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

[galzohar 31]

Those are all things that can be done by mission makers, the problem is the immense amount of work that is currently required to implement such features, not to mention the testing and tuning that would be needed. With everyone stuck on Berzerk and AAS, not willing to test any new game modes, it would be very hard to create anything for the PvP population, or even the COOP population that seems to insist on playing a role playing game (and I'm not refering to Chernarus Life, I'm refering to squads that only play home-made missions with home-made strategies and only as some home-made unit structure and nothing else) rather than what Arma 2 really is.

PvP definitely needs better game modes, but the cycle of "people wouldn't try new things <=> mission makers won't make new things" is very very hard to break, and TBH it doesn't look like many people are trying too hard.

As for actual squads in PvP, the real problem is how you would actually play with your squad. In Berzerk you can already create squads, but there's no real point because there's no real difference between being in the squad to not being in the squad (even if you force-implement it, that difference you implemented will be the only difference and will probably still not encourage more than just people creating meaningless squads so they get their weapons or whatever). Once people start dying and respawning you lose track of where everyone is and even with incredible communication you'll probably die before you meet up with them after a respawn.

I wonder if anyone ever considered dynamically changing squads on respawn waves - that is, respawns will be in waves and every respawn wave will be its own group. Granted you'll have to work with someone else every time, but that's not really avoidable on a big PvP mission with respawns anyway.

Spawning alone is the #1 teamwork killer in PvP (there are more issues, but this is the biggest one IMO).

[whisper 0]

With everyone stuck on Berzerk and AAS, not willing to test any new game modes, it would be very hard to create anything for the PvP population[...]

PvP definitely needs better game modes, but the cycle of "people wouldn't try new things <=> mission makers won't make new things" is very very hard to break, and TBH it doesn't look like many people are trying too hard.

Very true point. From a mission maker point of view, the most difficult part is to have your mission tested, advertised, accepted. Players don't like changes.

I wonder if anyone ever considered dynamically changing squads on respawn waves - that is, respawns will be in waves and every respawn wave will be its own group. Granted you'll have to work with someone else every time, but that's not really avoidable on a big PvP mission with respawns anyway.

Spawning alone is the #1 teamwork killer in PvP (there are more issues, but this is the biggest one IMO).

Strange idea, but could work, in fact. Waved spawn is easy to implement, dynamic squad tougher, I'd say.

The big diff between PR and A2 is scale, as you pointed, Galzohar. A2 scale can easily break any squad cohesion upon respawn, and getting cohesion back takes a long time, due to travel time.

[FRidh 0]

Very true point. From a mission maker point of view, the most difficult part is to have your mission tested, advertised, accepted. Players don't like changes.

Strange idea, but could work, in fact. Waved spawn is easy to implement, dynamic squad tougher, I'd say.

The big diff between PR and A2 is scale, as you pointed, Galzohar. A2 scale can easily break any squad cohesion upon respawn, and getting cohesion back takes a long time, due to travel time.

I also thought of spawning in waves of men. It is a lot more realistic to come in as a group than by yourself. Also for the opposite site.

Actually, I once made a mission in OFP where the enemies spawned in groups. It was a coop where the players had to defend a base, and the enemies counterattacked in waves, a bit like Invasion gamemode in Unreal Tournament.

Hmmm, now this makes me think.

You could even make this a lot bigger, with like 32 players as defenders, and entire AI platoons attacking in waves. As soon as 8 players die they parachute in the base, to help defend again. For every defended wave your side gets points, so the challenge is to finish highest as a team. And this wave of 8 persons perhaps than as a dynamically created squad as suggested. although it will be difficult assigning objectives than (which team defends which side).

Edited September 16, 2009 by FRidh

[galzohar 31]

Changing groups should be very simple, using join, createGroup and deleteGroup. If you say respawn waves is easy, then putting the entire wave in a group should be easy as well. The only real challenge I see here, is that if you want to have class-based loadouts (with or without mini-customizations like choosing between more mags to more nades etc), it needs to have a GUI...

Anyway, another thing respawn waves would require from any game mode is that people need a respawn at the same place often enough. Otherwise you're in for either a long wait or to only spawn with 1-2 other people every time which beats the whole point.

Regarding commanding the newly created squad, if a side-wide announcement is made on each wave respawn, you should easily be able to decide something like "next respawning group - go to objective 2 from the south". In fact I remember doing this exact thing on World of Warcraft battleground PvP (which uses wave respawns) - granted on a much smaller scale but it worked for keeping things organized and people working together.

[quickdraw_01 4]

and they might have got an even bigger score if they worked together :-)

Best thing there is in CTI, as soon as you discovered enemy base, position your units nearby, someone's goes closer and laser designates targets, a few others bomb the base with A10 and after that a nice tank rush to finish 'em of

Unfortunately you hardly see people working with the laser designator

You are right mate the Laser targeting with teamwork is great you wont find any friendly fire with a group thats working together.

If groups had a score instead of individuals it might encourage teamwork.

Another thing that annoys the hell out of me is when your bleeding on the frontline and all the medics are busy flying in the aircraft, people wanting to be medics just so that they can heal themselves.

Setting the server to veteren mode gets rid of alot of BF/COD style of players but may also make it difficult for newbies unfortunatly.

:cool:

Edited September 17, 2009 by Dingo
spelling

[galzohar 31]

I still don't understand why PvP servers don't run on expert. It's like allowing server-wide cheating. Just because everyone can do it doesn't mean it's cool, but it does mean you need to use those stuff (crosshair, 3rd person) as well, or have a serious disadvantage.

[Inkompetent 0]

Because most people don't want to play on Expert settings.

I like 3rd person view since I think it's comfortable and I like seeing my dude from that angle. I can be without the improved ability to see things. Just like to see my soldier in 3rd person. Not to mention driving certain vehicles or landing with helicopters. How many people have ever had door gunners assisting with landing?

I like being able to see who speaks on VON. Without that tag enabled comms break down completely on public servers.

I like being able to see my squad mates, or at least my squad leader. Otherwise organization is very hard due to the restrictions on character recognition imposed by the fact it is a game.

Heck, talking about 'Recruit', 'Veteran' and 'Expert' modes are completely redundant for any decently configured server. For servers where the admin has been too lazy to tweak them I suppose they work, but in general both Veteran, and especially Expert, just screws up gameplay to unplayability unless everyone on the server is really hardcore and know their stuff.

[1longtime 10]

The problem is the solution that has been presented at LEAST ten times in this thread.

[...]

To rehash here is what I have covered in my ramblings.

1- Ability to do more with squads and squad functions such as naming squads, kicking and inviting to your squad, See who is in your squad, see what weapons loadout they have.

2- Kit changes such as limiting kits so that not everyone is running around with a sniper rifle and a Javelin.

3- The in game voice chat seems to function very well but without the squad changes no one will bother to use it.

Project Reality is awesome to play in a team environment. ARMA 2 could BLOW it out of the freaking water with just a FEW SIMPLE changes to the squad interface.

The graphics in ARMA 2 make me drool. It is amazing to look at.

BUT the public multiplayer needs some Project Reality injected into it in a bad way. Thanks for your time and thanks for reading. -Josh

Absolutely awesome post, could not agree more. The reason we are seeing clusterf***ed gameplay on public servers is partly due to the poor User Interface. It isn't conducive to teamwork, just Rambo-ism.

If it isn't simple and straightforward, people won't do it. ...and at the moment ORGANIZING A SQUAD IS TOO COMPLICATED.

The second point: make TEAMWORK more of a requirement for survival. This means the programmers who coded Domination and Evolution need to go back and CHANGE THE AMMO BOXES. As TurkeyBurger mentioned, everyone has all the weaponry they need... Require the squads to stay together to survive and squads/fireteams will naturally organize themselves.

To go back to the original poster's imagery of digging in a sandbox with a calculator... if you establish a sandbox, hide all the shovels, leave a pile of calculators nearby, and score the players on how many holes they can dig, what's the end result? A sad, sad state of affairs, that's what.

BIS Developers, READ THIS POST, and help us play better multiplayer games! Improving the UI and allowing slot changing without being forced to disconnect would make a big difference in the way multiplayer is played.

Linking back to TurkeyBurger's post in this thread again:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1439584&postcount=125

Edited September 28, 2009 by 1longtime

[Fuzzy Bandit 10]

Well, you all make fantastic points.

However, I believe that that would be an equimenical matter…

[galzohar 31]

You really think people would have to work as a team if you force class-based loadouts? Get real, people in these games usually do they best they can (according to their own definition of best) with the weapons they get, and usually don't have patience for doing annoying stuff - specifically trying to follow and communicate with people they don't know. Especially when failure doesn't mean "learn and do better next time" but rather "respawn and repeat until all enemies are dead".

[Defunkt 431]

Love the way these gripe threads get turned into a vehicle for every man and his dog to grind their own particular axe without following any sort of through-line. First sentence of the OP is "It's like all they can imagine for this game is to play it as BF2 Project Reality Mod." and two posts up from here it's come full circle to "BUT the public multiplayer needs some Project Reality injected into it in a bad way."

I'm with the latter proposition and am certain there are many people working on PR style multi-player for ArmA 2 as we speak (I know I am). It's just going to take a while because, unlike Co-op where missions like Warfare, Domination, Evolution etc. were regularly played in ArmA 1 and ready to be ported to ArmA 2 immediately P-v-P had been all but abandoned in ArmA 1. Consequently, a revived interest in P-v-P (down to improvements in the look and feel) will be slow to come to fruition because the game modes need to be worked-up from scratch. All we can do is keep our head down, keep developing our missions and be ready to piggy back on the fresh flush of interest when Operation Arrowhead arrives.

Now let this thread die before it goes full circle again. :bounce3:

[TechnoTerrorist303 10]

Now let this thread die before it goes full circle again. :bounce3:

But.... I want to play it like project reality without it playing like project reality...

[MangoForLife 10]

Here are my 2 cents (& I'm dead serious) - Give the player 3 lives and 3 lives ONLY! (on ANY mission or gamemode) - This will solve 99% percent of the problems with the game not being realistic. If players are SCARED to die, THEN you will start to see some realism. (of course some missions don't need respawn at all). And if BI is concerned this will turn away a big portion of the gamers... Go online! There aren't that many people playing your game anyhow... (oh, and whoever invented the idea of MHQ... *$%* You too!)

[Zipper5 74]

No. Simply no.

BIS has never imposed such restrictions on players in their games, and that's what makes them great. It's possible to impose them but it's entirely up to the mission maker. The issue that you guys have is not with the game, but the missions that the majority of people play online. They are not designed to encourage team work, and in fact, they encourage the opposite with ranking system and hardware unlocks.

But again, that's a decision that was made by the mission maker. The only reason it's more popular is that it's so much more similar to other archaic games. If you can find a mission design that will please the masses, chances are you'll need to require something like that in it.

Still, no. BIS will not impose restrictions like that on players. Mod Evolution, Domination, or something similar to impose such restrictions. Unlike CM with their restrictions, BIS knows that leaving it up to us is the right thing. All of these complaints should be directed at the mission designers, not the game.

[MangoForLife 10]

It wouldn't be "imposing" anything. That would be the game. 3 lives max or an option for no respawn at all. People always complaining - "Oh teamwork this.. teamwork that.. This isn't FPS here.. It's a Tactical game... blah blah, blah, blah, blah, blaaaaaahh...!" - Trust me, if you had 3 lives to go on 99% of the people would NATURALLY be playing as a team. Publics or Clans.

The masses are pleased to be playing together. That's all they want. If you give them an option for an easy game they will take it, but rest assured, if there was only Hardcore like I'm suggesting, people would STILL play it and be enthused & excited at how CHALLENGING & DIFFICULT the game is! People are sheep.

Edited September 30, 2009 by MangoForLife

[wills 10]

The problem is the solution that has been presented at LEAST ten times in this thread. Elitism. The essential NEED to join a clan to play this game in multiplayer.

This is complete B.S. It is nothing but roleplay and fantasy gameplay.

ARMA 2 needs to take some pages from the Project Reality Playbook. I am going to list the essentials to bring this games Pub servers up from a 3/10 to a 10/10.

SQUAD TACTICS! They are ABSENT!

When you first get to the server you get to pick a spot on a team in a squad (fire team I think). Positions are machine gunner, sniper, rifleman, medic etc. This is awesome.

Unfortunately it means jack and squat. People immediately run over to the weapons box and grab a .50 sniper rifle and a rocket launcher. What the hell is the point of having a squad and a squad leader and positions on the squad if they mean diddly?

One of the coolest things that impressed me immensely about Project Reality was the in game voice chat. It is awesome! EVERYONE uses in game voice chat. MANY people also use the in game typing to communicate. They are both simple but both work extremely well.

You join a map and IMMEDIATELY you can EASILY bring up a quick menu that lists the Squads. It lists the number of players in each squad, The loadout of weapons they currently have, the names of the players. You can make custom squad names. Common names of squads are English VOIP, TEAMWORK, Tank Squad, Transport etc. This is entirely ABSENT from ARMA 2!!!

To change squads you have to leave the game????????????????????????

No wonder there is no teamwork. There is no cohesive team glue to hold people together. Without a QUICK and EASY way to form squads, see who's in your squad, change Squads, form your own squad there is never going to be a pub ARMA 2 game that takes off the way that Project Reality does.

The Weapon Loadouts are another killer. Kits need to be limited in some way. Not everyone gets to have a Rocket Launcher and a .50 sniper rifle. Too many Chiefs and not enough Indians.

NO ONE uses in game voice chat on pubs. When I play Project reality the first thing the squad leader asks is "Do you have a Mic?". Communication is KEY! But I guess when you have a Javelin and a .50 Sniper Rifle you are John freaking Rambo and do not need a squad or voice chat. Only need that flagpole to magically jump to the next red circle.

This is Pub but It does not have to be this way.

I can GUARANTEE that if Project Reality had the ability to run to a weapons crate and grab a .50 and a Rocket no one would bother with squads either. Squads help you stay alive. It helps you get a better score. The medic can throw you a heal. The squad leader calls for a chopper and pops smoke and places rallies. The SAW gunner suppresses. The Designated Marksman spots targets before you can see them. When you run to a crate to grab a weapon you can only do it if you are in a squad. Lone Wolfs have to use the stock weapon loadouts. Your squad leader might say "Hey we need a medic can you grab a medic kit?" or "Sorry bro I have to kick you because you grabbed the Sniper Kit and will be completely worthless to our Infantry Squad".

Squad Leaders CANNOT manage squads in ARMA. This NEEDS to be fixed. The Squad Leader is the cheese to the macaroni. Not a character skin.

The Need to bring up a QUICK EASY list of your teammates and the squads they are in. AGAIN this is entirely absent from ARMA. Hell most of the time in PUBS I do not even know who is IN my squad let alone who my squad leader is or what our plan is.

This is NORMAL EVERYDAY 95% of the time in Project Reality PUBS! I have joined servers in RUSSIA in Project Reality (I am in North Carolina US) and played with some guys that spoke broken english but we were still able to communicate, form efficient squads, see what kits we had and what we needed, mark mission objectives for the squad and execute them efficiently.

There needs to be a freaking HUGE overhaul to the interface for ARMA for multiplayer squad control. It is currently terrible and if it is not changed there will NEVER be any decent pub squad play. Check out Project Reality and see that even though the Battlefield 2 engine is old the simple squad function makes it excel.

To rehash here is what I have covered in my ramblings.

1- Ability to do more with squads and squad functions such as naming squads, kicking and inviting to your squad, See who is in your squad, see what weapons loadout they have.

2- Kit changes such as limiting kits so that not everyone is running around with a sniper rifle and a Javelin.

3- The in game voice chat seems to function very well but without the squad changes no one will bother to use it.

Project Reality is awesome to play in a team environment. ARMA 2 could BLOW it out of the freaking water with just a FEW SIMPLE changes to the squad interface.

The graphics in ARMA 2 make me drool. It is amazing to look at.

BUT the public multiplayer needs some Project Reality injected into it in a bad way. Thanks for your time and thanks for reading. -Josh

some people just want to play?? and shoot

[whisper 0]

It wouldn't be "imposing" anything. That would be the game. 3 lives max or an option for no respawn at all. People always complaining - "Oh teamwork this.. teamwork that.. This isn't FPS here.. It's a Tactical game... blah blah, blah, blah, blah, blaaaaaahh...!" - Trust me, if you had 3 lives to go on 99% of people would be NATURALLY playing as a team. Publics or Clans.

The masses are pleased to be playing together. That's all they want. If you give them an option for an easy game they will take it, but rest assured, if there was only Hardcore like I'm suggesting, people would STILL play it and be enthused & excited at how CHALLENGING & DIFFICULT the game is! People are sheep.

BI OFP/ArmA cornerstone is freedom, at every level, including mission making. Any imposed limit == no go.

Which doesn't mean it's impossible to only give 3 respawn max per player. It's in fact already completely possible.

[Herbal Influence 10]

I absolutely agree on whisper.

And having admins that would give some pre-info to all on who will be kicked and banned would give a solution to most of the probs anyway.

I think we all should ask a question when entering a multiplayer game:

"Admin - are you willing to kick gamespoilers? yes/no?"

I cannot understand why someone is admin and doesn't care a hell.

Missed his job.

Community will learn this as time goes by. I wished I could accelerate this ...

[NoRailgunner 0]

Its up to mission creators to adjust mission settings.

Its up to the people to communicate and to play the missions how they like.

If you dont like how the mission is made - ask the mission maker to change it or create your own scenario.

If you dont like how the people play on public servers - ask the people/admins there for a change in current squad/team tactics and communications.

Guess (or better hope) that with release of DR, CoD:MW2, BF:Bad Company2 many of those "uberl33t W1rri0rZ" will disappear from public servers. ;)

[Herbal Influence 10]

Its up to mission creators to adjust mission settings.

Its up to the people to communicate and to play the missions how they like.

If you dont like how the mission is made - ask the mission maker to change it or create your own scenario.

If you dont like how the people play on public servers - ask the people/admins there for a change in current squad/team tactics and communications.

Guess (or better hope) that with release of DR, CoD:MW2, BF:Bad Company2 many of those "uberl33t W1rri0rZ" will disappear from public servers. ;)

Yeah!! One single reason we urgently want DR to be published !!! ;-))

[desertjedi 3]

The problem is the solution that has been presented at LEAST ten times in this thread. Elitism. The essential NEED to join a clan to play this game in multiplayer.

This is complete B.S. It is nothing but roleplay and fantasy gameplay.

ARMA 2 needs to take some pages from the Project Reality Playbook. I am going to list the essentials to bring this games Pub servers up from a 3/10 to a 10/10.

SQUAD TACTICS! They are ABSENT!

I appreciate the in-depth analysis of how to improve pub play.

But I have to say how ironic it is that I experienced 100%-disciplined-teamwork gameplay in a game that had a fraction of the functionality of Arma and that game was Vietcong.

We had guns, bullets and ingame voice and that was it - period. I even played missions where the TL communicated by text chat on the screen. Even with text chat, we were able to clear the entire map of enemies with few or sometimes no casualties...and that was due to the incredible teamwork.

VC servers would simply have to put the term "Teamrespawn" in their server name and everyone knew that they were for teamplay...AND...that any "misconduct" would get you immediately kicked or even banned. Teamrespawn meant that basically there was no respawn - only until after the whole team was wiped out. No respawns meant that you only got serious players on the server.

My point is that you can play Pickup Stix with teamplay if the server decides that that is how they want to run their server. If it can be done in spades with a game like VietCong, it can be done in any game.

I don't think we'll ever be able to have open-to-the-public Arma teamplay servers unless the Admins of a server rule with an iron hand and develop a reputation for it. And ironically, if they do rule with an iron hand and kick dipshits left and right, serious players will flock to their servers. Isn't TacticalGamer a pretty decent example of this?

Edited September 30, 2009 by DesertJedi

[draeath 10]

some people just want to play?? and shoot

Then perhaps they would be better served getting the... bad word... away from ArmA and go back to Counterstrike or Battlefield.

[Nolegs 0]

It still amazes me how people want to to bash others because they want to play a game a different way from how they say it should be played.

If you don't like the gameplay on the servers you are playing on, then it is YOUR fault. YOU are not looking enough to find the servers that offer the type of gameplay you desire.

[Rowdy426 10]

Personally, I don't want to take orders from some pimple faced 14 yr old that doesn't know squat about anything.

You'll see pvp become more team based and strategic when a clan of 10 invades the server, linked on teamspeak, and rolls over everyone.

The only answer to that would be teamwork. It'll happen.

[sparks50 0]

BUT the public multiplayer needs some Project Reality injected into it in a bad way. Thanks for your time and thanks for reading. -Josh

There are already missions trying to replicate PR out there. All they need is more people playing them.

http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=6205

And for those who think teamwork cant be archived amongst like minded people on public: You are dead wrong.