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

[galzohar 31]

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.

On top of that, the small coops you can actually play with your friends are rarely made public. I think I found a grand total of 4 such missions to download so far, and 2 of them were somewhat good, but then again 1 of those was incredibly easy and the other incredibly hard, with both playing exactly the same every time.

[Santhonax 10]

I would love to have something resembling a realistic/ginormous corp vs. corp shootout with tactical manuevering and coordination, and on the weekends I actively seek these games out.

However, I do grow increasingly weary of the habitual "OMG play it my way!" mentality that's been popping up like mad as of late. Though I too despise the typical, cookie cutter whiny preteen gamer, I've found a surprisingly prevalent trend from some older, alienated gamers to revert to a preadolescent whine-fest when the rest of the gaming community isn't entertaining their grand notions of a true game-session.

I typically play ARMA 2 for 30 mins-1 hour a night after leaving the base, so I don't have all day to pre-plan and chat it up for endless hours before blowing off some steam. I can often be seen pedaling my pitiful bike (because God-forbid a 1337 clan gamer waste his ridiculously under-tasked time to spare a ride for the disgusting "non-clanies") toward the most recently contested zone so I can cut a few folks down (in tactical fashion) before logging off. Realize that many gamers have the same time constrictions, and many more suffer from antiquated technology issues. This doesn't make them "idiotic" or intellectually inferior, but rather over-worked and under-paid. My recommendation (to play the role of a broken record) would be to join a clan of like-minded individuals, and spare the rest of us from more poorly-worded lectures. Thanks!

[Reverend Crast 10]

This doesn't make them "idiotic" or intellectually inferior, but rather over-worked and under-paid.

Sorry for being blunt and bit off topic but what you just wrote is really funny.

If someone works long hours for inferior pay.. well, unless that person lives in 3rd world country, there is a very high chance that person is intellectually inferior and/or poorly educated.

To get back on topic - personally I have no interest in playing ArmA2 in a "COD" way, so I never play on public servers.

[Santhonax 10]

Sorry for being blunt and bit off topic but what you just wrote is really funny.

If someone works long hours for inferior pay.. well, unless that person lives in 3rd world country, there is a very high chance that person is intellectually inferior and/or poorly educated.

What an amusingly naive post! My particular frame of reference was to a grouping of my fellow officers and I in the USAF, all of us have Masters or Doctorates, but we generally work most of the day, and don't really make enough to support buying brand spanking new computers. A surprisingly larger portion of society works in career fields where they love what they do, but considering the job market and economy, don't really make enough to justify buying a new computer every year for the next big game. Again, an amusing viewpoint. A very "silver-spoon" in your mouth, aristocratic outlook. I shall overlook such ignorance as being a bi-product of a privileged upbringing and inexperience. But I digress...

[nyran125 10]

i wouldnt call domination and Evo mode fun at all. Not with 255km's of land to cover, theres nothing fun about running 200 km's to get to an objective. I have yet to have a fun experience in Arma 2 multiplayer on the big large scale maps, unless its small user made co-op missions. you have to rely on the team in small missions(user made or default) and it seems to be way more fun than Warfare mode with 30 players over 255km 's of land. screw that, thats boring as hell, unless you had 200 people playing warfare Mode with loads of squads to choose from. you should have to pick a squad immediately when entering a server to create a team situation straight away fo rth eplayer. Not an individual situation.

PLUS if a team member kills you they should be punished and killed on the spot adn not allowed to join for 2 minutes.

In order to create the atmosphere of a real war battalian situation you need a game mode that FORCES you to have to play it like that. They should re-design a territory mode or Area of operation mode. That incorporates Warfare mode AND Sector control at the same time with smaller areas of Operation. 255 km's of land for multiplayer is just Tooooo big.

Instead of having capture the flag, maybe the leader of your group has to be present and you MUST build a camp and a series of buildings at that sector to capture the sector. Once built, another team can only take it if they blow the camp up and make a new one.

Again not ALL of us have the time to sit down and LEARN a complicated Multiplayer game. I dont think Warfare mode is hugely complicated but for a new person like me , id rather just have a capture sector mode , have some guidelines and be FORCED to work as a team in a smaller Area than 255km's of land. Again this game like Call of duty 4 MW tries to outdo itself with heaps and heaps of modes. not just focus on one specific mode. Does BF2 have deathmatch? no. Does counter strike need a capture the flag mode? no. So why cant Arma 2 be solely recognised for one Awesome type of game mode only and nothing else for multiplayer. Co-op , capture the sector and Warfare modes. Screw domination, its boring as hell. The editor and the smaller user maps are the only thing that makes me want to play this game in multiplayer. The large scale Warfare is just too far flng for me with only 30 people in the server.

Id prefer smaller Warfare sections of the map. say at 20-30 km lots or territories. And within THOSE territories are sectors that need to be takin. Like capture the sector mode. Which personally should be the mode to go to for a noob.

LoL by the way there are heaps of poor people in America. Not by choice, but by birth. Silly post. Seriously. What a bad discussion. Half of America is 3rd world. Look at Florida, like theres a section in little haiti called PORK and BEANS (thats the nickname of it, because thats what they live on and someone dies and gets shot there everyday, by anotehr poor uneducated person. You dont have to travel to a different country to experience 3rd world) and parts of Detroit and MANY other states. Masses of poor people and abandoned buildings there. You cant blame the people that dont have a choice that are born in poverty in those places. Stop speaking about this stuff, unless you want to go and do something about it. Otherwise stop speaking about 3rd world countries when there is poverty on your door step probably not to far away from you. That youll never actually know is even there right around the corner from you, while you keep your EYES CLOSED and pretend you KNOW everything!!!!!!!!!

Edited August 21, 2009 by nyran125

[whisper 0]

So why cant Arma 2 be solely recognised for one Awesome type of game mode only and nothing else for multiplayer

Because freedom for player is the cornerstone of this game serie since OFP, in MP as well as in SP. Just because YOU prefer something should not prevent others to play the way they want it (like people playing RPG mods in ArmA2, for example).

FYI smaller Warfare maps exist by default.

[Herbal Influence 10]

i wouldnt call domination and Evo mode fun at all. Not with 255km's of land to cover, theres nothing fun about running 200 km's to get to an objective. I have yet to have a fun experience in Arma 2 multiplayer on the big large scale maps, unless its small user made co-op missions. ....

The largeness and the reality and the freedom ... I love it.

When you happened to be left alone somewhere: Do what you would do in real life

- ask for help / transport or

- find yourself a jeep or a bike in the next village

- there are stunning possibilities you only find out, when searching them.

I really don't like those killpoint-runners who kill themselves for easy respawn in base etc. They are missing the point of this game completely.

Maybe the problem has already been raised and disccused 200-times above, but my 2-cents:

What whisper said is correct.

And it's most important to repeat this again and again.

You gotta have trustful co-gamers or lock the server to have real exciting combats.

How to get trustful co-gamers without being in a clan or only play with friends?

Be a harsh or correct admin!

Kick whenever someone kills friendly without serious excuse.

But warn him before - communication is all!

The one who got killed should also ask for an explanation!

I personally cannot understand something else:

I open server and start mission, someone enters and starts fighting.

He doesn't even say: "Hi", "Hello" ... or wtf ... like an autist!

As if I would be an AI or a robot!

Happens all the time!

One reason for this might be the new "speaking AIs" - you simply don't know at first whether an AI greeted you or a cogamer! :(

But soon things get sorted! The school holidays will end and instead of minors we only have to deal with drunken or drug inspired cogamers then ... :D

Edited August 21, 2009 by Herbal Influence

[galzohar 31]

The largeness and the reality and the freedom ... I love it.

When you happened to be left alone somewhere: Do what you would do in real life

- ask for help / transport or

- find yourself a jeep or a bike in the next village

- there are stunning possibilities you only find out, when searching them.

I really don't like those killpoint-runners who kill themselves for easy respawn in base etc. They are missing the point of this game completely.

I really don't like when a mission makes this my best option. It's a mission design flaw, not a player flaw.

Be a harsh or correct admin!

Kick whenever someone kills friendly without serious excuse.

But warn him before - communication is all!

I agree good admin presence is important for running a good server, considering how a single teamkill (in a respawn-based game) is really not a big deal, but someone doing nothing but teamkilling can basically ruin the game for 100 good people.

I personally cannot understand something else:

I open server and start mission, someone enters and starts fighting.

He doesn't even say: "Hi", "Hello" ... or wtf ... like an autist!

As if I would be an AI or a robot!

Happens all the time!

Are you playing on EU or US? I hadn't played Arma 2 on US due to pings, but I did play other games with both Americans and Europeans and you definitely see more talking (not necessarily in a positive fashion! but at least they talk) playing with Americans than Europeans. You can see how on many servers every person either doesn't talk or talks in his own language not caring who can/can't understand it. This isn't just an Arma 2 issue. People that don't speak a language well will often not speak and not answer when spoken to, at all, even if they understand/can type simple sentences.

I'm not a big fan of maps with big traveling. Not just because it's boring and really not because I don't have time or need instant gratification. I just don't like wasting my time on activity that is easy, boring, and takes absolutely no thought. Even a chopper insertion mission is usually pushing the boredom lines because they usually force you to land 1-2KM away from the objective so that you're safe, which means that on top of the long flight (during which you're doing nothing), you also have a 1-2KM walk until you get to the enemies, which again does not contain any tactical/challenging parts. I'd rather just skip straight to the "action", that is, the part where you actually have to think about what you're doing. If you can make the traveling interesting and require some sort of thought/strategy/planning rather than simple "get your ass over there ASAP, no enemies on the way" then great, but most missions don't bother with that. They just place in chopper insertion for the sake of saying "our missions have a chopper insertion".

Smaller warfare maps exist, but they're never played, which in practical sense is the same as not existing. Not to mention warfare is flawed on many levels (though it could be great if fixed, and at least someone is working on making a warfare version that works).

[Herbal Influence 10]

I'm not a big fan of maps with big traveling. Not just because it's boring and really not because I don't have time or need instant gratification. I just don't like wasting my time on activity that is easy, boring, and takes absolutely no thought. Even a chopper insertion mission is usually pushing the boredom lines because they usually force you to land 1-2KM away from the objective.

Yeah, you sure are right that in Europe gamers often simply don't know how to communicate with chat lines whereas most of the US gamer know a bit common english. :p

On the above issue:

While you are transported or runnig or driving like in reality, you can do some socialising - like in reality. You may plan the next steps especially together with guys on the same chopper using yellow vehicle channel etc. etc. ... I promise you are much more excited when you arrive at your aim ie. crawl into the enemy base your heart is pounding much louder as when you respawned next to the enemy.

It's all about *creating* excitement.

A deathmatch is much less exciting to me compared with a journey through the woods and hills and at last arriving and fighting much more concentrated then.

Always knowing: the enemy has to invest the same amount of

- travelling *and* has same time of planing to do things and

- reality !

Just my 2cents.:rolleyes:

[galzohar 31]

Except when you have already done the mission at least once before, or when you have no clue what the mission has because briefing hardly says anything, or when people don't talk, there's very little to plan. Besides, plans are not made while in flight, they're made before the mission.

In reality USMC also have to drive from their homes to the base and from there to fly to Chernarussia, but we don't model that in every mission now, do we?

If there is a tactical/interesting element to a part of a mission, then by all means include it. But if you put it in the mission just because "helicopters are cool, and real soldiers need to get to their mission from the base" then imo it's a no-go. While this is supposed to be a combat simulation, not all aspects of combat simulation are actually interesting to participate in. Simulate the boring ones, and only the people who actually don't care if the mission is boring or not will play it.

You can also make a very realistic ambush mission where you need to wait for a few hours for the enemy to arrive. Of you can start the mission when you're already in position, a few minutes before the enemy arrives. The former givse more immersion, but is impractical to actually play. Both are realistic in that they simulate a certain portion of war realistically.

I've had enough of "spend 99% of the time preparing and 1% of the time doing challenging stuff" (and out of those 99%, 97% are spent doing mindless actions) in World of Warcraft. That's one of the game's biggest flaws. In Arma 2 we make our own missions and thus are not forced to make it in the same way.

[Santhonax 10]

I guess it depends upon what type of game you prefer to play. Your boredom with travel times on a coop map or a mission against the AI is understandable, especially on repeated play sessions. Personally I find any AI to be tedious, and I much prefer competitive PvP maps where the increased travel time provides a real chance to utilize some measure of tactical flexibility and strategic thought, simply because you DON'T know where another player is going to set-up.

As such I tend to agree with Herbal on this one. The act of driving/flying/running to an objective for some time makes your livelihood more precious, and thus the heart gets to pounding a lot quicker when you crest that last hilltop. By comparison, small maps provide little excitement when you consider that the only real consequence of death is the respawn timer before you can commence with shooting again. Naturally, nothing more than opinion and personal preference here.

[galzohar 31]

Make a mission with no respawns (or at least limited reinforcements) and no travel time - problem solved. Of course, in that case you can't make a 6 players VS 200 AI mission, but that's probably only a good thing.

Using travel time in PvP is more acceptible, but only when done right. Most PvP maps that make you travel simply make you have a way too long travel, usually over 1 KM. Such long travels don't add any tactical depth and only make the game more annoying. 500-1000m is more than enough with vehicles, and 200-300m is more than enough on foot.

[Zipper5 74]

Make a mission with no respawns (or at least limited reinforcements) and no travel time - problem solved. Of course, in that case you can't make a 6 players VS 200 AI mission, but that's probably only a good thing.

Many have been made, but it would appear that the majority of the player base are in fact people who enjoy playing modes such as Evolution, Domination and Sahrani/Chernarus Life. And server owners are always wanting to have the most people playing on their servers as possible to justify their costs, so they put the modes on that most people want to play: modes that are archaic and encourage no team work what so ever. Reason being is that most other games' multiplayer is exactly like that, so it's no surprise.

Edited August 21, 2009 by Zipper5

[nikiller 18]

On top of that, the small coops you can actually play with your friends are rarely made public. I think I found a grand total of 4 such missions to download so far, and 2 of them were somewhat good, but then again 1 of those was incredibly easy and the other incredibly hard, with both playing exactly the same every time.

Make a mission with no respawns (or at least limited reinforcements) and no travel time - problem solved. Of course, in that case you can't make a 6 players VS 200 AI mission, but that's probably only a good thing.

I made a ofp style MP coop missions pack for ArmA2 without respawn, if you die you watch the spectate TV and wait the end of the mission or wait that every players are dead.

I didn't made it public and only played it with my clan mates, because before read this topic I throught that ArmA2 players didn't care about those kind of missions and just played evo and domi.

Here's 9 missions for 12 players. Tactics, assault, air, specops... Hard and medium difficulty.

No addons needed.

download links:

mirror1

mirror2

mirror3

Hope you'll enjoy.

cya.

Nikiller.

[CplBlakeman 10]

It's like all they can imagine for this game is to play it as BF2 Project Reality Mod.

FPS with a big commute. Spawn at an airbase and hope one of the clan members who hold exclusive air vehicle rights will be kind enough to ferry you on the long trip to the hot spot of the moment, then disembark and run around like scattered turkeys in the woods for a chaotic shootemup.

Really guys, this teaches you NOTHING about modern warfare. Frankly it's a waste of your time. And scholarship for modern military tactics aside it's ultimately only 1/100 of the fun you could be getting out of this game. The skirmishes you're having truly suck donkey balls.

This is a not BF2, Project Reality or whatever mod you're thinking of, and it's not Counter Strike. I know you had fun playing those but they're sucked dry; they're limited constructs that have been sucked dry of any value they might have had by repetition if nothing else. And judging by the weird fetish for unrealistic load outs there's a big contingent of players here who think they're playing Soldner. :(:(:(

So what is so different about Arma II?

Well it's not a FPS...it has a FPS element to it but that is its minor component.

IT'S A SIMULATOR.

It allows you to command fireteams, a TOW rocket launcher Hummer crew or a tank platoon or an infantry squad or a mechanized infantry squad or a whole damn company. Who knows? It could be a whole battalion maybe.

So why are we being spawned on some remote airbase, with no command structure, without even the most basic unit formations?

And why are we being spawned alone when we could be spawned with our own infantry platoon or Mechanized infantry platoon to command? Wouldn't that be cool?

Ya think?

Do we have to cook up our own little private single player scenarios to get this? Can't there be at least one or two servers with some really big kickass combined arms battles that just rock instead of playing helicopter commuter for hours on boring end?

I've posted this before but I'm a nag so I'll post this again, because after you get over saying "who does this dipshit think he is?" I'd like you to just use your imaginations and try to think of the huge potential of this simulator, this marvelous program that has fallen into our hands. I want us collectively to "think outside the box", the box of all the other relatively primitive games that have proceeded this one.

This is a game to be played on a grand scale, and there's no reason why 50 or 60 online players couldn't be in command of 12 AI squad members each. 50 times 12 is 600...imagine 500 to 600 soldiers fighting a battle for a city with human intelligence leading the very sufficient AI intelligence squad members.

God I'd love to see that kind of a firefight erupt online.

Why hasn't it.

Trust me, this is the way of the future for Arma II. If it doesn't happen this game is going to suffocate from the uncreative boredom of its users.

This is what is needed;

Learn the editor inside out.

Then read recent military analyses of contemporary operations and military manuals you find online. Construct authentic operation models and play them. You won't be disappointed; the AI in this game is one of the best around. Play the same scenario a dozen times and you'll have a different battle every time..

Use Dunnigan as you model;

http://www.paladin-press.com/product/1015/53

http://www.alanemrich.com/CSR_pages/Awards%20Pages/CSR1975.htm

http://www.alanemrich.com/CSR_pages/Awards%20Pages/CSR1975.htm

BTW the briefing booklet for Firefight is one of the best essays on modern mechanized warfare ever written. A must have for any real wargamer.

Trust me; if we took this approach to the online game we could have some battles that would blow our collective socks off instead of the feeble minded skirmishing that's going on now...and we might even learn something about modern tactics, real tactics. It might even be educational..

People can play this game any way they choose. I don't appreciate the folks that only want it to be a gung-ho simulator when it can be so much more and cover multiple genres if folks weren't so resistant to the idea. Right now there is a big following of the RPG/MMO crowd carving out a niche for themselves. I can see there being multiple types of gameplay with this big sandbox, because that is what it is meant to be... a sandbox.

Sure you can run it as a simulator.... but here's a secret... not everyone likes simulators.

Mindless fun can be just as fun as serious 3 hour simulated warfare, it just depends on your mood and what you enjoy. I believe games should be enjoyed however the end user likes, so long as the server administrator is of the same mind.

If other folks are playing a style that you do not like or do not want to play...... don't play it. But the idea to try and force or coerce folks to only play this game one way is pretty much the opposite idea of a sandbox game such as this. If more folks play, Arma gains in popularity, which makes the producers more money.. which makes them want to make more expansions.

[WILLUR 10]

People can play this game any way they choose. I don't appreciate the folks that only want it to be a gung-ho simulator when it can be so much more and cover multiple genres if folks weren't so resistant to the idea. Right now there is a big following of the RPG/MMO crowd carving out a niche for themselves. I can see there being multiple types of gameplay with this big sandbox, because that is what it is meant to be... a sandbox.

Sure you can run it as a simulator.... but here's a secret... not everyone likes simulators.

Mindless fun can be just as fun as serious 3 hour simulated warfare, it just depends on your mood and what you enjoy. I believe games should be enjoyed however the end user likes, so long as the server administrator is of the same mind.

If other folks are playing a style that you do not like or do not want to play...... don't play it. But the idea to try and force or coerce folks to only play this game one way is pretty much the opposite idea of a sandbox game such as this. If more folks play, Arma gains in popularity, which makes the producers more money.. which makes them want to make more expansions.

agreed our clan run unlocked versions of PvAI and TVT and also are designing mission based on possible events with a large inclusion of stuff that is fun.

OCB

[dxfan01 10]

for the best ArmA experience i suggest u look at TacticalGamer

[FRidh 0]

during the days of OFP there were also a lot more servers with coop or DM or things like that.....now it's only CTI, Evo and such.

Still remember the fun of 'Find The Serial Killer' in OFP and also with ArmA :-)

And ofcourse the COOP missions on Kolgujev where you had to clear out 3 or 4 bases. Or defending from large counterattacks. You worked in teams of about 12 people and you really had to work together, or you got KIA and had to wait till the mission finished....

[dxfan01 10]

FRthat is exactly what TacticalGamer looks for..though they aren't a clan i also suggest that u look at there server

[flake 10]

its a game. people play the way they want. when it gets boring they go play something else thats easier. game dies. easier game becomes popular.

[quickdraw_01 4]

I think having a scorecard is the worst thing because guys just get in a plane and bomb all the targets to be a hero and get a big score.

[FRidh 0]

I think having a scorecard is the worst thing because guys just get in a plane and bomb all the targets to be a hero and get a big score.

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

[Nixo 10]

Excellent Topic! The only downside is that it won't probably have the desired effect :( Only servers you WILL find this kind of fighting will be on ACE servers when they arrive for ArmA2. Alltough it is humans vs AI.

Warfare had that excellent idea for this kind of war. Where everyone follows orders given by the commander, and everyone fights as a team, but sadly, I have not seen any server with that kind of teamwork, not even in ArmA1. :( Stick with the ACE guys.

[FRidh 0]

well, there are always some people who work together but almost never an entire team.

Problem with Warfare and CTI at Arma2 / Chernarus is there are no real choke points, which ArmA1 and OFP definitely had. There is an entire line from north to south or west to east, or whatever diagonal you like you defend. Also because of lack of main roads you can't move to certain points quickly. But I guess I am getting off topic

[TurkeyBurgers 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