Some Thoughts on Multiplayer

[hund 0]

I will for once agree with Galzohar here. A lot more can be done with the arma engine than is currently being done. Or rather, it is being done, but mostly for use in closed clans and communities. These missions tend to be somewhat exploitable because they are meant for people who are "on the same page", so you don't get to see them on the pube servers because they simply wouldn't function in that environment.

Now the mission makers could plug these exploitable holes in their missions, but that isn't really in their interest, since it works fine for their private games. Simply said, they don't make missions for the pubes, they make them for their mates.

[whisper 0]

I was not saying it's wrong to remove vehicles and reduce the map.

It's wrong to ALWAYS trying to ;)

I'm not advocating either to use the whole map and all vehicles available :)

For me the in-between is exactly the difference between ArmA and others FPS.

I'm too busy implementing mission atm (shameless plug : see here ;) ), and tbh, many ideas here (coming from Galzohar and others) are more than worth a look, I may seem bitching against but in fact I agree more than I don't :)

From what I gathered, a good mission including respawn (I'm not on the - also excellent - Attack/Defense, no respawn types of missions) :

- should have teamplay tools, mainly a squad management system

- should concentrate players of the same side, if possible at respawn, at the same time, and give easy access to transport if distance is too large for footwork

- shouldn't require spawncamp for success (very good point by Galzhoar here about central neutral zone to be taken instead of confrontational fighting inside already capped area)

Project Reality players add :

- should have realistic roles enforced

Missing something?

[Inkompetent 0]

Don't you you absolutely have to have realistic roles. It can be fun. But can also mess things up. Depends on your goals with the mission. I do however think there should be restricted access to weapons to make a rifleman be a rifleman, a machine gunner be a machine gunner, etc.

[whisper 0]

I'm atm aiming at strict role enforcement.

Ie only pilot to driver or gunner positions of choppers, only crewmen for driving/commanding/gunning tanks and APC, etc...

Thing is I permitted role change at respawn, and made a whole vehicle management system and capture system that also require different types of roles to be involved

[Inkompetent 0]

Sounds like it can be really nice! Yet to see how public-friendly it is, but sounds like an awesome mission for more organized teamplay.

[whisper 0]

It looks always awesome on paper ;)

[galzohar 31]

The problems you should consider if you're going for strict role enforcing:

What does the pilot do when he's waiting for the aircraft to respawn? Or does the aircraft spawn with him?

Same thing for crewman and his vehicle...

What happens when nobody picks those roles? What he's currently out in the field and the respawned guys are stuck with nobody to drive them back to action? Who taxis the guys up to the combat zone in those cases? And why wouldn't he just taxi them on a regular basis, leaving the crewman/pilot (at least for transport vehicles) as an un-needed role?

What happens when you want to change your role? Do you have a script/GUI for that, as the game normally does not allow role switching?

If you'd allow everyone to pick whatever role they wanted - would your mission be played differently in a significant manner? If the answer is "yes", you may want to consider changing it ;) Role restrictions should be no more than fine-tuning the squad, never force it to be built of roles that are extremely different than what people would naturally pick for the mission.

Is there any reason for anyone to actually want to be a rifleman, other than "because all other slots are taken"? IRL there are a lot of reasons to be a rifleman and not much else, but in-game those reasons aren't really implemented: Weight considerations, rifleman IRL has better capability of long range shooting than in-game rifleman, IRL it's possible to reach closer distances without dying first compared to in-game where you simply have no cover whatsoever in some places. And of course rifleman is just an example, depending on what roles you make there may be others that will feel "useless". Not to mention IRL very few people are "plain riflemen". With machinegunner, the guy with the ACOG, the guy with AT weapons, the guy with the M203, fireteam leaders (dunno why they have M203/ACOG in-game, do marines do that IRL? In the IDF this is definitely not the case) and medic, there's very little room for plain riflemen. That is, most of your squad will usually have something extra, be it something they carry on top of their rifle or plain out a different weapon.

Of course you can just make it with no role restrictions first and see how that works, try tweak it around until you actually manage to have all roles useful, and then consider how to actually implement role restrictions into it in a way that won't be annoying and frustrating.

[whisper 0]

During aircraft respawn, the pilot can change class. Afterall, if the aircraft died, the pilot often died too, meaning he is in the spawn screen so he can change role (which answers one of your questions : yes, the GUI stuff for role change is done, it's one of the things "finished" currently)

If nobody picks the role, the affected vehicles are not available. They are a support, not central. Any guy is supposed to be able to take a truck or a car (which are also more available than other specific vehicles requiring specific classes) for transport/taxi.

You spawn as crewman to drive non-basic vehicles, armored ones and such

I do allow anyone to pick up any role they want :)

And reason to be rifleman (I called it Soldier classes) is to actually win : only soldier classes can do the actions required to take a zone

Edited July 21, 2009 by whisper

[Inkompetent 0]

Now that sounds more and more and more promising, whisper!

[galzohar 31]

Ah, that's silly, a machinegunner or AT specialist or grenaider can't take a zone? It seems like unrealistic balance enforcement... Most of the squad members IRL are basically the same in terms of training, only difference is their equipment, which is usually a very small part of their training (for example, shooting a LAW rocket (which is similar in principle to the M136 except it's smaller and lighter and weaker) takes a few days of training to operate and even that is not really needed, anyone can shoot one. Machinegunners/marksmen also generally get only 1-2 weeks of training on that specific job out of the entire training. 60mm mortars, mark-19s, M2HBs and APC driving are all also a matter of a few days of training. The rest of the time those guys get the exact same training as riflemen do.

There needs to be a reason to be a rifleman that is not artificially implemented. For example, in CQB being a rifleman is by far the best role. Machineguns are too hard to aim/shoot in short ranges when compared to rifles, and if playing with no crosshairs scoped weapons are also a disadvantage. Not to mention the rifleman has more room for grenades and smoke grenades in-game. It doesn't have to be CQB, though, any kind shorter-range fighting will do.

Have you come up with an actual interesting way of taking a zone other than "showing presence" or "use an action on something"? I just can't think of anything other than that that would feel realistic and require more tactics, since after all you're just taking a zone, not really doing anything special with it.

Edited July 21, 2009 by galzohar

[whisper 0]

You misunderstood ;)

"Soldier" is any infantry. AT, MG, Marksman (not ghillie sniper), GL, all are Soldier class

[galzohar 31]

Then again, what is the reason to be a "rifleman"?

And why can't a tank capture a zone? I think tanks have good enough "presence" :P

Also I think due to current zoom limitations you should at least make anyone able to use some basic scope, that is, allow riflemen to have ACOGs if they choose. At least until something is done about long-range shooting with unmagnified optics. And probably allow unlimited or nearly-unlimited rifleman slots and make other restrictions in a way that will at least allow some squad structure customization by the players (that is, you can't go all AT, but you can go a bit heavier or lighter on AT if you choose).

Edited July 21, 2009 by galzohar

[whisper 0]

I didn't think much about "rifleman", tbh.

And I want to enforce at least a bit infantry. It's gameplay decision over realism, here (I bet you would hate the zone taking process, it involves flags :p )

[An Fiach 10]

I think it is useful to use the civilian vehicle module also to prevent being stranded at objectives. No transport available? Everyone pile in a civilian truck and roll out.

---------- Post added at 11:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:14 AM ----------

@Galzohar I think it is important to remember that the majority of combat is not vehicle centric and the goal is to prevent the user made mission from becoming so. Vehicles are made for support and any mission design that enforces that aspect takes a great step toward realism and just plain good game play.

[galzohar 31]

The way to make the majority of combat not vehicle-centric is to design a mission that is suitable for infantry (dense areas, short ranges, easy for the AT soldiers), and not include large amounts of armor. IRL tanks are not "only for support", they are a main fighting tool. The just don't work everywhere, which is why you have infantry.

Since this game simulates infantry in a much better way than it simulates armor, I'd like to see locations picked in a way that will help infantry more, and armor less (though you could also make armor-based missions, but like I said the game doesn't simulate that as well). Of course if you play with 3rd person view tanks become pretty decent at CQB too with their unrealistically wide FOV...

[whisper 0]

If you're going to throw "IRL" argument, then don't go against role enforcement for tank drivers/gunners/commander, as I'd really like to see how a AT soldier would drive a M1A1 ;)

And IRL, tanks are pretty much a support tool. You don't occupy terrain with only your armor columns. You don't take prisonners, important ennemy figures, etc... with tanks. Soldiers do this work

[galzohar 31]

I wasn't going against it, was just saying that if you want to do it, you will have to use extreme caution when doing it to make it work right.

[An Fiach 10]

I see many areas on the map that are suitable for this.

[Lincoln1stFJ 10]

Nice, there are alot of good replies and discussion as a result.

I can say that at the end of the day, it is about player preference, usability, and game mechanics.

Gameplay over a large areas forces team play.

• It makes a designate a pilot (see PvP Battle Arena)
  
• Someone will have to drive
  
• Squads will need to group up
  
• Medics will be needed
  
• etc
  

Using grouped elements in a MP scenario usually helps this but there will always be lone wolves. Having adequate transportation that also serves as a FOB or resupply point will allow LW and Teamplayers to work together. With more vehicles, a LW will be less likely to hop in a chopper by himself.

Since all would be human players, the actual outcome is unpredictable and can occur in nearly an infinite amount of ways. Such is emergent, unscripted behavior which is essential for a truly immersible game. This is amplified when two or more players put their heads together to accomplish a mission objective (escort, intel hunt, search & seizure, etc)

Regarding convoys - There's always a limited amount of intelligence available for any given dot on the map. With some play testing; I'm sure we could find a comfortable balance. I like the proposed LAV idea which would could prevent INS domination of opposing force. However, all it would take would be a vied or coordinated RPG attack to take it out.

You'll never quite know when & where you'll be shot at. Likewise with VIEBs, sniper, and mortar attacks.

Blufor would have the opportunity to apply current military tactics to deal with insurgencies. Devs simply have to code those touchpoints in or simulate them.

Eliminating the insta-action is preferred by those who enjoy real-time, varying paced asymmetrical warfare simulation. Yet insta-action could still be found at checkpoints via spawn-at if Blufor occupies.

I don't think the scenario I've summarized would work well with <10 players a side. I do think that with reasonable population, there would be some sudden, high energy engagements with little predictability.

It would be tough. You'd need to be committed to teamwork & designate a commander to coordinate operations on either side. The more organized and cohesive side will dominate the scenario.

Sounds like a shit load of fun to me.

[galzohar 31]

Another thing that is a MUST for a multilayer PvP mission that is supposed to not be "clan only", is that the objectives and the way to cap them are so obviously clear that nobody will be able to make any excuse that he didn't know what the goals of the game are and what he's supposed to do to achieve them.

Even in something as simple as berserk/AAS you see people who seem to not realize that you don't just go in a zone to cap it, you also go in it to stop enemy respawn so you even have a chance to cap it. And in berserk, that the black lined zone is where you actually need to be, not the colored area. Those things are simply not explained anywhere and are only learned by trial and error, which is not a good idea.

For example, when your team captures a zone and the next zone becomes neutral, there should be a big fancy message on your screen "objective captured by <yourteam>, next objective marked in black on your map, do <whatever you need to do to cap> at <wherever it needs to be done> to capture it!"

Also it should be obvious where you and the enemy can respawn and what would prevent respawning at that location. How it should be done though depends on how the respawn system works. For example in AAS/berserk when the enemy team captures a zone it should say (in addition to the "capture" message) something like "enemy can now respawn at <captured base>, move to <capture zone description> to prevent it!"

If mechanics aren't 100% obvious to everyone, you will see a lot more people running around playing like it's a team deathmatch game.

[Alex72 1]

Great to see some activity about mission style PvP. The convoy idea sounds very nice to me. Always wanted to play it. One side have to take a convoy to its destination and the other team find it and attack it using the resources the game has.

It needs a lot of thaught to be playable im sure, but it should be doable with some effort. I wish you guys luck. And dont listen to negative people. Because either way its fun making a mission, and chances are you succeed in making a damn fun and interesting one. More missions with new ideas cant hurt the community. Rather the opposite. :)

Alex

[galzohar 31]

"Destroy X" missions are very problematic, in that if you know where it is or where it needs to pass through, it'll be easy to ambush it and destroy it without a real fight. The bigger the zone, the more boring it'll be as the convoy side will have to clear out massive areas before advancing, and most of the time they will clear out empty areas which isn't a whole lot of fun. Even if the convoy only 2 options of where to be/go, then you're basically splitting the assault team in 2 - 1/2 will have a fight and try do the mission while the other 1/2 will just sit there trying to ambush a convoy that never arrives. That adds on top of the fact that destroying anything that's destructible from a distance is going to make it very easy for attackers in most situations.

There's also the "VIP" factor here - If anyone actually has to drive the convoy, he's playing the "I shouldn't fight because my job is to stay alive and reach the finish line" which isn't a lot of fun and most people don't want to fill that role. A mission needs to be fun for everyone, not just X% of the players.

Not saying it's impossible, but there's a lot more to consider than just throwing spawn points, vehicles and an objective to making a successful and fun PvP mission, not to mention if you want to also keep it realistic at least to some level...

One of the reasons I went with antennas for the objective in my random assault mission was because they're practically impossible to hit from a distance with any weapon that can destroy them - at least no man-portable ones, need to test with vehicles before I add them in. Then again I'm pretty stuck on developing that mission further due to random technical matters that aren't explained at all in the wiki and aren't getting answers on the appropriate forum.

[hund 0]

There's also the "VIP" factor here - If anyone actually has to drive the convoy, he's playing the "I shouldn't fight because my job is to stay alive and reach the finish line" which isn't a lot of fun and most people don't want to fill that role.

Actually that isn't my experience. People love to play the important roles. Look at the medic players, or the transport pilot players, or the logistics players. These guys love to do non-combat job because they are important, and because they get respec from other players for doing them well, even if they never fire a shot.

Same is true for the convoy driver. He is carrying the goods, so everyone will want to protect him. Feeling important is a kick for many people.

[galzohar 31]

And some would just pick that role up and get killed and mess it up for everyone ;)

Didn't say it was impossible, just that if done it needs to be done EXTREME care to make sure it actually works when played on actual servers with actual people. If the convoy driver just waits for the "all clear" and then drives forward, he's going to get bored fast.

[An Fiach 10]

It would be great if someone that has played it could tell me a little about the insurgency missions from arma 1. I have a project in mind that will involve insurgency and counter insurgency but I don't want to spend time on it if I am just reinventing the wheel.