I'm really baffled by the way people are playing the online multiplayer game.

[flake 10]

...

7) Get told off for carrying out a DSOT on the chopper machine gun because I am bored

...

Honestly, I reckon train simulator is more exciting than this game at the moment for most of the people playing.

Lol! Shoot gun in base, get told to stop shooting gun or be kicked. Shoot gun in helicopter, get told to stop shooting gun. I was sure i bought this game to shoot guns lol.

tbh you just have to get into the zone. a long long journey to the battle should have the effect of making you try to survive longer, or learn how to fly, but don't take a helicopter on your own or you will be told off :D i'm sure a lot of these bossy people were actually in the army.

[An Fiach 10]

I think the real difference between the two groups is that the CS/COD crowd is mostly younger people that enjoy shootemup type games while the older, more intellectual crowd has laid claim to this particular franchise as their own. This is where they butt heads.

You could argue against that but I think in being honest we can examine how the guys from Pure Pwnage made a business out of behaving like adolescents. That being said, being more intellectual or older does not give one a monopoly on maturity as the recent Professor Gates scandal has shown us (honestly, who would have thought a Harvard professor would break out with the momma cracks?).

I think it is important not to assume someone that is new to the community or does not want to play the game in a manner that some in the established community prefer is an immature adolescent. In fact, professional athletes have shown us that it is possible to be completely immature and pig headed while understanding and even being capable of team play and strategic thinking. It is important not to make these assumptions because this game does not appeal to those ignorant and immature elements of the gaming world as a whole, and while some of those people may wander in here on occasion, they seldom stick around.

Wanting to get into the action faster does not make a person one of that type of player. In the game WWIIOL this same issue came up and the developers chose to address it much as mission makers have the ability to address it here. When the gme was first released it was ultra realistic regarding troop movements so often it would take 20 minutes or more to organize troops and transports and could take up to an hour to drive to the objective simply to die enroute or seconds after reaching the battle. Well this was all well and good but the issue came from these older and mature and intellectual players have lives and responsibilities, they have families and many did not have the time to invest in such slow, long term game play. They wanted to log in and get to actually participate in the battles in the short time they had available. So eventually forward bases which are essentially spawn points were created to cut the driving distance required for operating vehicles and then they implemented was is essentially an MHQ though they used unarmored transports to bring the infantry closer to the objective. It allowed for more intense battles and cut travel times so that players could jump in and fight if they didn't have time to invest in the bigger picture.

This scenario allows for more people to actually be a part of the community and people using JIP can easily use team work even if they are not in on the initial planning but those already in action need to share information and help them to integrate into the team. This is where Warfare and CTI has great potential because you can create a scenario where the the more dedicated players can take time to plan and organize and to orchestrate the big picture while the individuals can still take part; not only by offering teamwork and to fill roles for the overall team but I think the organized team can also look at them as cannon fodder or human shields where the enemy has to contend with them while the team (or squad) puts their overall plan into motion. How hard is it to say to those guys, look here we have an MHQ set out for you, use it and keep applying pressure to the enemy in this area, while we maneuver. Everyone gets what they want and it makes for an enjoyable experience and more intense battles overall.

Of course this really only applies to pvp missions but it may also be possible in COOP missions with the ACM or ones that include a large conventional warfare scenario and of course I am borrowing these ideas from a game where you will see battles ranging from 10 to 400 people which is something we won't see in ArmA 2 but we have the power to scale our missions to the number of participants that we intend to allow on the server.

Anyway I've gone off on a tangent in order to simply say there is room for people to play together and still get what they want out of the game despite looking fo two different things. This community in some respects is quite cliquish. Want to have good team play you MUST join a squad/clan and then they play on closed servers. It is not exactly open and friendly to new players. You come here and you don't know anyone and they don't know you but then you are forced to basically solicit yourself to these groups and then hope you get along and that they play in the manner you are looking for etc, it seems a long process.

I don't see much in the way of the community reaching out to new players or in trying to promote the type of game play they want by being examples themselves. I have had several experiences on the servers that are available to the public. One server is frequently advertised in the forums as being great for team play while I have experienced some individuals on that server to be team players but overall it is chaos, another was a squad server and I had generally good experiences, if the squad was on in numbers they played together with others in a team oriented way and made great fun and if there were only a few still tried to guide players along and encourage team play while in contrast I was on another squad's server and though I have seen videos of them on their private missions showing exemplary teamwork and communication while on their public server were quite adversarial with other players and even witnessed one of the squad members engaging in intentional TK and using abusive language.

This isn't exactly encouraging and looking at the server tracker it isnt promising. It says that there are 882 players online and 622 servers. The majority of those servers are either waiting or down and I have no idea where all of those players are because the numbers in the servers do not reflect the total displayed. Fewer than 30 servers have 10 or more players on them which isn't exactly painting a picture of the community coming together. The variety of missions available currently is not so great that it would cause this divide most especially given that most are playing the exact same missions. May not be important to anyone but it is in the very least, interesting to consider.

[galzohar 31]

If you have even just average of 10 players per server, then 882 players on 622 servers means 553 of those servers are empty.

On top of the other issues, I'd say this game had pretty bad marketing. Too many gamers I talk to never even heard of Arma 2 before I told them about it.

[CaptainBravo 0]

I really don't understand how you kicked ass in COD with using proper CQB tactics. That is, unless you call strafe sprint + jump + aim and shoot + prone upon landing a "proper CQB tactic" (which it is in the COD4 PvP world). Of course this has nothing to do with Arma 2.

Jump aim will not work against an organised team. Moving as a group and each member of group covering different sector. Yes, it requires quick reaction but in real life CQB quick reaction is required. I am not saying COD is a real life CQB stimulation but basic team tactics do work. Arma is more long range combat but certainly not building to building room to room.

So we should stop comparing both and certainly stop with name calling of people who enjoy other games as well. Like many, I enjoy COD and I also enjoy Arma. Both have their attraction.

[galzohar 31]

Not only your argument against the jump-aim guy is invalid (he's using a tactic that is superior to your "proper "tactic and he is going to kill you more often than not, especially if his entire team is doing it), but also COD4 has many other issues for using proper tactics. One of the most significant ones is that by the time you can finish saying "enemy north" you would have died and respawned 3 times by now and the enemy would be at the other side of the map.

I agree though regarding COD having nothing to do with Arma 2 on any level, and all those "this isn't COD4" or "go play BF2" comments are totally out of place. Just because I don't like something about someone's mission design doesn't mean I'm the kind of player that would enjoy a game like BF2 or COD more than Arma 2. Even if I don't play Arma 2 for that mission element I said I didn't like, it doesn't mean I don't like Arma 2 as a game, it just means I don't like that mission element I was commenting about, and it has nothing to do with other games.

Edited July 30, 2009 by galzohar

[Batstat 10]

The Bastige Island for OFP http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=36171&highlight=bastige&page=1 was to my knowing one of the first mission that featured some of your points Cadmium77. In my opinion a masterpiece written by bn880, where the OFP engine was pushed beyond what until then had been seen as the limit.

Our clan played this mission on several ocations. Newer seen similar missions in Arma, but they may exist without my knowing. One ting I'm 80 - 90% sure of, this kind of mission was or are unplayable on public servers. You need strong teamwork, and persistent players to pull this kind of mission off.

bn880 is still around so who knows maybe he or others will suprise us once more. :D

[nyran125 10]

yeah you have to also understand that alot of people's mid range computers that can play battlefield 2 and counter strike cant run this game very well. So you'll will only be playing with people that can actually run the game with 12 battalians of 10 guys each etc etc on a massive scale. Single player for me really tests my hardware and i won tbe joining a massive online battle until i can upgrade my computer which wont be till next year. I LOVE the idea of having huge scale war with 700 people online but at the moment theres hardware problems for mid range users only the top of the top of the line comps can really enjoy that kind of sale at present. My computer isnt stable after about 300 units on the map. 8800GTS 512mb 3gb ram, inter core 2 duo E6700 2.66 Ghz. So ill be just joining up to 100 people online till hardware upgrade which is EXPENSIVE as.

[nyran125 10]

the main thing for me is BIS should of only designed one mode. Thats warfare mode only and co-op mode for Multiplayer. Then we would all be not worrying about anything but warfare mode. Battlefield 2 only has one mode. Counter strike only one mode. Call of duty 4 SHOULD of only had one mode team deathmatch mainly. Arma 2 should only have 1 mode, WArfare and co-op. Its not defined enough on the multiplayer front.

More servers need to go up that are warfare based.

[galzohar 31]

CS has more than one game mode. Unreal Tournament has more than one game mode (and that's not counting the huge amount of community made stuff). America's Army has a couple game modes as well.

Arma 2 has an infinite amount of game modes, but zero good game modes that were released with the game, which is making it hard for players to find their way around playing online (mostly because out of all the infinite number of options, very few are actually working on servers and many of those have their issues).

I agree that if they decided to include warfare as an official mode they should've done it properly, but having it as the only game mode is just silly, considering the game is so much more than just warfare (and that warfare can't even work properly, at least not on full map, performance-wise).

[Redsquad 10]

yeah, i've been playing arma2 online for one month. The coop mission online are chaotic and you can't simply have anyone working together since half the player known each other from clans and the other half are somewhat, had and objective goals but clueless in teamwork.

Dominace are for player who surely have nothing to do but "Have some fun, with lots a great people" sure teamwork would works but when those fly boy took the jets out and add extra hour flight with enough payload to flatter a cities, well that's sum it all up. No more pressing the "W" for 10 minute just to get to a clear spot and took out a binocular only to see the objective is cleared by those fly boys, and they actually have a laugh about it in your face! Cannon fodder player are not to blame for the decrease experiencing of the games, rather they serve a purpose to fulfill the role that you had previously "evolutioned" from. They rejected to conform since some player are having 17 death and 250 kills from jets. Look from the perspective of ground soldier in modern warfare. They would be hailing and cheering the jizz out of A-10 sweeping their wings and droppin their bomb. But in game though, you gotta give some coutersy, cuz other player also have a rough days outside and finally home to get in on the action.

I just think that you are being rejected by the other player because you play in your own tactic that doesn't appeal to the majority. Try saying hi and salute people,show them you have respect for them. and try not to run in front of other player cuz it will just meant that you ignored his line of fire therefore, "you a bad tactician!" and also remember "CO-OP" meant work together not make name and glory.

i rather join server running unique mission like castle or hunt waldo. Player in those server are more co-operating and have a good sense of humour. I'm red by the way. Player you should seek mentor and follow their characteristic of games play are like 50 cal syringe and NZARMA.... Sorry spool lyger, i shot ff your UH-1 with my grenadier during enemy assaulting our base. but you fly boy had enough fun ^_^\. salut

[Inkompetent 0]

Arma 2 should only have 1 mode, WArfare and co-op. Its not defined enough on the multiplayer front.

More servers need to go up that are warfare based.

If Warfare was the only PvP mode possible to play in multiplayer in ArmA I for one wouldn't have spent a cent on the game (and I think many with me). It's one of the last things I'd ever want to play ;)

[cadmium77 16]

---------- Post added at 11:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:27 PM ----------

[/color]

)rStrangelove;1385853']@ threadstarter:

1. You can't expect handling 500+ units in MP with decent fps. ArmA2 is not Empire total war.

2. It's ok trying to get ppl to realize how ArmA2 'should' be played online' date=' but don't compare them to retarded little kids if they don't want to play the game your way.[/quote']

I didn't just compare them to retarded little kids; I compared them to retarded little kids using a sophisticated piece of technology like the HP41C to dig around in the sandbox with.

That is exactly what I'm seeing online.

The online game is 95% retarded. A complete waste of time. It has nothing to do with modern warfare, it doesn't attempt to explore the capabilities of this simulator, it's a massive jack off. I've gone online hundreds of times in the last month trying to find the game being played in any semblance of a rational manner. I've found it only once last Friday. They guys running the show divided us into fireteams and led us on running assaults from one far flung location to another. The teamwork was seamless. I loved it.

As for 500 units on the map I handle that effortlessly (as long as it's not 94F+ and my rig can't cool itself off) with maxed out graphics. The solitary game so far is the most satisfying and exciting; I've created some really great firefights situations like stuff right out of a documentary. Too bad there isn't a single server dedicated to giving you a fireteam, a squad or even a company as you spawn.

With transportation to an LZ near the battlefield almost guaranteed.

And transportation...this is making me sick. I actually have taken a tank from the airbase and driven it all the way across the map to get to a combat zone...twice.

The first time, I got there just as some hacker was making all the trees on the map topple over in revenge for being kicked for flagrant deliberate mass teamkilling. And then all the aircraft fell out of the air and my tank flipped over like it was wieghtless.

The second time I took the long drive and got there just as they were mopping up. I got to knock out one APC that was just sitting there and then the battlefield shifted all teh way over to the other side of the map. Just to make sure my efforts were wasted some donkey jumped on board as everyone else was waiting for the helicopter to arrive and shot off all my limited tank ammo at nothing. Thanks pal.

So basically every scenario with armour is never anything more than guys with Javelins or SMAWs shooting Russian armour. Nobody is going to take the trouble to drive the armour all that distance.

And now I see that there's two packed servers, often the only two busy servers with idiots playing the Chenarus Revolution game which IMHO is the very epitome of mentally retarded kids using a HP41C as a shovel for playing in the mud. The SAT scores have been falling dramatically since 1967 you know. Apparently the nuclear testing in the SW US has done dramatic genetic damage to everyone born since the nuclear testing began..

Edited August 12, 2009 by Cadmium77

[igeighty 2]

I didn't just compare them to retarded little kids; I compared them to retarded little kids using a sophisticated piece of technology like the HP41C to dig around in the sandbox with. .................................IMHO is the very epitome of mentally retarded kids using a HP41C as a shovel for playing in the mud. The SAT scores have been falling dramatically since 1967 you know. Apparently the nuclear testing in the SW US has done dramatic genetic damage to everyone born since the nuclear testing began..

no coffee again mate ??

seriously you need to relax a bit and just join the army....

Its a game, some play it as a game, some play it as a sim, your challenge is to find the people that play the way that you dictate.

[Alex72 1]

How many times does the guys have to tell you?

Join a fucking team. When you do - youll notice how this game shines. Team work and everyone on the same wavelength having a blast playing the way you all want.

Go on most pub servers and get back and whine some more.

Your a choice away from stoppin the agony.

Your choice.

[Oh_Heck 10]

Pub servers are always a crapshoot. It has been that way for years. If you want tactical gameplay, join a team/squad/clan. Thats exactly what I did. Joined the 75th, and glad I did. Squad nights are all about tactics, organizing into fireteams and abiding by the chain of command. So what you are looking for, in part, many of us are enjoying already cause we knew where to find it.

As for handling 500 ai...you are in a small minority of people that can play on that scale with this game. You know its demands on the average system. I like the idea of it though. Who wouldn't.

[galzohar 31]

The problem is on the squad page most squads mostly post about their organizational structure, requirements, what servers they have, and what roles they're looking for people to fill. Rarely would they say if they do any PvP (I bet most don't or they would specify it), nor would they say how many people are on their server and at what days/times, nor would they say anything about where they get their missions. I find that information extremely critical for picking a squad, and will not bother with one that think those aren't important pieces of information worth placing on their recruitment post.

[Slyder73 10]

Wrong.

The game is superb, it's ready to be played on a grand scale.

And why should we have to "form units" when we could be spawned with units, with a fireteam, a squad, a platoon or even a company already attached to us just like our gun or ammo load out or our night vision goggles are spawned with us?

The failure is the lack of vision of the users.

It's like watching a mentally retarded child digging in the sandbox with a Hewlett Packard 41CV as his sand shovel...

Agreed. The OP has hit the nail on the head.

Why don't some of the mission makers for the multiplayer set squad roles and create squads, leader, rifles, medic, support with AA and AT etc. Then let the players fill the roles and work as a squad. Servers would need to turn on the squad diamond indicators so we could easily stick together and work together.

I'm guessing you'd start seeing some pretty good teamwork. Much better than everyone spawning as is now as a single entity, then everyone running to the boxes to load out with a new rifle and a rocket and off they go like the other players mean nothing.

So far in Multiplayer PvP I've been quite disappointed with the level of communication and coordination. It's pretty good on some Co-op servers, with good squads, sticking together and working on objectives, but coop is a guarantee win, its only a matter of time against a computer program that can't think.

Lets see some missions and servers encourage squad based combat in the PvP community.

[blackettle 10]

Unless you bought the game for these people don't tell them how to play it.

[Daniel 0]

Less "game modes", more massive battles. For me, if you want to do that properly, you have to join or form a unit. Friendly AI is and always will be a headache. With shed-loads of like minded players, there is no limit to how far you can push this game.

[Emberwolf 0]

"Say, I'm going to take a break from firing SMAWS and my SAW while wearing a ghillie suit so I can jump into this T-90 and be fully proficient with it as an American! When I inevidably get FF'd by a guided missile fired on me by an ally flying a jet 2km away, I'll get to cuss him out, too! This is such an awesome military simulator!"

"Later on, I think I'll run toward my allies while firing in their direction while using an enemy rifle, so I can cuss them out when they kill me!"

[I.like.Pwnies 10]

tacticalgamers.com FTW

[sparks50 0]

tacticalgamer.com FTW

Corrected, and +1

Tactical Gamer was a place where cooperation were required in public games in Arma 1.

I haven't been to their Arma 2 server(if there is one) but I doubt they lost their playing style in the transition. Its magnificent and unique.

[Binkowski 26]

I concur.

[maturin 12]

There is usually a grand total of ONE real co-op mission online at any given time.

And that's a shame, because playing on a few of those solitary servers has made singeplayer seem boring. Domination, Evolution and the rest of the clusterfucks hold my attention for maybe ten minutes.

[Gunnarmarine 10]

well today was amazing in multiplayer. we had I believe over 30 random people working together as a team in 1st infantry server. that was just amazing and seeing how this game was meant to be played. sorry for those who missed out on the great fun.