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

[Thirdup 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.

^This

Or maybe there should be only one life in the game. The game should delete itself from your harddrive if you die. You'd have to re-purchase the game if you want to play again. BI should implement this (it would increase sales, too). And if "total reality" is your thing, you should have to play with a loaded .45 next to your keyboard. You'll know what needs to be done when the time comes.....

Anyone not willing to actually spray their brains across the monitor should go back to BF or CS!

People should have to play my way because it's better.

;)

[desertjedi 3]

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.

You've just confirmed what I've feared all along. Teamplay will NEVER EVER happen on an Arma public server. All you have to do is read through this thread.

[draeath 10]

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

You'd be surprised. Though, it tends to be me who initiates the teamwork... and it's usually not on a grand scale.

For instance, I'll be stuck in the woods near an enemy tank... and I'll stalk it, reporting position etc. Soon, the hunters come and smear that tank all over the trees. This kind of thing happens with me on AAS all the time.

When your on a public server, nobody really expects someone to hide in a bush near your tank and just pass information along to other people... they expect you to try and take them out yourself, so they really aren't even looking for you! Use that kind of thing to your advantage!

[Herbal Influence 10]

^This

Or maybe there should be only one life in the game. The game should delete itself from your harddrive if you die. You'd have to re-purchase the game if you want to play again. BI should implement this (it would increase sales, too). (...)

;)

LOL ... good idea!

Did I say the only thing we need are strict admins?

[Langnasen 10]

Excellent post

You know what I discovered about myself?

I am a follower! I dont want to order people round, I dont want to command a team, fly people in helicopters or any of that other stuff....yet!!

What I want is to do what I am told and be able to work in a small or large team of people together AGAINST OTHER REAL PEOPLE

This is the average mission for me on the only servers that are operating where I live:

1) Wander around a carrier for 5 mins watching other people wander round waiting for transport.

2) Get in chopper for 10 min flight.

3) whilst waiting on 10 min flight check mission orders

4) Ah surprise, there are no mission orders

5) Check various red circles on the map that look like they might hold some promise of action.

6) Try and talk with people on the boring ride to the drop off, nobody has teamspeak....

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

8) Land at the red circle and watch as the entire group of passengers on the chopper scatter in every direction with absolutely no co-ordination.

9) Find that there are no enemies at the red circle because 2 mins before we landed it went green.

10) another 10-15 min wait for a transport to the next red circle where there seem to be no enemies either.

11) all of the above is best case scenario that the chopper we fly in does not get shot down or the pilot crashes killing everyone on board.

12) My wife comes in and tells me I have used my computer game quota up for the weekend and all that without firing a shot in anger.....

This game fails to easily organise groups of people who want to work as groups and who may not be experts yet at the game from doing so.

Its such a shame because it really has huge potential, it has more potential than any game I have ever played which makes me so annoyed.

I think the majority of people playing this game want to do the right thing and dont want the hemmed in BF2 experience that Xbox fans love.

We do want a proper simulator that simulates the exciting parts of battle and not the boring parts.

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

Without reading the rest of the thread yet, I have to agree with the above. And the biggest reason for it is LACK OF VOIP (excuse me shouting). I know how to key the mic, and I get the little green mic-symbol appear on the screen, but nobody seems to hear me.

So is this yet another game with a busted VOIP, or it's just so badly coded it lags the server, so it's always turned off? Let me guess...the serious players go on servers that also have their own Teamspeak setup?

Anyway, I'm going to search out these serious groups and see if they'll welcome a new recruit.

[Langnasen 10]

Originally Posted by TurkeyBurgers

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

Absolutely spot on.

Today I saw a tank crewman carrying a .50 cal sniper rifle. This is the kind of odious selfish turd who spoils the game for everyone else, but it is the fault of BI for making it possible. Major game flaws abound...the VOIP apparently doesn't work, or at least I've yet to be on a pub that had it enabled, anyone can grab whatever weapon they like, leaving classes without the weapon they're supposed to have (tanker takes .50-cal into his cab, sniper makes do with AK47) and there is no clean and easy way to arrange squads, much less organize and direct them in-game. Instead of being fun these tasks become a tedious chore, and players get fed up and go find more rewarding games (yes, Project Reality is a superb example of how competant coders/modders can get it so right).

But you guys seem to forget that BI have been hearing these sorts of complaints since OFP, and still nothing has changed. And I warrant it never will. Why? Because they don't play the game themselves. If they did they would immediately see how utterly dire their interface is. It's a shabby 3rd-rate excuse, and next to games like BF and CoD ArmA's interface looks like something drawn on the back of a cornflake packet.

[Zipper5 74]

Jesus, this is starting to sound like people trying to turn ArmA II into DR. Restrictions after restrictions. ArmA II is better than DR because of the freedom it gives the players. It's their choice to play how they want it, and it's up to the mission designer if they want to allow it or not. Seriously, you really think the game would be better if they made certain parts of it impossible? That's not what OFP/ArmA/ArmA II have been/are about. :confused:

Edit: After reading your post again, Langnasen, you should stick to PR. Or CoD or BF, if you play either. Of course they play the game. The real reason it hasn't changed is because the majority don't want it to. You might think that the majority do want it to because of the posts here, but seriously, this is an incredibly small fraction of the player base ArmA II has. If you don't like it - change it yourself. The interface isn't terrible, I personally like it. It takes getting used to, but a game like ArmA II is usually most enjoyed when you put a certain amount of dedication into it. If you do that, you learn how to use these things.

Edited October 3, 2009 by Zipper5

[Defunkt 431]

But you guys seem to forget that BI have been hearing these sorts of complaints since OFP, and still nothing has changed. And I warrant it never will.

You're not listening. BI don't see it as their role, they empower mission makers to make anything, it's the mission makers you should be ranting at. But there I would agree, just dropping a few crates at spawn is a lazy and sub-standard loadout management cop-out.

[Daniel 0]

Today I saw a tank crewman carrying a .50 cal sniper rifle.

And, just like in real life, a tank crewman can physically carry a .50cal sniper rifle. Thank God they can in game, cause that's what sets ArmA2 apart. The fact that he was carrying a .50cal demonstrates only that you're not on the right server or with the right people, and that the mission creator has made it too easy to access such weapons.

[Langnasen 10]

Jesus, this is starting to sound like people trying to turn ArmA II into DR. Restrictions after restrictions. ArmA II is better than DR because of the freedom it gives the players. It's their choice to play how they want it, and it's up to the mission designer if they want to allow it or not. Seriously, you really think the game would be better if they made certain parts of it impossible? That's not what OFP/ArmA/ArmA II have been/are about. :confused:

Edit: After reading your post again, Langnasen, you should stick to PR. Or CoD or BF, if you play either. Of course they play the game. The real reason it hasn't changed is because the majority don't want it to. You might think that the majority do want it to because of the posts here, but seriously, this is an incredibly small fraction of the player base ArmA II has. If you don't like it - change it yourself. The interface isn't terrible, I personally like it. It takes getting used to, but a game like ArmA II is usually most enjoyed when you put a certain amount of dedication into it. If you do that, you learn how to use these things.

So you're saying if one tries hard enough one will find a way to make the game work. I rather see that most of the serious players have found themselves private servers and left the pubs to the usual can't-be-arsed rambo-junkies. You're right, the game is hard, and 90% of the players on the pubs aren't up to the challenge of mastering it.

So what do we have...a game like Project Reality, that has been made easy to manipulate for the hard-core realism players, but has tiny maps and last-generation features, and ArmA2 that has been made next to impossible to handle but has the huge maps and current-generation features. That sounds about right then, the usual case of not being able to have a cake and eat it too.

It's not that I'm that bothered, on a selfish level, because I'm happy to run off into the woods with a sniper-rifle and plot-up overlooking a town or something and relax with a cuppa while waiting for targets of opportunity. But I can see how much better ArmA2 could be if just a few painfully obvious features had been implemented, instead of the almost willfully obtuse cock-ups it has now. It's almost as bad as if somebody had taken a square peg and hammered it into the round hole.

It's been said...this game would be the ultimate if it had married the best of PR with the best of A2. You say open-ended is the best it can be, I say the average player needs to be led to gaming nirvana, because left to his own devices he'll choose console-level trash every time.

ArmA2...so much wasted potential it's practically a gaming crime.

[galzohar 31]

Mission makers shouldn't implement something like the "it should be hard to fit a .50 cal sniper rifle into a damn gunner seat!" Crewmen IRL already carry minimal gear and short weapons because of lack of space inside a tank (and lack of need for more gear). I don't want to have to script "if you have a .50 cal you can't get into the tank unless you store it outside" to add realism.

Making sure the basic game mechanics (run/drive/gear/shoot/fly) are realistic is the job of BIS, not mission makers. Though as with most games, modders at least give a try into fixing those things when the game is released with most of them semi/totally broken, but it's never the same as having the game company make it work realistically in the game from the get-go. There are quite a few things that are bad in Arma 2 that we know for sure are not at all fix-able by modders (ex: running speed).

[Defunkt 431]

It's been said...this game would be the ultimate if it had married the best of PR with the best of A2.

Where would that leave people who like playing Domination (for just one example)? I'd take the PR game over Domination any day myself but the point remains, BIS have created a sandbox with which you can create either game mode. Rather than waste time saying they should instead have made the one you like, get your hands dirty and try making it yourself.

Mission makers shouldn't implement something like the "it should be hard to fit a .50 cal sniper rifle into a damn gunner seat!"

I somehow don't think the point was that it could fit inside his tank but rather that he had access to one at all - presumably just found lying in an ammo crate somewhere. I hardly think it vital that BIS create different allowed-inside weapon lists for each vehicle. Ultimately all games rely on approximation and abstraction, man-portable is sufficient as he could presumably always stow it on the outside of his vehicle.

[Arma-2-Guru 55]

Yeah having about 600 people on one map would be great and wouldn't cause our computers to explode at all, even though most computers struggle with this game anyway, 550 more people wouldn't be too much to ask, you have probably noticed by now that I'm being sarcastic and are now probably frowning because of the first few of my sentences led you on to think that I was posting in your favour :)

[whisper 0]

So you're saying if one tries hard enough one will find a way to make the game work. I rather see that most of the serious players have found themselves private servers and left the pubs to the usual can't-be-arsed rambo-junkies. You're right, the game is hard, and 90% of the players on the pubs aren't up to the challenge of mastering it.

So what do we have...a game like Project Reality, that has been made easy to manipulate for the hard-core realism players, but has tiny maps and last-generation features, and ArmA2 that has been made next to impossible to handle but has the huge maps and current-generation features. That sounds about right then, the usual case of not being able to have a cake and eat it too.

It's not that I'm that bothered, on a selfish level, because I'm happy to run off into the woods with a sniper-rifle and plot-up overlooking a town or something and relax with a cuppa while waiting for targets of opportunity. But I can see how much better ArmA2 could be if just a few painfully obvious features had been implemented, instead of the almost willfully obtuse cock-ups it has now. It's almost as bad as if somebody had taken a square peg and hammered it into the round hole.

It's been said...this game would be the ultimate if it had married the best of PR with the best of A2. You say open-ended is the best it can be, I say the average player needs to be led to gaming nirvana, because left to his own devices he'll choose console-level trash every time.

ArmA2...so much wasted potential it's practically a gaming crime.

If BI forces PR rules upon players, say goodbye to that many game-modes that are actually played online or offline.

If you have a range of possibilities going from CTF to AAS, Warfare to pure coop, full campaign to Chernarus Life, it's because BI left the freedom to players and mission makers to decide.

To put it bluntly, do what you advocate, and you kill OFP true spirit.

And it's not like putting the features you want is impossible, quite the opposite. It's very doable for us right now. I can even bet there are a bunch of mission makers on it already. But they'll get zero help, people are happier whining toward BI.

[galzohar 31]

I do agree though it would be nice if they added in the vehicle locking option a "class" option, so that only those certified to use tanks etc can actually use them.

Gear availability is already done by BIS in the from of default class loadouts. If, as a mission maker, you don't like them (I don't like them but I also only feel they need minor fixes), you can change the gear loadouts however you like, but then don't complain when the result is messed up. I do agree it's the mission maker's responsibility to make sure that his modifications don't mess the game up.

Though again it would be nice if you couldn't put things that simply can't be put inside certain vehicles, be it as a part of the gear loadout or in the vehicle's weapon/magazine cargo. Just another semi-important aspect of realism BIS completely neglected.

[draeath 10]

My question is...

Is there a technical reason why one could not carry a sniper-class rifle in addition to some anti-tank kit? Sure, the stovepipe ruins your concealment... but you don't have to be concealed to use or carry the weapon.

Just because we generally don't see it used like that, doesn't mean it's not possible.

[Natemo 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.

I agree with your post allot! , i jumped online and found it really really not cool with the type of games being played.

I have made some missions where you respawn as your squad mate if you die.

This allows the battle to be won or lost and not have to end the game. its great and more realistic then this other crap we see in MP.

Let me know if you want to play sometime. Maybe we could get some mature people that will play the same style ( Spwan as squad mate if you die" if your squad is dead your all dead.)

[Langnasen 10]

If BI forces PR rules upon players, say goodbye to that many game-modes that are actually played online or offline.

If you have a range of possibilities going from CTF to AAS, Warfare to pure coop, full campaign to Chernarus Life, it's because BI left the freedom to players and mission makers to decide.

To put it bluntly, do what you advocate, and you kill OFP true spirit.

And it's not like putting the features you want is impossible, quite the opposite. It's very doable for us right now. I can even bet there are a bunch of mission makers on it already. But they'll get zero help, people are happier whining toward BI.

So the "true spirit" of ArmA2 is anyone can have whatever weapons they like and operate any vehicles they like. That's not a combat simulation, that's Quake mayhem.

And while it may appear that the numbers of people playing indicates satisfaction I'd rather suggest that many people are simply putting up with it, because it's better than nothing. Or going back to the real console dreck, like CoD with it's headless-chicken gameplay and postage-stamp sized maps.

I suspect it's why most servers don't allow choppers, because those who specialise in them (eg, take the time and effort to learn how to fly them competantly) rarely get a look in and see idiots taking them and killing everyone aboard. So much for open-ended anarchy I guess.

[Zipper5 74]

Blame. The. Mission. Designers.

If you don't like it - find out how to impose such rules/restrictions yourself and then edit the missions or make your own so that they use them. Putting restrictions on everyone who plays the game by BIS is wrong, and I really hope they never consider doing something like this.

You can discuss the benefits that this would have to the gameplay, and you could use them in your own missions or, as I said, modify them to suit your needs. But don't demand that BIS impose these restrictions for everyone. Freedom is what this game is about.

'Nuff said.

[galzohar 31]

One of the problems with this game is that it relies so heavily on the mission designers, and then on the server admins to separate the good missions from the bad. Currently most just run the 3-5 missions they know work alright (evo/domi/berzerk/warfare/chernarus life), because, after all, if you pick a mission at random, it'll most likely be horrible because the mission maker didn't put enough effort into designing/testing/tweaking it all the way. And even if the mission maker did take care of all that, a single pub that goes on a TK streak can ruin it all again.

[Defunkt 431]

One of the problems with this game is that it relies so heavily on the mission designers...

One of the benefits with this game is that it hands so much capability to the mission designers. Double-edged sword.

[whisper 0]

So the "true spirit" of ArmA2 is anyone can have whatever weapons they like and operate any vehicles they like. That's not a combat simulation, that's Quake mayhem.

And while it may appear that the numbers of people playing indicates satisfaction I'd rather suggest that many people are simply putting up with it, because it's better than nothing. Or going back to the real console dreck, like CoD with it's headless-chicken gameplay and postage-stamp sized maps.

I suspect it's why most servers don't allow choppers, because those who specialise in them (eg, take the time and effort to learn how to fly them competantly) rarely get a look in and see idiots taking them and killing everyone aboard. So much for open-ended anarchy I guess.

You misunderstand the game big time, to be honest

You should try the game modes I listed, have a taste of the variety allowed, to see that this game is about giving freedom to the player, and freedom to the mission maker.

The true spirit of OFP is not that anyone can run with any gear and in any vehicle they like, not at all.

It's that anyone can play a mission as they envision it. If they prefer restricted kits, they can play it. If they prefer freeform CTF, they can play it. If they prefer large scale no respawn coop, they can play it.

Spirit of the game is that the mission maker can make it as he wishes.

It's that addon/mod makers are not restricted as far as possible.

You act like the missions you played are such because BI allowed everyone to do everything in these missions. It's wrong, it's because the mission makers allowed everything

Reread my last paragraph : all you ask for is already possible in ArmA2.

[galzohar 31]

One of the benefits with this game is that it hands so much capability to the mission designers. Double-edged sword.

Yes, I agree. Though the effect could be greatly reduced if BIS released a couple great (aka, not the campaign) missions with the game.

[Defunkt 431]

Agreed, they missed a huge opportunity by not investing more in some mainstream missions themselves.

[Langnasen 10]

Agreed, they missed a huge opportunity by not investing more in some mainstream missions themselves.

Indeed. Instruction by example may have precluded some of the worst abortions of mission design I've seen so far.