I haven't played Planetside myself, but being an MMO you would expect that it would have more cohesion than a public server that operates for 1 hour and has people joining and leaving all the time.

In the end it really comes down to what ArmA2 is. I don't think of it as a game really, it is a world, a world where you can create just about anything you want. I will admit, it isn't perfect, and it pains me greatly to see so many coop servers when it has so much potential. I'd love to see more "simulation" styled missions for it, I'd prefer to play military scenarios - use ArmA2 like the military uses VBS2. The thing is, you can do whatever you want in ArmA2. Like I said, it has amazing potential, more potential than any game I've ever known. At the moment I mostly just play around in the editor, but if it were possible to get together online in a group to do realistic combat scenarios (possibly without respawns) that would be incredible. ArmA2 is a platform, not so much a single game, you can build whatever you want on it.

[bigduksixx 15]

Well i bought it and really tried hard for weeks, but i still cant get on with it.

Im a hardcore military sim fan, and would like to see monumental warfare sims which can recreate real world warefare with all technological aspects but i still think that arma is as far from that as it can get.

There are at least 236 people here that can only bark every second that this is a sim and you dont have minimap and shit in real life, but i honestly think this is the biggest bullshit ever said in gaming history.

Anyone with a bit of sense understands the basic concept, that the game should somehow recreate or substitute your real world cognitive sensory inputs as good as it can. And if you loose 90% of this cognitive situtation awareness by loosing your almost 180° motion ultra sensitive peripherial vision, and your degree precise directional hearing you can sense only jackshit.

Thats why even other arcade game like bf can be closer to a military simulation than arma, because even though the weapons systems, the ranges the ballistics, the damages are bullshit the players are more aware where they are, what is around them, where are their squadmates etc. and they can act more like a life soldier.

I tried all the multi missions in arma2 which are loaded on the servers, and everytime i got in one i just saw a chaotic sensless clowning around without any point. Nowbody really know what to do, with whom to do, just goes randomly somewhere to try to shot someone. Even doom had more strategy and tactics than this.

And yes i know that this should be played with an organised commnuity and with teamspeak, but i think that if you cant hardcode in the game the basic military simulation that even random people on a public server act like some kind of organised military system its worth jackshit. If you want to simulate outside the game by chatting on teamspeak you can also try to play the sim with a classic book and dice rpg style and you dont even need a fucking expensive rig to do that.

You should look at the example of Planetside. Even though nobody ever called it a military sim, and the theme setting, the weapons etc. are all pure fiction, thats the only fucking game i ever saw organicly developed military campaings. There was no scripted bullshit just hundred of random players and they acted together like in real life. There were giant sieges, frontlines, supporting units behind the lines, forward bases, squads and platoons working together, strategic command giving objectives, air squadrons supporting and achieving air superiority, supply lines, covert operations and imho it was a thousands times more a military sim than arma.

Wow. And all due to having a minimap. :j:

[jw custom 56]

Thats why even other arcade game like bf can be closer to a military simulation than arma, because even though the weapons systems, the ranges the ballistics, the damages are bullshit the players are more aware where they are, what is around them, where are their squadmates etc. and they can act more like a life soldier.

OMG you have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about :eek:

[Alex72 1]

Agreed. This guy is in need of talking icons to know where his mates are.

Ofcourse if you skip the most fundamental thing in combat such as communication - your bound to be fucked when the heat is on. ARMA2 simulates this great as you would be completely lost if you didnt communicate with your mates during movements in RL.

EDIT: As for the icons - go lower on the settings and you will in fact have green arrows on the side of the screen. Sorry i forgot this as i dont play those settings. And since you didnt see it online its because they didnt want to play BF2 either. Maybe they should have though if they didnt use VOIP/TS. I dont know. But the kiddie cue's are there. Just turn them on and have fun.

Alex

Edited July 19, 2009 by Alex72

[kremator 1065]

You should look at the example of Planetside. Even though nobody ever called it a military sim, and the theme setting, the weapons etc. are all pure fiction, thats the only fucking game i ever saw organicly developed military campaings. There was no scripted bullshit just hundred of random players and they acted together like in real life. There were giant sieges, frontlines, supporting units behind the lines, forward bases, squads and platoons working together, strategic command giving objectives, air squadrons supporting and achieving air superiority, supply lines, covert operations and imho it was a thousands times more a military sim than arma.

Such a load of BS ! Planetside worked BECAUSE there were always top commanders organising everything (I should know - I was one !)

For Arma2 all we need are maps with High Command function operating correctly for multiple levels. THEN you will see a game that surpasses everything on the market. As the game stands it is just short of brilliant (IF you ignore some of the hardware problems some are having)

[arma2mods 10]

MP is as tactical as is people playing it in the server. With random server you get random gameplay that can be tk and all typical antics behaviour there is of course plenty of server who take everything as seriously than real militaries planning mission hours and kicking any people disobeying. You can mod minimap if that is must have to you.

[mrcash2009 0]

You can mod minimap if that is must have to you.

Probably the most important point of all. Arma allows you to create this if you really want it, yes you have to learn it, but it can be done. Theres nothing else around with its guts on the table to be ripped apart like this that's for sure.

You really have to unlearn things to appreciate what this is all about in my book.

For example, I don't have minipmap, i don't have helper icons ... so im stuck in a field with coord, a compass, with a squad I can control and there are enemy's in known locations (roughly) .. so what im I going to do next? How can i best use what i have to my advantage? If you stop "thinking" game, and start focusing on what you would you do in that situation and forget everything else you have "played" .. you might find it rewarding.

No one saying its completely real life etc, but if you think in terms of real life and use it in that way with your approach to it then it would stop that brick wall you get when using comparisons.

I had the same, I used to love Ghost Recon ... and nothing much I liked after it. Then i got this late in 2007 ... then realised what i wanted from Ghost Recon. And yes first of all it pushed me away. Clunky, hmm weird controls ... complex ... not much helpers or clues. The thought of switching anything off at the start was a joke. Now I play with all map friendly tags off, no target sight. I even turn of coords so I can map read for my location by compass and scanning the terrain. basically learning to do things like I would if I was stuck in a field. I kind of "go it" probably a month or two into Arma where it was coming from but I did have reservation just like the fist poster did early on.

PS - if you dislike the keys etc, you could always use voice activation "pilflus" or many others to use voice to trigger chains of keystrokes. I started using it and now Im hooked, dont think I could go back to looking down at keys all the time to control things so swiftly.

Edited July 19, 2009 by mrcash2009

[LJF 0]

Does pilfius work on A2? I tried it back with A1 and couldn't get it working, though I was using Vista which probably didn't help, I'm using W7 now so ... I'll have to check if they support W7, I've always wanted it, sounds amazing.

[Master gamawa 0]

Yeah that makes sense. If there is a button you press to bring it up, like the watch or the compass I have no problem. I am talking about a permanent minimap like the one in COD4.

I don't approve of that.

I didn't know there was a gps in Arma anyway and I am used to playing like this.

[Squigibo 10]

MP is as tactical as is people playing it in the server. With random server you get random gameplay that can be tk and all typical antics behaviour there is of course plenty of server who take everything as seriously than real militaries planning mission hours and kicking any people disobeying. You can mod minimap if that is must have to you.

Yup. I play on a controlled server and we do occasionally get the idiots standing in base and killing each other. But when you play the game correctly and COMMUNICATE, you don't need a HUD. Once you learn the type of game the server is playing, then it all fits into place. You have to learn and rely on communication in the game and paying attention, when you do, you find the game has so much more depth than any other BF type game. I agree that when I got Arma1 and got onto a multiplayer server, and I didn't know what was going on, it was a chaotic mess with no admin booting the punks. But then I SHUT UP AND LEARNED and then went.... "Ah-ha! This is awesome." But it took an effort on my part, and forget what I thought it was SUPPOSED to be. I had to re-think combat and my roles in it, and when I did, I would never consider going back to any of the BF's except as a mild distraction.

---------- Post added at 01:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:07 PM ----------

You really have to unlearn things to appreciate what this is all about in my book.

This is EXCELLENT advice and sums up transitioning from Military BF type of games. Once you stop thinking what everybody has copied since BF1942 then you really start down the road of a true Arma Jedi.

[Petko 10]

In the end it really comes down to what ArmA2 is. I don't think of it as a game really, it is a world, a world where you can create just about anything you want. I will admit, it isn't perfect, and it pains me greatly to see so many coop servers when it has so much potential. I'd love to see more "simulation" styled missions for it, I'd prefer to play military scenarios - use ArmA2 like the military uses VBS2. The thing is, you can do whatever you want in ArmA2. Like I said, it has amazing potential, more potential than any game I've ever known. At the moment I mostly just play around in the editor, but if it were possible to get together online in a group to do realistic combat scenarios (possibly without respawns) that would be incredible. ArmA2 is a platform, not so much a single game, you can build whatever you want on it.

I absolutely agree, that it has potential. Even if its unoptimised and heavily bugged the visual recreation of the terrain is pretty good for a real military simulation. And i realise and see how modable it is. But it just stops there. Its not really working, because its unfinished. And i dont see any good user made content coming out for it, just those crappy clowny coops where the gameplay is lack any trace of a serious military sim.

And although I belive in the potential of user made contents, but if the official developers never finish hardcoding things that can make it a working simulation, whatever the modders do it will always stay a weak patchwork.

[Daniel 0]

I find it a shame that coop has become the word for evo and dom style games. To me, coop is all about realistic military scenarios. People say, they're going back to Single Player because the multiplayer is too unrealistic or simply not fun, when if you join the right group, it's the extreme opposite.

The only games worth playing in my mind are:

Co-operative realistic scenarios against cleverly set up enemy AI.

Co-operative realistic scenarios against other like-minded teams.

Novelty missions, games with a good story to them, or just full blown death matches for shits and giggles.

The bigger public games where you forever roam the map killing off randomly placed AI are just soul destroying.

[hoak 0]

I find Gel214th topic post and reaction to ArmA II is a common and valid; and I think a lot of ArmA Vet reaction in turn probably sounds defensive even when we're just explaining -- as there's so much to explain... Gel214th, while you are in part correct, in that the ArmA II interface could use more layers of simplicity to control and manage deeper layers of complexity -- the issue is the sheer volume of features the game offers, and the interface control design is practical (and very configurable) once learned.

I think it's reasonable to compare the ArmA II interface to professional applications like 3D Studio Max, Photoshop or even some alternative Operating Systems like Oberon; many first time Users look at these applications and are humbled, feel stumped and helpless, and can't even do the basic things (or find them an awkward chore) they could do in much simpler less capable applications swiftly and efficiently.

However, once mastered one learns that these interfaces are very 'workman like' i.e. they're very efficient for getting work done when you know your way around, and are actually easier then a high level interface that does a lot of hand-holding. Most importantly this kind of interface offers you more direct and immediate control once learned.

Some of what seems unusual or awkward about ArmA II probably also stems from it being Czech game; with different influences of culture, language, and thought driving the design -- though the Czech people in general and BI specifically and are very rational and I think you'll find with repeated play and a little customization (and it's possible to customize the heck out of ArmA II's binds and even it's interface if you desire) you'll find the game very intuitive, and even some aspects of what frustrated you before brilliant.

ArmA II is also a much more adult/serious game then games that advertise themselves as being similar, though ArmA II's representations are much more honest... So, all the aforesaid is pretty much as it must be to work with the game's enormous feature payload, and allow you to do all the things you can do with ArmA II.

And it's ArmA II's sheer volume of features, detail and capability that can hook anyone that gives it a chance -- if you feel overwhelmed or frustrated with some aspect of the game, there's always something else you can try, or play with; like the mission builder that offers a wizard like interface to create very cool missions, or even adventures where you can just go explore, or spectate a battle or event you've created.

:)

[cadmium77 16]

Daniel;1370554']I find it a shame that coop has become the word for evo and dom style games. To me' date=' coop is all about realistic military scenarios. People say, they're going back to Single Player because the multiplayer is too unrealistic or simply not fun, when if you join the right group, it's the extreme opposite.

The only games worth playing in my mind are:

Co-operative realistic scenarios against cleverly set up enemy AI.

Co-operative realistic scenarios against other like-minded teams.

Novelty missions, games with a good story to them, or just full blown death matches for shits and giggles.

The bigger public games where you forever roam the map killing off randomly placed AI are just soul destroying.[/quote']

I wasted last night going from server to server trying to find a game that wasn't pure idiocy a la BF2. I was actually cursing myself for buying the game. And this game is unreal. I suppose they're young guys that have no clue what it is we have here..

---------- Post added at 02:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:10 PM ----------

Well i bought it and really tried hard for weeks, but i still cant get on with it.

Im a hardcore military sim fan, and would like to see monumental warfare sims which can recreate real world warefare with all technological aspects but i still think that arma is as far from that as it can get.

There are at least 236 people here that can only bark every second that this is a sim and you dont have minimap and shit in real life, but i honestly think this is the biggest bullshit ever said in gaming history.

Anyone with a bit of sense understands the basic concept, that the game should somehow recreate or substitute your real world cognitive sensory inputs as good as it can. And if you loose 90% of this cognitive situtation awareness by loosing your almost 180° motion ultra sensitive peripherial vision, and your degree precise directional hearing you can sense only jackshit.

Thats why even other arcade game like bf can be closer to a military simulation than arma, because even though the weapons systems, the ranges the ballistics, the damages are bullshit the players are more aware where they are, what is around them, where are their squadmates etc. and they can act more like a life soldier.

I tried all the multi missions in arma2 which are loaded on the servers, and everytime i got in one i just saw a chaotic sensless clowning around without any point. Nowbody really know what to do, with whom to do, just goes randomly somewhere to try to shot someone. Even doom had more strategy and tactics than this.

And yes i know that this should be played with an organised commnuity and with teamspeak, but i think that if you cant hardcode in the game the basic military simulation that even random people on a public server act like some kind of organised military system its worth jackshit. If you want to simulate outside the game by chatting on teamspeak you can also try to play the sim with a classic book and dice rpg style and you dont even need a fucking expensive rig to do that.

You should look at the example of Planetside. Even though nobody ever called it a military sim, and the theme setting, the weapons etc. are all pure fiction, thats the only fucking game i ever saw organicly developed military campaings. There was no scripted bullshit just hundred of random players and they acted together like in real life. There were giant sieges, frontlines, supporting units behind the lines, forward bases, squads and platoons working together, strategic command giving objectives, air squadrons supporting and achieving air superiority, supply lines, covert operations and imho it was a thousands times more a military sim than arma.

The problem is avoided in the manner the scenarios are presented online; there's too many servers with simple FPS set ups...and so you get selfish FPS behavior.

What is needed is scenarios where you're not worried about your loadouts or what vehicle you're going to grab. You should be worried about where you start on a battlefield and who your commander is.

The problem lies with the base creation nonsense and ammo crates.

It can only be alleviated on servers where everyone is there with a purpose.

Being assigned a squad or a fireteam or a platoon at the outset is what will solve the problem.

You appear on the battlefield as a squad or platoon commander in charge of AI bots and you will be forced to think more strategically. You will have access through your commander to artillery. This realistic framework will tend to thrust the players towards a more structured gameplay.

I hope, or wish.

As it is it's very dispiriting to see. I want SPI's Firefight in 3d..everyone esle wants CS...:(

Edited July 19, 2009 by Cadmium77

[Petko 10]

The problem is avoided in the manner the scenarios are presented online; there's too many servers with simple FPS set ups...and so you get selfish FPS behavior.

What is needed is scenarios where you're not worried about your loadouts or what vehicle you're going to grab. You should be worried about where you start on a battlefield and who your commander is.

The problem lies with the base creation nonsense and ammo crates.

It can only be alleviated on servers where everyone is there with a purpose.

Being assigned a squad or a fireteam or a platoon at the outset is what will solve the problem.

You appear on the battlefield as a squad or platoon commander and you will be forced to think more strategically. You will have access through your commander to artillery. This realistic framework will tend to thrust the players towards a more structured gameplay.

I hope, or wish.

As it is it's very dispiriting to see. I want SPI's Firefight in 3d..everyone esle wants CS...:(

Yes, this may be all true, but i still think that the crappy interface is still a pretty heavy contributing element that can eliminate any possibility of a real serious tactical simulation.

When i was browsing for servers, there were some missions which were set up seriously and there were also some players on the servers like me who wanted to play it real. The lobby thingie seemed to had been set up reasonable, there were a few marine squads with a SL and a squad medic, and there were 3 fire teams inside (4 persons including a fireteam leader). A night mission nicely started, the objectives were written down in the journal.

I was the medic for one of the squads.

But then i realised that i didn have any fucking clue where my squad is, only the sl was shown with the green diamond (it was damn hard to see it because it was so dimmed, and the sergeant stripes were sometimes disappearing). There wasn there any info where my squad is which i should heal. It was also damn hard to even know where my SL is, because he wasnt shown nowhere on the map or whatever. I tried to follow him, but when i jumped in a helo i didnt even know if he is on the same chopper, or he jumped in the other. The chopper has brought us somewhere, and the mission was to stop some convoy. There were a bouch of other guys there but i even didnt know if they were AI or human, or if they from our unit or an other. I managed to find my sl and i was just running behind him.

He went somewhere behind a tree and then some firefight started. There were mixed enemy and friendly units running around. My sl was shot and died. I tried to figure out which units are friendly or enemy because i didnt know from which direction the friendlies or the enemies can be. Finally i was able to shot down a few enemies just because i saw they were directing the fire towards me. And a few seconds later i was shot down from an unknown direction. And all this time i even didnt know if there were any units from my squad around me whom i should have healed. So i just laguhed big time and left the server. The mission set up and the players were serious, but the game just played out like a bad joke. My SL didnt had any clue where his squad is and where the other squads are, but i just sticked to him. I didnt know where my squad is or where we are going or who are the friendly units around us, from what direction can we expect enemy units or where are any other friendlies around us.

So i dont see how can be this called a serious military sim and what difference does it have compared to pointless aracade games?

[Squigibo 10]

Unfortunately people don't take time to learn the game either through setting up missions in the editor or doing any homework. They expect to install the game, and jump on a server and have their hands held all the way through completion. If you don't know where your squad leader is, try something called "communication". Ask where he is on the map and head in that direction. Don't expect the game to hold your hand all the way through. Once you learn how it all works, it's really quite simple. Don't expect BF2 type of interface and to be baby sat.

[Petko 10]

Unfortunately people don't take time to learn the game either through setting up missions in the editor or doing any homework. They expect to install the game, and jump on a server and have their hands held all the way through completion. If you don't know where your squad leader is, try something called "communication". Ask where he is on the map and head in that direction. Don't expect the game to hold your hand all the way through. Once you learn how it all works, it's really quite simple. Don't expect BF2 type of interface and to be baby sat.

Are you addressing this to my post? Because it seems your answering to someone else. It doesnt have any relevant info on my problems.

[cadmium77 16]

I suppose the only answer is to join a tight community devoted to actually using this military sim as a sim or to simply be content with using the map editor to generate your own scenarios for single play.

As it is now from what I've seen, this game online is like watching a mentally retarded kid clutching a Hewlett Packard 41-CV and using it to dig in the sand in his poo filled sandbox.

It was the same problem with Dunnigan's SPI wargames back in the 80's; try finding someone to play them with. :(

[Scrub 0]

Unfortunately people don't take time to learn the game either through setting up missions in the editor or doing any homework. They expect to install the game, and jump on a server and have their hands held all the way through completion. If you don't know where your squad leader is, try something called "communication". Ask where he is on the map and head in that direction. Don't expect the game to hold your hand all the way through. Once you learn how it all works, it's really quite simple. Don't expect BF2 type of interface and to be baby sat.

+1. If you want to play with indicators and waypoints, people need to find a server where the missions are in regular or cadet mode, or make them yourself and offer. Otherwise it's 'closer' to being dropped in in real life. Holler or otherwise communicate with each other, read the map, coordinate. Use Direct speak if available on the server (I have never seen this broken, but some have experienced it) to communicate and get orienting feedback at the same time.

Truth is this game is and always has been about effort, in setting up, in making addons for, and even playing

[An Fiach 10]

Yes, this may be all true, but i still think that the crappy interface is still a pretty heavy contributing element that can eliminate any possibility of a real serious tactical simulation.

When i was browsing for servers, there were some missions which were set up seriously and there were also some players on the servers like me who wanted to play it real. The lobby thingie seemed to had been set up reasonable, there were a few marine squads with a SL and a squad medic, and there were 3 fire teams inside (4 persons including a fireteam leader). A night mission nicely started, the objectives were written down in the journal.

I was the medic for one of the squads.

But then i realised that i didn have any fucking clue where my squad is, only the sl was shown with the green diamond (it was damn hard to see it because it was so dimmed, and the sergeant stripes were sometimes disappearing). There wasn there any info where my squad is which i should heal. It was also damn hard to even know where my SL is, because he wasnt shown nowhere on the map or whatever. I tried to follow him, but when i jumped in a helo i didnt even know if he is on the same chopper, or he jumped in the other. The chopper has brought us somewhere, and the mission was to stop some convoy. There were a bouch of other guys there but i even didnt know if they were AI or human, or if they from our unit or an other. I managed to find my sl and i was just running behind him.

He went somewhere behind a tree and then some firefight started. There were mixed enemy and friendly units running around. My sl was shot and died. I tried to figure out which units are friendly or enemy because i didnt know from which direction the friendlies or the enemies can be. Finally i was able to shot down a few enemies just because i saw they were directing the fire towards me. And a few seconds later i was shot down from an unknown direction. And all this time i even didnt know if there were any units from my squad around me whom i should have healed. So i just laguhed big time and left the server. The mission set up and the players were serious, but the game just played out like a bad joke. My SL didnt had any clue where his squad is and where the other squads are, but i just sticked to him. I didnt know where my squad is or where we are going or who are the friendly units around us, from what direction can we expect enemy units or where are any other friendlies around us.

So i dont see how can be this called a serious military sim and what difference does it have compared to pointless aracade games?

If the players are serious they should be communicating and that is how you know where they are. You can never truly know which direction the enemy will come as they are not forced to come any specific way unless it is scripted AI but stopping a convoy is the mission, pretty obvious they will be on the road. Also, if you don't know what the enemy looks like compared to friendly units, that isn't the game's fault you are lacking observational skills.

I haven't spent a great deal of time playing yet so I am not familiar with all of the roles and what is available in the missions, what features are static and what ones must be added by the mission maker. So, the things that are most needed in order to achieve the kind of play you are looking for in a manner that is consistent and easy for JIP, players coming and going; on the map screen an interface must be present to allow the player to see who is actually in their squad, this is important because although you can see names in the lobby, this can change over the course of play. Each squad needs to be auto assigned as a group for communication purposes. The person in the SL role needs to want that responsibility, it is up to them to keep the squad together. If at all possible, a high commander position should be available to coordinate everyone. Mission objectives should be somewhat linear with the exception of side missions. Main missions that have you in Pavlova 1 minute and Berenzino the next are absurd if they are intended as battles (ala Domi and Evo)Warfare type missions with dynamic FOBs would be ideal especially CTI scenarios that are specificly designed for pvp (all units occupied by actual players)not for AI with a little pvp as the end game. Most people play multiplayer games to pit themselves against other human beings, competition is what drives them and points do not matter as much as outmaneuvering and defeating an opponent. Coop is better played with friends, it is the solitaire of multiplayer games.

[niQ® 0]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnTHBjiGHL0 lol

[jakerod 254]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnTHBjiGHL0 lol

I commonly wonder how many people each year die from heart attacks from things like that. Oh and that was pointless.