Some Thoughts on Multiplayer

[Lincoln1stFJ 10]

There are a few things that irk me about the MP community for A2.

I acknowledge that 3/4 of the complaints we hear are a result of an release still in it's infancy and that the real community mods have yet to be released. We should all consider that a little patience is in order.

I'm typically a helo flight or persistent fight kinda player and I almost always play PvP - I enjoy the game only in cases where I fly human players in/out or have an environment that allows me to out-maneuver, out-smart, or roadside bomb a human opponent, over time, and with the devices of my choosing.

Nothing about Co-Op is ever really enjoyable for me. It used to entertain me in the A1 days but now I selfishly see a dynamic and complex engine being under utilized. Don't get me wrong; Co-op is great for squad play and even better for unit training. I fail to see any significant reward for chasing magic stars disguised in an OPFOR uniform. IMHO, the real thrill is in the combat, hunt, or the ambush of human opponents.

I see a multitude of COOP servers that are typically always empty. I see smaller TEAM games that are often locked. There are a few worthy PvP servers out there but they are full often, suffer from hacks, and/or contain highly restrictive gameplay. By restrictive I mean lack of new or substantial weapon diversity, inadequate transportation, or poorly thought-out battle dynamics.

A good example of this would be the BerZerk Sobor missions that annoy the shat out of me for having one car and one bike for OPFOR / no HMV for BLUFOR and no DMR. Even some of the potentially awesome AAS maps still hang too much restriction over the player. Players are encouraged to fly to the AOs but the lack of ground transportation usually translates into some day 1 pilots flying you into the forest. Hiding in a marker, waiting to blast someone while hoping said marker turns another color is an equal annoyance.

I wish to propose that the community entertain a focus shift away from COOP & restrictive play and consider competitive, persistent environments that allow emergent behavior. I'd like to see the player decide his/her loadout, squadmates, and mission objective. Giving the players problems to solve via more dynamic objectives, rather than destroying 8 radio towers at random towns will keep this simulation alive with the competitive crowd. Players need to carry more gear; no real need to restrict players to 4 clips and a satchel...know what I mean?

I don't think many of us purchased this title to fire virtual weapons just to make noise. In my opinion, the folks over at RP-Mods have the right idea. I still can't seem to get access to Chernarus Life to check it out but if I'm to use Sahrani Life RPG as a measuring stick - will it turn into a one sided BLUFOR LIFE where the opposing force needs to spend 6 hours to compete, only to be kicked / banned when doing what the role prescribes?

Recently, I spent time conceptualizing an alternative to the status quo of COOP/CTF/DM/WF. The end result was a detailed and "well" thought out, draft mission plan. My central idea is not an innovation; It's been done in ARMA and touched on in the countless missions we've all played through the years. It is most certainly a product of observation of these forums and the game servers and in convo's had with individual players on both.

I don't possess the scripting know-how to realize what maybe considered a new game mode, but it looks great on paper and when layed out in the misson editor. While I've had some parties interested in developing my concept; If there is interest by a developer here I'd be willing to forward you my write up and discuss it further in the spirit of adding to the community and realizing what I feel could be a very fun game mode or scenario.

I don't lay claim to greatness or even 1337ness; I simply would like to see some more attention given to emergent behavior (combat) scenarios that don't require tower hopping or marker hugging.

Thanks for reading and I hope I gave ya something interesting to chew on for a bit.

-L

[hund 0]

Good initiative there Lincoln, but I'll fight ya to the death to keep my co-ops!

The fact of the matter is that we as a community decide what is popular. If a lot of people want to play PvP then that gametype will become increasingly popular on the server browser.

Now the problem that has arisen in these early days, and I'm just talking out of my ass here, its just a theory, is that a lot of the new guys want PvP, while a lot of the old farts want co-op. The new guys haven't played around as much with the editor, which means that progress on the PvP scene is kinda slow.

As I said, it's just a theory (and a half-assed one at that), but maybe if all you PvP types stuck your noses into the editor and rummaged around, you would be able to supply yourselves with missions and thus envigorate your particular gaming culture within the community.

I know one dude already made a CTF script pack which might serve you well in that regard.

[mad rabbit 0]

he new guys haven't played around as much with the editor, which means that progress on the PvP scene is kinda slow.

Pretty good theory in my opinion. I forget that it's not only the players but also PvP map makers that are in their infancy.

[An Fiach 10]

LOL I was making a comment earlier about this in a different thread. The difficulty here I think is that the most talented mission makers aren't interested. I'm just starting to learn but if you want to toss it my way I'll be glad to add my input.

[Lincoln1stFJ 10]

Thanks for the reply fellas; sure ani, I'll shoot it your way.

I've laid it out something fierce; still need some logic / scripting to make it real.

We'll keep plugging away for sure - its all good.

[galzohar 31]

You may want to look at: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=80452

Granted this mission has nothing that requires actual understanding of the editor beyond units, triggers, init lines and description.ext weapon list, but it should work and be very playable. To make it complete though it would need the whole briefing, map markers etc. Currently it just spawns your team at a place and tells you the objective is ~500m to the southwest. Sorry though, you only have to destroy 6 antennas, not 8. But they're close together and can be blown with 2 satchels, only reason I went with multiple ones is so that you can't just have 1 guy suicide bomb the objective and win. Also antennas have the advantage that they're very hard to hit with rockets, so you can't just get in a safe spot and blow them up from a distance without engaging the enemy.

It's intended to be realistic: has no respawns, both teams start together, and has a well-defined objective (destroy tactically important piece of equipment with unknown exact location), and is different every time due to picking a random spot from chernarus to place the objective every time it's run (and places the assault team properly so you don't have to travel too much).

I'd really like to see missions of this nature made by people that actually have a clue how to make missions properly, and not do the lame workarounds I had to do to get this concept mission out. Again, though, it should be online playable.

[Lincoln1stFJ 10]

As an example;

I want to have the opportunity to ambush a human controlled supply convoy; that convoy's survival would depend on other human player running a forward and rear escort mission or sweep/clear prior to supply delivery to a defined point; enabling said convoy to use that point as a FOB or jumpoff to the next objective.

[galzohar 31]

If the escorting is purely player-controlled, you could make the entire supply convoy as 1 squad, and have the players give it waypoints with the high command module. That is, make a "high command - commander" module and sync it with the commander, make a "high command - subordinate" and sync it with the convoy, and then sync the 2 modules together.

Though I wonder how you're going to make a mission where a player ambushes a player? In general this kind of thing doesn't work, because players will behave differently when they know an ambush is coming. A human will simply not bring up the convoy until all ambushers are flushed out.

[Lincoln1stFJ 10]

If the escorting is purely player-controlled, you could make the entire supply convoy as 1 squad, and have the players give it waypoints with the high command module. That is, make a "high command - commander" module and sync it with the commander, make a "high command - subordinate" and sync it with the convoy, and then sync the 2 modules together.

Though I wonder how you're going to make a mission where a player ambushes a player? In general this kind of thing doesn't work, because players will behave differently when they know an ambush is coming. A human will simply not bring up the convoy until all ambushers are flushed out.

Well if played out over the entire country it'll be hard to root out the danger zones ahead of time. It would be part of the immersion and an actual challenge instead of running around the map.

I'd look to create scenarios where they know an ambush is eventual; just no idea where and when along say a 12km stretch of highway.

So if you had human elements running supply; and human elements running security and suppression patrols - you'd have a human opposing force attempting to engage them.

It would make for a challenging and action filled scenario that would *require* teamwork and strategy.

[galzohar 31]

If you're making it such a huge scale, how will the ambushers know where the convoy is going to pass? Not to mention, the mission will take so long that nobody will want to play it. I mean, you can also make a "checkpost" mission where you guard and check vehicles passing by, and only 1 out of 10,000 is an armed terrorist that will attack you. Realistic? Quite. Playable? Not really.

Not saying you can't make realistic missions that are fun and playable, but you can't make *any* realistic mission and have it be fun and playable.

[hund 0]

Convoy Escort and Road Patrol duties are actually the two types of pvp mission that I do like, since it tends to get less gamey than your usual pvp action. They're pretty easy to set up as well.

As for controlling the action, you can either set up checkpoints along the route, which the convoy has to pass (thus forcing it down a certain path) or you can just mark the route in the editor and trust your players to remain faithful to the scenario. I am partial to the latter, but that version wouldn't work for two seconds on a public server. Personally I don't see anything wrong with convoluting the action like this. Everyone knows the shit is going down in 15 minutes or less, but it beats having to roll around for half a year before something happens. I also prefer road patrols over convoys, since the former has an incentive to actually seek out contact with the enemy while the latter only has the survival of the vehicles in mind.

A good force split that i can recommend using is one ambusher to every three or four ambushees. And never, ever use any kind of AT weapon unless the vehicles can take at least one hit and survive.

Another factor to liven up the action is civilian traffic. Theres no end to the paranoia when you're weaving in and out of traffic and you know that theres a bullet or bomb out there with your name on it, especially if the ambushers are wearing civilian garb and driving civilian vehicles.

Edited July 20, 2009 by Hund

[Lincoln1stFJ 10]

If you're making it such a huge scale, how will the ambushers know where the convoy is going to pass? Not to mention, the mission will take so long that nobody will want to play it. I mean, you can also make a "checkpost" mission where you guard and check vehicles passing by, and only 1 out of 10,000 is an armed terrorist that will attack you. Realistic? Quite. Playable? Not really.

Not saying you can't make realistic missions that are fun and playable, but you can't make *any* realistic mission and have it be fun and playable.

You raise good points.

It would be playable for certain types of gamers.

Think

• Battleground Europe Players
  
  vs

  
  

• Counter Strike Players
  

The latter wants instant satisfaction, headshots; magic stars. Magic Stars (points) are ok but shouldn't be the primary reward for playing any game. Not anymore

Realistic is a relative term - this is after all just a game - but with all the dynamics allowed by the engine - it is foolish to not use it's full potential.

The difference here is persistent combat in a free flow environment.

I doubt you'd have trouble finding combat with a 30 vs 30.

Appreciate the reply.

---------- Post added at 09:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:24 AM ----------

Convoy Escort and Road Patrol duties are actually the two types of pvp mission that I do like, since it tends to get less gamey than your usual pvp action. They're pretty easy to set up as well.

As for controlling the action, you can either set up checkpoints along the route, which the convoy has to pass (thus forcing it down a certain path) or you can just mark the route in the editor and trust your players to remain faithful to the scenario. I am partial to the latter, but that version wouldn't work for two seconds on a public server. Personally I don't see anything wrong with convoluting the action like this. Everyone knows the shit is going down in 15 minutes or less, but it beats having to roll around for half a year before something happens. I also prefer road patrols over convoys, since the former has an incentive to actually seek out contact with the enemy while the latter only has the survival of the vehicles in mind.

A good force split that i can recommend using is one ambusher to every three or four ambushees. And never, ever use any kind of AT weapon unless the vehicles can take at least one hit and survive.

Another factor to liven up the action is civilian traffic. Theres no end to the paranoia when you're weaving in and out of traffic and you know that theres a bullet or bomb out there with your name on it, especially if the ambushers are wearing civilian garb and driving civilian vehicles.

More good points. Im thinking about your force split idea although that almost sounds like it would be unfair to have more+ defenders than attackers, yet the design predicts unscripted engagements so we dont know how they'll play out until you giving or receiving fire.

If there are regular patrols; an insurgent force would less likely position themselves within accurate RPG range or get off one attack before being pursued.

I toyed with the notion of allowing a cobra gunship although that would make movements for INS alittle tough - unless you hide markers and blend insurgents with an active & dense AI Civilian population ( and vehicles.)

Tickles me just thinking about it. :D

[galzohar 31]

This has nothing to do with CS/COD/BF/other games/instant gratification. It has something to do with keeping the game interesting to play and not feel like it's your second job. Any part of a mission that would make the player wish he could run it at 4X so that it's over faster, is a part of a bad mission design, even if it's realistic. If I can go eat lunch in the middle of a mission and not really miss out on anything, then it is bad mission design. If I spend most of my time guarding or walking around with very low chance of actual combat happening, it is again bad mission design.

Just think about how many times you would be willing to replay that mission, and how much fun everyone who are playing it will be having. Of course doing that does not mean you have to throw realism out the window like a lot of missions do with their funky respawn/revive systems.

Convoy ambushes only work when the convoy does not know it's getting ambushed, and the ambushers know exactly when and where the convoy is passing. I just don't see how you can do that with real players on both sides. The ambushers will not know exactly where the convoy passes (placing checkpoints only forces it to pass through those points and doesn't force an exact route), and the convoy will not move in a way that allows it to get ambushed - they will split up the convoy, run over all possible ambush camps around town before moving into a checkpoint in a town, etc. It's simply not possible to make human players play as if they don't know something when they already know it.

Edited July 20, 2009 by galzohar

[hund 0]

It's only bad mission design if you don't like it, Galzohar. I think I might have a lot more patience (and time on my hands) than you, so the quiet times aren't really a problem to me - they're necessary for the pacing of the game. Or maybe I'm in it for the team work primarily, while you're in it for the kills, I dunno. Nothing wrong with either, mind you.

Checkpoint don't force you to follow the route exactly no, but the last place you want to get ambushed is where you have no mobility, which is exactly what happens if you go off-road.

And it does work fine even though you know you're going to be ambushed at some point, try it out. Half the fun is in the knowing, ya know?

As for the force spilt, the ambush force will win out most of the time if they can lure the target into their killzone, even if they are outnumbered 4 to 1. As long as they have some means of stopping the vehicles (bullets will do, bombs are better) and they don't hop around announcing their intentions, they have the upper hand everytime.

But at the end of the day, these types of missions aren't for the public arena. They require a degree of user participation to be pulled off, but with a good group of guys that shouldn't be a problem.

[galzohar 31]

I just don't see it happening - not on a public arena and not on a competitive arena. There are simply too many possible routes that one can take for an effective ambush to be set up.

Just because I like action more than traveling doesn't mean I don't like teamwork. Having lots of traveling in a mission does not enhance teamwork. Having a well defined mission and not having a bad respawn system enhance teamwork. See how AAS/berserk have very little teamwork - everyone spawn by themselves usually and try to reach a rather large zone and hide somewhere in it to cap. No real encouragement to stay together and cover eachother - in fact there's discouragement as not spawning together means you have to slow down if you want to wait for the rest of your team - in which case you're hurting your team more than helping because you're wasting time.

For example of a simple improvement to AAS that will greatly encourage teamwork: Make something like a small AAS with 1 small zone, <500m between the zone and the spawn points (exact distance depends on the terrain in the area, the closer the better as long as the zone is not in the LOS of the spawn points), and have "wave" respawns (all dead players respawn every X seconds), and finally no vehicles. That should result in a much more "intimate" combat, with more action and more stress on teamwork as everyone will generally be attacking/defending the same place and will not have to work extra-hard to stay together. Of course allowing for weapon choices in the briefing screen and saving that loadout so that you don't have to spend time in front of the ammo box at the start of the round would be a big help as well. Limiting weapons isn't needed if the location is well-picked.

[whisper 0]

Why do you insist on removing vehicles? :)

For me, THE main point of OFP/ArmA, what is was made for is scale (and freedom, but that's another topic).

If you're always going to limit the playing area and remove vehicles, you're going at the opposite of what this engine is made for.

It's arguably difficult to achieve teamwork with big areas and vehicles, as well as having action. But imho that's where all the challenge lies, finding ways to make it happen.

that said, wave respawn could definitely be an improvement

[IronPants 0]

I can't believe no one has mentioned Warfare? Granted there isn't yet a great Warfare mission for A2, but it does offer what you're looking for Lincoln. It's PVP within a large scale strategic war scenario with AI filling the roles that humans do not. I fondly remember ambushing a player led supply convoy deep in enemy territory in Arma and look forward to doing the same in Arma2.

Galzohar, you assume too much; many of us DO enjoy the spaces of time between the action, as long as it has tactical or strategic importance. I even enjoy running supply convoys myself, or just providing transport for other people. Talking about your opinion is fine, but projecting it on others is a mistake.

[galzohar 31]

The current implementation of vehicles is rather poor, at least compared to infantry. In addition, missions with vehicles usually turn the majority of the focus to using vehicles and destroying vehicles. Also with vehicles you need to increase the zone size, and that usually doesn't come combined with the much eneded increase in player count. A mission spread around 3kmX3km area will not allow much teamwork in a 30vs30 player game, simply because they'll end up being spread all over the place. Anything under 30 vs 30 doesn't really have room for multiple objectives that are 1KM away from eachother.

Another thing is that low difficulty levels (specifically the crosshairs and 3rd person view) discourage teamwork, as those aids are a huge help to tank operators. They're also a big help for those that use AT/AA missiles. Not to mention the realism and immersion killing that the lower difficulties cause.

It seems mission makers keep trying to make "big", before they have succeeded making "small"...

Respawn waves are nice, but if the wave spawns 1-2KM from the combat zone you can rest assured that more often than not the wave will not reach the combat zone together.

I tried warfare, and on Chernarus it ended up as a town capping fest (drive from town to town to cap, never really fighting actual enemy troops). Like I already said I don't like games that make me feel like I'm some taxi driver (though you could let the AI drive while you go AFK, but again a game that makes you want to go AFK is not a good game). On Utes it was better but seemed imbalanced in terms of income rates - it just takes too long to get enough resources to buy something which results in not-so-much fighting. Warfare can be fun, but like all game modes it needs a lot of tweaking.

Edited July 20, 2009 by galzohar

[IronPants 0]

Teamwork can be achieved in any mission - by working as a team. Distance to AO and presence of vehicles really has nothing to do with it (though JIP / respawn makes it more of a challenge). What you do need for focused, effective teamwork is a command structure. People need to step up to the plate as leaders. With a commanding officer, squad leaders and fireteam members, teamwork emerges. Even if it's a random public server you can usually find three people willing to stick with you, to operate as a fireteam. Of course people will end up spread all over the place in large scale missions if they aren't working together. Yes, small scale missions will funnel random players who aren't communicating with each other into tighter concentrations - but I'm sorry, that is not teamwork.

[galzohar 31]

They will end up spread all over the place regardless of working together or not. Only difference is that if they're working together they'll report enemy positions to eachother, which sometimes might actually be relevant.

Every competitive team game can have teamwork, but not every competitive game puts a strong stress on teamwork.

On a more positive note, if you look at "aas50 pobeda dam v0.32" you'll see how much better it is than many other ASS-type maps. Make the capture zones a bit smaller and add some more unarmed jeeps/motorcycles (or alternatively move the objectives a bit closer together which would be preferable IMO but would require more thought into editing) and you get a great pvp mission, at least for one that is based on respawns.

Though I think the most important change AAS needs is that instead of having "blue" and "red" zones, it should go more like Charlie Foxtrot style, that is one zone in the middle is neutral, and once captured the next zone automatically turns neutral. That will reduce the "respawn-game" effect and reduce the need for spawn camping in order to cap, and will work well combined with the smaller zones.

[IronPants 0]

They will end up spread all over the place regardless of working together or not.

Only if the plan calls for being 'spread all over the place' - which would be a nonsensical plan to begin with, so I really don't see it happening where players are using teamwork. Typically, the CO will want squads to be close enough to provide fire support to each other. The idea that a large play area and vehicles discourages teamwork is a logical fallacy; if anything, it makes teamwork even more of a necessity.

You could argue that it's easier to NOT work together when plenty of vehicles are present, and that vehicles are necessary in large scale missions, which brings us to the truth of the matter: People who choose to be lone wolves are the problem - not missions which fully utilize the scale that this series has to offer.

In fact, my favorite PVP games have been assymetric objective based missions like Obregan Gap (http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=67060) in which there is enough distance to the objective to warrant vehicle transport. With enough players and proper teamwork, this kind of mission really showcases what the series is all about!

Edited July 20, 2009 by IronPants
Obregan Gap URL

[Murklor 10]

Problem is that the vehicle transport really requires two things: Everyone is there at the start of mission (impossible, unless we have lobby waiting... Which will be for hours, knowing the average length of a mission) and some really good pilots (not just good flying, but actual shuttling of passengers and good strategical choices).

Some mission designers seem to "solve" it by simply slapping down dozens upon dozen of vehicles. Which just leave a trail of crashed planes/helos to the objective in my experience... Or a base full of wrecks.

[galzohar 31]

Yes, if you have wave respawns and don't give each member a personal vehicle, of course you're going to get more teamwork even though the map is larger scale. However this is not what you get in the missions that servers are running. Also 5 min wait is quite a lot... Though I suppose you never reach 5 minutes since 4 people dying will most likely happen way before that?

Play something like berserk, and not only each person spawns by himself, the spawn location is also randomized on a personal basis. Therefore if the zone you are defending is under heavy attack, you will die and respawn at one side of the zone while your teammate will die and respawn at the other side of the zone, and due to the fact the whole zone has "busy fighting" you can't exact rendezvous with him, nor do you have the time for it even if you could. Then there is also the fact that the fighting is spread over 3 different objective zones, as well as over the areas in between those.

Evo/dom isn't a lot different simply because how easy it is to respawn and get back into action (assuming some nub didn't wreck your MHQ), which means you can do basically whatever you want and never lose.

At the end, there are a lot of things that can be done to greatly improve the missions in this game and make them truly awesome, but the fact is that it's simply not showing up on the servers.

[An Fiach 10]

There aren't any good missions out there really. Pobeda Dam is fun but it isn't special in comparison with other AAS missions.

@Galzohar I have no idea what your concept of teamwork is but if people are running willy nilly over the map it is not teamwork, even if they are communicating.

@Whisper Just because the game makes all of these toys available to us does not mean they have to be used in every mission. Having no vehicles does not remove the fun and neither does utilizing a smaller portion of the map. However it is possible to have a well designed mission that utilizes the entire map too.

@Lincoln For a convoy ambush mission I would suggest Have 2-3 gun trucks or HMMVs as escort, possibly LAVs if you are going to allow a good amount of satchels and RPGs (assuming the convoy is USMC) and the attackers 1 gun truck and the rest transport vehicles. Then the rest of the convoy vehicles be simply supply vehicles. It would allow the attackers to get in place but not allow them to overpower the convoy and try to not make it a very long route, you could then allow respawns and people could wait to start a new convoy, then the victory conditions for bluefor would be something like X number of each type of supply vehicle that makes it to its destination and place it on a timer so that opfor wins if they do not accomplish that goal.

---------- Post added at 06:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:40 PM ----------

Actually I have an idea for a mission dealing with insurgents that will leave the map wide open for both sides. It would require forced spawning based on server population though to ensure there would be players for both sides in the same areas.

[galzohar 31]

There aren't any good missions out there really. Pobeda Dam is fun but it isn't special in comparison with other AAS missions.

@Galzohar I have no idea what your concept of teamwork is but if people are running willy nilly over the map it is not teamwork, even if they are communicating.

@Whisper Just because the game makes all of these toys available to us does not mean they have to be used in every mission. Having no vehicles does not remove the fun and neither does utilizing a smaller portion of the map. However it is possible to have a well designed mission that utilizes the entire map too.

That's pretty much what I was *trying* to say.

I didn't bring Pebeda Dam as an example of an awesome mission, but as an example of how much better it is than the other missions, and how much improvement can be done.