Why are we asked to assume roles in MP?

[dpolwarth 10]

This is a dumb question, but why are people given roles in the multiplayer game? I entered the game once assigned a pilot's role, but I can't fly. I rearmed at the gear station, but ever since then I've wondered why people are given these roles. Is it to speed up getting into the game? Are we supposed to stick to our roles?

I've rarely been able to alter my assigned role as I like to play on heavily populated servers. If someone would give me a basic explanation on the significance of roles I would appreciate it.

Thanks,

Dan

[Big Dawg KS 6]

MP missions utilize pre-placed playable units that players must "fill". It is entirely up to the mission maker however how to implement this, so it will most likely be different for each mission.

[Thirdup 0]

It's simply a result of the way the mission designer made things. A designer (or even someone modifying a mission) can make it any way they see fit. If I want all engineers on my server, I can make it so. If I want all grunts or all pilots, it's simply a matter of editing the slots as such. You could make all the player slots unarmed and let the players kit up for themselves. Or you could make everyone civilians and let them march in protest or herd sheep.

It's simply a matter of vision by the mission designer.

[Juanmiguel 10]

I like to play sniper and sometimes there are no sniper spots left. Does anyone know if I can create an additional slot or do I have to pick anything else that's left?

[Herbal Influence 10]

No, you cannot make slot by yourself while just entering a MP- game.

It's a question of mission design to design slots.

But you can easily open a mission of your own to have all the possibilities - on your own PC or on a public server. If you don't lock the PC or the server there will soon be other gamers showing up to game with you.

They have to take the slots the mission you chose offers.

It's ok to make yourself "admin" when you are the first person to get on a public server.

type: #vote admin YOURNAME

Than

type: #missions

to see all the missions the server (or your PC) offers.

There are much more commands that can be helpful but check the Multiplayer stickies for that.

[galzohar 31]

Often mission makers will allow you to pick whatever weapons you want from a box so your class doesn't matter, but sometimes the basic gear of your class is what you get. Sometimes they will also script the game to give you some default loadout regardless of your class, and then you can change it at the ammo box.

Like said, it depends on how the mission maker designed the mission. But overall, when you join a multilayer game you're manning a character that was placed in the mission back when it was being designed.

[Inkompetent 0]

If playing with some sort of force balance (and to not have 74 snipers with a .50 cal rifle and a SMAW each, completely ruining any fun the mission potentially could have had) it is generally prefered that people stick close to a designated role. But that also demands some sort of structured gameplay and leadership.

Generally slots are there to balance missions though, but if there's free weapon access they aren't really there for more than looks, unless you are a medic.

HOWEVER! PILOTS AT THE FRONT RISK GETTING SHOT! They don't look like a regular soldier, NO ONE expects a pilot to fight on foot, and unless he's very good at informing people that he is on foot because he doesn't want to fly/can't fly because some wad took his helo, then he is likely to get a teammate's bullet in the back of his head.

[galzohar 31]

It's also very hard to tell whether a sniper is a friendly or enemy.

[hund 0]

Yes you're supposed to stick to your bloody roles!

But yeah, if you don't do anything to the mission and just slap in a crate, roles seem a bit ... unneeded, since everyone is just loading their favorite poonsticks.

But now, imagine what I would call a good mission:

There are roles, like any other mission, but there are no crates, so whatever you spawn with is what you get (for instance, a pilot might end up with just a pistol and a few mags, maybe a smoke grenade or two). Now pilots and crew are specialist types, so they are the only ones who can actually operate aircraft and armor. Now the roles start to make more sense, and you should think before you take that pilot slot, because your success in this mission will rest on your ability to fly that aircraft.

[Murklor 10]

Last time I had the discussion about roles and how free-for-all-equipment ruined it (ie an "Grenadier" with a M40 sniper rifle and SMAW... Like half the other team) no one could see the issue :rolleyes:

Anyway, if there is no equipment limitations, the roles are purely for show.

If there are more advanced functions based on roles (building MG nests, GL, MASH etc) the obviously the role affect what you can do.

And the final option, if roles are specific then you're supposed to do what the role says.

That's basicly it.

It's also very hard to tell whether a sniper is a friendly or enemy.

No its not, the friendly sniper is always behind you and the enemy is in front... If in doubt, shoot anyway. If you can see the sniper, regardless of side, its his own fault I say :p

[galzohar 31]

If you want roles from a realism perspective, then good mission (and game) design will result with people naturally varying their roles. Make an mission that's in complete open ground in a game that has such a location, and everyone will pick sniper rifles. This won't be realistic not because you didn't restrict sniper rifles, but because you made a mission in an area that is unsuitable for regular infantry to fight in without long range weapons. Of course if you could stuff like mark-19s and M2HBs would also be useful in such scenario ;p

Using realism as an excuse to restrict weapons usually results in a lot of players that are a lot less useful to the team than others, as only some are actually allowed to take equipment that suits the missions while the rest are "stuck" with unsuitable gear. If you're going to restrict weapons in the name of realism, at least bother to make the mission realistic. Restricting weapons to realistic standards (aka standard squad/unit structure) in a mission like berserk, for example, would result in a major disaster, as tanks would not just be very strong, but REALLY dominate due to lack of javelins. On a mission in a wide-open area, snipers would dominate and the riflemen will be useless.

Bottom line is - I don't totally disagree with weapon restrictions, but if weapon restrictions are to be made, they have to be very carefully considered. In most cases the result of weapon restrictions end up hampering both gameplay and realism, and it would've been better to just let people pick whatever gear they think would best suit their mission.

[Inkompetent 0]

I *love* weapon restrictions. They enforce teamplay. If you have 30 players on each side, one medium machine gun (M240 and PKM/Pecheneg), 1-2 armed cars, and one unguided AT round (note I say round, not weapon)per... say... 4-5 people, only weapons with ironsights or Aimpoint/Cobra sights, and a couple of marksmen per team (ACOG/PSO sights), then we have a quite balanced fighting force in my opinion.

Automatic riflemen and riflemen MUST use suppressive fire, teamwork must be used to be able to close in on the enemy effectively, and the only 'über weapons' that exist are soft-skinned cars that both AT rounds and MMGs easily takes care of. Even the marksmen can take care of them.

No abundance of overly good weapon systems, and nothing that turns it into a sniper-contest.

[galzohar 31]

It really depends on the map and mission. If it's a widely open area, it will be dominated by the marksmen and to a lesser degree the machinegunners, and the rest would be their cannon fodder. If however the mission is a more direct assault in an area that actually has some natural cover so short range fighting is actually needed as well, and your mission has no armored vehicles, than that restriction is viable, but in that case people would pick those weapons willingly anyway. Nobody wants to do a direct assault with a sniper rifle, at least not on expert difficulty where you have no crosshairs to shoot it in ranges that are too short for you to feel comfortable with your scope.

Currently, though, it's very hard to hit stuff at 200m and above without magnification due to the lack of ability to see them well (they basically become pixels at those distances even while zoomed, while IRL you'd see them more than well enough to shoot them), so better sights are needed to compensate for a game flaw. Forcing ironsights/aimpoints on everyone basically enforces that game flaw to come into effect.

Like I said, weapon restrictions can work, but only if extremely carefully considered. I've yet to see a mission where you didn't have that one slot that everyone wants because it's simply in possession the equipment that is most suitable for the mission.

Making sure only 1 guy is effective (ex: sniper in long range mission or AT guy in a armor infested mission) to force the others to support him so that you can win, is imo not a good way of promoting teamwork. Unless you know exactly what's the right equipment for the mission you're designing (which in most cases mission designers fail at), it's best to avoid weapon restrictions so that you don't artificially create unrealistic imbalance.

[Inkompetent 0]

Making sure only 1 guy is effective (ex: sniper in long range mission or AT guy in a armor infested mission) to force the others to support him so that you can win, is imo not a good way of promoting teamwork. Unless you know exactly what's the right equipment for the mission you're designing (which in most cases mission designers fail at), it's best to avoid weapon restrictions so that you don't artificially create unrealistic imbalance.

This is partially tue, partially not true. A properly made mission can rely quite heavily on one class of soldiers: say AT soldiers to take care of enemy AFVs. But if there are decent amounts of natural cover and not as many BMPs to kill as there are soldiers on your team, then it can be highly reasonable to 'run escort' for the AT soldiers, since with enough cover the AFVs must have infantry to protect them, and the best weapon to fight infantry with (aside from howitzers) is other infantry.

[galzohar 31]

When you're fighting mechanized infantry, then obviously having some people carry AT and the others carry more infantry-oriented stuff (machineguns, grenades, M107s) is reasonable. Usually though the mission's main focus is to destroy the armored vehicles (not to mention if there are tanks that require multiple rockets to destroy even from behind due to the hit point system), in which case the non-AT infantry can't do much other than hide until it's all over.

There's also the issue that there are major flaws in the carrying system, both in how the inventory is made and by the fact that weight of gear carried has absolutely 0 meaning. There was another thread discussing this deeply, hopefully ACE2 will come to the rescue. For example:

Instead of having 2 guys with javelin launchers and 1 missile each, with a proper system you'd rather have 1 guy with launcher+rocket and another guy with 2 rockets and have them work together - now you have 3 rockets instead of 2 with the same manpower and weight.

Instead of having the cost of a rocket launcher be less ammo that you'll never need anyway, make it a cost of weight that will make you move slower and get tired faster. That way you wouldn't want to bring more AT gear than you really need, and would actually have a point into bringing M136s. Not to mention they need to fix the M136 so that it's an actual disposable launcher rather than a reloadable launcher with a rocket that takes up 1/2 the inventory.

Carryable crew-served weapons (with the appropriate weight "cost" and teamwork requirement as you'll need 1 to carry weapon, another to carry tripod and another to carry ammo, like IRL) would also be a nice improvement.

Overall, unless you want a 50cal sniper rifle (or a machinegun, but machineguns aren't really worth it ATM at least not until they do something about the visibility/pixelation issue at long ranges), there is no reason not to take some kind of a launcher, preferably not M136 if you can help it. This fact cannot be fixed without modding the game, and is the only real reason that you would want to consider weapon restrictions in the firstplace (because if everything was realistic, people would naturally pick up weapons as they would IRL).

[Apocal 10]

This is partially tue, partially not true. A properly made mission can rely quite heavily on one class of soldiers: say AT soldiers to take care of enemy AFVs. But if there are decent amounts of natural cover and not as many BMPs to kill as there are soldiers on your team, then it can be highly reasonable to 'run escort' for the AT soldiers, since with enough cover the AFVs must have infantry to protect them, and the best weapon to fight infantry with (aside from howitzers) is other infantry.

Sending people who walk to work to fight people who ride under armor is unrealistic in and of itself. At least without some serious fire support. I understand the AI was dumb as dog poo in ArmA1 and seriously needed the help, but mission design was the most serious contributor to the medics with anti-material sniper rifles and AT. ACE countered a good deal of that by simply creating a realistic weight system and you'd never be able to sit down again from all the butthurt that arouse from the ACE team sticking to their guns and not toning it down.

A major problem in all this is there are lots of missions in the real world that light infantry* aren't particularly suitable for, but that's where the community focus is. So you get whacky missions like attacking a hill with line-of-sight out to 3 kilometers defended by tanks and BMPs... armed with nothing bigger than M240s by default. F**k that.

*Light infantry in the general sense; Airborne, Air Assault, Rangers, SOF, 10th Mountain and their foreign equivalents.

[hund 0]

When I do make missions, I don't actually tailor the squad/team loadouts to the mission, but the squad/team structure to the situation. Basically, I delve into some literature for a nice orbat, change it slightly for gameplay enhancement and then think up a suitable scenario for that orbat. It works the other way around too, where I think of a scenario and then look around for an orbat that will fit the ticket.

Just because I have a lot of open ground to cover doesnt mean that I will put in snipers. Manouvering under fire is a lot more fun than picking off targets in my mind, so I try to stay clear of those. On the other hand I don't spam the opfor with MGs because that would mean that my orbat no longer fit the scenario. And your common infantryman does have an effective range of at least 300 meters when used in massed fire, which is more than enough for any place I can think of in Chernarus.

So yeah, I am all about kit restrictions, because free for alls are the death of teamplay. On the other hand, if you have a certain hand dealt to you from the get-go, part of the fun is figuring out how to use that hand to overcome and win.

But the most important part of mission design, to me, is the makers skill at utilizing AI. SOme of the really pro guys can make missions with a 1 to 1 ratio and still make it dynamic, fun and challenging. That is a goal to strive for I think. Any fool can spam in 600 AI and send them your way.

Edited July 21, 2009 by Hund

[Emberwolf 0]

Always love watching guys in ghillie suits sprint head-first into an enemy-held town with a SMAW launcher on their back (often using the DMR as an assault rifle with the floating crosshairs).

There's at least one popular mission (Evolution I think) which does something even worse than unrestricted weapons. It's a blanket restriction where everything unlocks for everybody as they gain rank. A machinegunner spawning in thinking "Yeah, gonna lay down some suppression for my teammates to move up" will be happy to know that they'll not only be doing it with an M16A4, but he won't actually have teammates because everybody will be lone wolfing and going into COD supersoldier mode to steal kills for rank.

Oh, can't forget the lovely individuals who take the medic role strictly so THEY don't have to worry about being stuck crawling on the ground, and everybody else be damned.

Edited July 21, 2009 by Emberwolf

[Murklor 10]

There's at least one popular mission (Evolution I think) which does something even worse than unrestricted weapons. It's a blanket restriction where everything unlocks for everybody as they gain rank. A machinegunner spawning in thinking "Yeah, gonna lay down some suppression for my teammates to move up" will be happy to know that they'll not only be doing it with an M16A4, but he won't actually have teammates because everybody will be lone wolfing and going into COD supersoldier mode to steal kills for rank.

True, it feels off to start as a machinegunner and only have access to an M16 and M136. Granted, it doesnt take that long to get access to the next rank, but even that only gives you the M240 if I remember correctly, not the M249/XM8SAW/etc.

Evolution is a typical case of the wrong type of limitation.

This also apply for vehicles, as it can be a full server but NO ONE has access to helo transports. Or those that do have access have no interest in piloting.

The only time I saw it working decently was when they exlsusivly focused on ranks (luckily it was a very good pilot).

I really hope somebody figure out a good system to handle that...

[Emberwolf 0]

Another game mechanic working against roles is the scoreboard. There's some pressure for people to do tasks which gets them a kill count in certain missions when performing your duties by lasing targets or healing players gets you no credit, even if you were ultimately responsible for your team accomplishing their objectives.

I experienced first hand that in the case of giving medics credit for healing, other players become spiteful by constantly running away or hitting respawn while they knew I was there, while I was healing them. Getting credit for non-combat roles just makes players spiteful and vindictive in extra ways.

I saw someone go out of their way to satchel abandoned D30s in cleared towns in an unranked game of Domination. When I asked them why, they said it was for points. When I asked them what points mattered, I got no answer. What a wonderful waste of ordinance, soldier time, and bandwidth over farming an abstract, irrelevant number which adds absolutely nothing to the combat experience.

[galzohar 31]

I think it's possible to disable the scoreboard? I've always said scoreboards (in any game) are major teamwork killers. Only score that should be visible is "team score", and even that only in missions where it is relevant (such as HOLD).

And your common infantryman does have an effective range of at least 300 meters when used in massed fire, which is more than enough for any place I can think of in Chernarus.

IRL, yes, in-game, not so much. It's very hard to see an enemy at 300m when zoomed in-game. Possible? Kidna, but not nearly as possible as it is IRL. Until BIS or some awesome modder fixes the zoom feature, at least ACOGs are needed to compensate. At least if you play on expert snipers actually have a disadvantage, unlike what you get on the lower difficulties.

Also, if there are enemies 400m from you, you will never just run in an area where they are visible without some sort of heavier fire support (machineguns, mortars, mark-19s...). Of course some missions leave you no choice.

[Inkompetent 0]

Yeah... Kill messages in PvP, and scoreboards in any game mode in counterproductive in my opinion.

[galzohar 31]

I have to say after playing on a server with no kill messages, that having no kill messages increases the realism and immersion by much more than I thought it would.

[Inkompetent 0]

Indeed. To not know if you actually killed a person is an incredible tension-increaser!

[Murklor 10]

Domination in the later versions has disabled the ingame scoreboard you see on respawn, just as a note. You see it when you quit the game.

Personally however, I do think that you should know who you killed... Maybe not realistic and immersive, but great if you got friends on both sides (friends in the most relative term, considering you're killing them). Worst case scenario, imagine if you're playing PvP against a friend and its just the two of you with 100+ non-descript AI. Wouldnt you want to know when you kill him? Isnt that part of the fun?