Why are public games in ArmA II so terrible?

[Herbal Influence 10]

Just watch the sharp daily drop of gamers at 22:00 European Time on servers with more than 30 gamers.

[VanhA-ICON 11]

Well, we run public games (small ones usually) and if I'm as admin I usually give "run&gunners" a warning to get back with group and if no effect I kick them out.

As long as there's proper admin on servers the games usually stay organized.

Actually I've made a rule on our squad that if anyone of us plays he must log in as admin right away to keep control.

[-AIGB-~Steiner 10]

there is a thing that is much more urgent than deciding what mission we will let run on our Servers.

The problem that I experience every day when I join my Server is that there are so much Players just destroying the Base doing TK´s all the time etc. There are only a few that respect our Server Rules and are willing to play in a team. And it doesn´t matter which Type of Mission I´m running on that Server.

Most of the time me and my Team is occupied by only warning and kicking the Players who are not willing to Play the Game the way it is meant to be played.

Sure, as an Admin it´s my Job to do so, but not that much, like in the present time.

I now decided to bring up a second ArmA II Server for Members only, so we can play in a Team without any interruption of those "Hot Shots". The Public Server will only be checked to make Contact to new potentials for our Squad. Thats bad, but me and my Team want to Play the Game too. I don´t want to spend my Spare Time only on advising Players to read our Rules and telling them how to Play the Game anymore. I think that this is a way to bring people together who are really interested in playing in a Team. And after that Goal is reached, we will decide what missions we will run on the Server.

Greetz,

[AIGB]~Steiner

[ricoadf 0]

What I have in ideas, I lack in research. Are there mission designers willing to make missions like that?

I only make missions for coop that last 20-40mins, I'd be happy to make some for you mate and play them also :D

The reply of "you need a clan/squad to play coop" is bs, get a bunch of players on TS with a coop mission and you can have as much fun, moreso if you do it with the same people often, because you dont have the clan crap that often goes with them :p

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Well, I have to agree with streets. It's the players own fault that it plays out so bad publically. However, if they didn't have the chance to do so, it would be better. If getting killed had a greater cost, maybe they would be more careful about their playstyle. ;)

• 
  [1]Remove Paradrop and MHQ Teleportation. Make transport helicopters worth their weight in gold!
  [2]Transport Helicopters function as self-replenishing Ammo crates.
  [3]Remove all AT weapons, except for M136 AT4 on BLUE side.
  [4]Remove all ground and air vehicles, and all vehicle rewards. Keep the ability to 'spawn' various vehicles at target location though.
  [5]Pilots may (through a special menu) create any type of western airship. Every pilot may have one 'active' vehicle.
  [6]Pilots invariably respawn back at HQ and have no 'Alternative Injury System' active.
  [7]Medics may deploy (and carry) Field Hospitals. These function as respawn locations for Frontline forces. If there are none, you cannot respawn.[Potentially give this to Team/squad leader instead]
  [8]Recon Troops utilize the Sniper Ghillie suit model, and uniquely carry the laser designator. Recon troops respawn at base, but are the only ones permitted to HALO parajump.
  [9]Enemy should consist of primarily of greater numbers of Infantry, with a splattering of Lightly Armoured vehicles. Reinforcements are Heavy Mechanized or motorized forces. Ensure that enemy AA and patrol elements stray FURTHER from the town center. Better still make AI actively hunt through local forests.
  [10]More side missions at Main Target should require a prerequisite number of frontline soldiers 'present' in order to capture. Say 4-6

Edited quote from asterisks to numbers listings.

1) I've put a C130 to paradrop from, located far from the flag. Paradropping becomes tedious, you have to run a lot to do it. It becomes a problem for those who dies a lot, and a nice option for teamwork. No paradrop from cleared targets though, only a UAZ for the unlucky stranded.

There exist in Domination a switch that sets "only pilots can fly", and you can assign by class or player slot. Additionally, you can for your own server edit a list of admins that can lock helicopters. I haven't tested what happens if you bugs out of the game yet. The problem with your ruleset is that nobody can join or play solo, pretty much a requirement for these kinds of missions. However, it is easier now than it used to be, for the score hunters, as score is saves as you exit to change class.

Personally, I like having the MHQ as it is, except you shouldn't be able to teleport from it. This is quite trivial to disable. Same goes for the flag, fully agree on the no teleport. If the new player have to run a bit to get to the paradrop feature, then so be it. At least he *can* get out, as you're not sure if a chopper pilot is a "good player" or he might be downed somewhere. Sitting around waiting would be problematic for most.

2) Current ammo system (drop from chopper or MHQ) is good enough. You can edit the amount it generates to more realistic levels.

3) Activate limited_weapons. By default, only Riflemen (M136) get AT4, and AT Specialists get SMAW (3 max of each I think, unsure about team bravo). Also, it reduces amount of snipers and optics become a luxury. You can edit this list though. Personally I allow more M136, and have only two SMAWs and two machinegunners, separated into a heavy weapons squad.

4) I kinda like the ability to obtain vehicles as rewards. Personally we only get HMMWVs for side missions, and LAVs and AAVs for main targets. Since our targets are scaled heavily down wrt armor, it would be very unbalancing coming in with an Abrams or Cobra. More infantry oriented.

5) Would require a bit of rewrite, and isn't compatible with the current system. But if it was, there must be a way to "outvote" a pilot so that he is put in jail until he logs out (or is vote kicked). There are lots of "pilots" out there who appear to never even have tried one in the editor. These guys have to be prevented.

6) Pilots and snipers ;) In fact, there should only be one sniper and one spotter as a special team, with this respawn limit. Squad marksmen could be the only ones that gets access to ACOGs. And DMR completely removed.

7) I disagree. Medic tents have a weird placement problem (can be stretched to 10m tall), although I haven't seen it in Arma2 yet. It is extremely rare, but when it happens it ruins the game. I'm perfectly happy with MHQ, but drivers position should be locked to everyone unless there is higher commander available. Such as platoon commanders or squad leaders.

8) Mixed feelings about respawn system, but considering the above, I guess I have to agree. Low altitude jumps, but not too close to a target, and available from the flag. It makes sense to me to let the spotter have the only SOFLAM available. He could have a secondary role as a forward observer for artillery. SOFLAM could also be scripted to provide range information to the sniper. Teamwork pays.

9) It is easy to control the amount and type of armor at a target, and you can even change the contents of the isle_defense roaming vehicles. I got so sick of Tunguskas against MH-60s :p BMPs, UAZs and BRDMs still open up on you, but at least you have a chance. Making more infantry AI is a problem. 3 AIs on foot take a lot more server resources than 3 AIs in a tank, iirc. I think that is the main reason for so much armor. Not sure if this is still valid for Arma2. Target sizes can be easily changed to something bigger. I'm using 900 radius, which makes stealth a valid approach for some missions at main. However, don't forget to up the minimal amount of survivors. Looking for that last hiding car in a near 2km circle diameter will get you mad :)

Basically what I'm saying, is: Most of your wishes can already be done simply by setting some switches in the various init files. Others require a bit of rewrite. And some I would recommend against, as you will hate yourself for it each time a new version comes out and you have to do it all again from scratch. Trust me on that one :D Every time a new version comes out, I have to edit every single side mission file to meet my changes (less amor, more cars, more infantry). It sure helps with UltraCompare, without it I would have given up long time ago.

[galzohar 31]

You can't get very far by editing domination, as the whole concept is based 180 degrees away from what you want in a team-based, challenging game.

[An Fiach 10]

You can't get very far by editing domination, as the whole concept is based 180 degrees away from what you want in a team-based, challenging game.

Not at all, but to make it so you really need players who want to play it that way. The concept is sound but I agree the implementation is kind of poor, but then I don't think Domi was ever intended to be a great team map.

[xeno 234]

Wow... 9 pages.

I must have done something right that it takes nine pages to write something about Dom as an example for public playable missions :D

Though you still haven't found out what your real problem is. And by reading most of the posts here, you will never ever do.

In the meantime I'll enjoy playing missions with 40 - 60 players on closed servers, with all players in TS (or even 69 like GOL and anrop did), sometimes with 10 or less players too.

Maybe some day you will find out the difference between public playing and playing on closed servers, but currently you are so far away from it, it's amazing.

Xeno

[Stagler 39]

All valid reasons why I play PR not Arma 2 Online, Online is shyte unless yer with an organised team. I played Cipher once, with 5 yanks, it was amazing, we used voip, was really good fun, spent best part of an hour working ourselves into position to attack the target. But most servers are a farce, people flyin A10s about an everyone running around with a Barrett 50.

Shame

[PuFu 4599]

The only way as it is now to get a proper game, is to play on a private server, with ppl you know and have direct coms with (TS+VON)

Also, the missions that are mostly played out there, Evolution and Domination, are fun to a point, if you play them as described above, but neither of those help keeping some teamplay going on any public servers. I am not saying that can be done easily, but it can be done if the mission would force some sort of restrictions to players (limited respawn, limited weapons, limited vehicles, mixed objectives). Props for Xeno and the guy who did the original Evolution, for the script work and the complexity of the mission, but saying that, i do prefer missions where:

1. i can loose in one form of the other (most of missions don't have a loose parameter, especially if they feature respawn)

2. the mission doesn't last as long

3. the scope of the mission is a bit different than moving from A to B and killing everything (platoon size at most killing a small army size force), respawn, kill some more, repeat etc

[enforcer1975 0]

The only way as it is now to get a proper game, is to play on a private server, with ppl you know and have direct coms with (TS+VON)

That's not completly true. My clan has awesome teamwork when it comes to wars or other competetive like modes. But if you let them lose on a public server or in a coop mission... C H A O S :)

[.kju 3244]

Play Advance and Secure. ArmA2.ru runs it daily.

Good action paced infantry combat.

If you want teamplay, organize VOIP (ts or ingame). Simple as that.

[Alex72 1]

That's not completly true. My clan has awesome teamwork when it comes to wars or other competetive like modes. But if you let them lose on a public server or in a coop mission... C H A O S :)

Umm... Thats exactlly what Pufu said... To get a good game you play with people you know (clan/team/mates) on a private server (locked for random people).

[galzohar 31]

Like I said, domination's both greatness and downfall (greatness = why it's run on so many servers and people play it, downfall = why I and many players who seek a better challenge don't play it) is that it's designed from the ground up to be playable on a public server.

There's little fun in teamwork, at least for me, if you don't lose no matter what.

As for private servers, we all know about them and many probably played on them, but it's not the topic of this thread.

Eventually, the answer to the title of the thread would probably be: "Because public servers let anyone join including horrible players and players who don't really care about anything other than shooting stuff, and are running missions that support those attitudes."

[An Fiach 10]

Wow... 9 pages.

I must have done something right that it takes nine pages to write something about Dom as an example for public playable missions :D

Though you still haven't found out what your real problem is. And by reading most of the posts here, you will never ever do.

In the meantime I'll enjoy playing missions with 40 - 60 players on closed servers, with all players in TS (or even 69 like GOL and anrop did), sometimes with 10 or less players too.

Maybe some day you will find out the difference between public playing and playing on closed servers, but currently you are so far away from it, it's amazing.

Xeno

Thanks for the insight :rolleyes:

[Zipper5 74]

...

Ironically, this was quite the mature discussion until the maker of Domination came to flamebait. :rolleyes:

[xeno 234]

Ironically, this was quite the mature discussion until the maker of Domination came to flamebait. :rolleyes:

So blaming a mission and indirectly me is mature?

Then go ahead if you feel better and mature then.

Xeno

[nkenny 1057]

<snip>

(PS: Don’t get me wrong. I enjoy domination. WBG server is excellent at it. Warfare is fun, evolution not so much. My personal preference is just as valid as someone else’s. I prefer coops (or TDMs) with asymmetric teams and varied strategies. )

Domination is a hot topic in this thread right now, because everyone has played it! It alongside Benny's warfare form the 'core' of the ARMA2 public multiplayer experience. Both these missions give fun, sometimes addictive, gameplay. They do so with certain amount of style and polish, in a difficult environment! Every mission designer creating missions aimed at public play could learn something here.

What I feel the original intention of this thread was, or is. Is to highlight and ask the important question. How can we create an environment of teamplay in a public setting. Other games have definitely managed to do this, why not arma2?

I believe mission design can go a long way. Economy of death and real possibility of loss is important. Others have different opinions. Harboring a certain community of players on your servers is the obvious goal. How can one establish this in the best possible way? Is it already done?

Either way Domination is a fun mission. Enjoyed by many-many people and because everyone is familiar with it. An excellent basis of discussion. Its THE example of functional public COOP games we have.

-k

[cri74 10]

LOL - Domination and the other missions made by Xeno are really great, and as he has stated in other treads-- maybe somone will learn from the missions he has made and make them even better (correct me if im wrong) Form the mission pack we loaded up the moonwalk mission and had a really good time on it, though the ppl joining midgame where pretty confused on what to do and where to go. But on that mission everyone joining had to join a squad, for public play maybe that was the downside to a good mission ? Donno - but if you find a server you like, then play it and get to know the players.. i do not have the privlige of joining a 40 player closed server and i dont think i will within the next 10 years or sommet..hehe. The veterans keep to them self and maybe thats the difference between Project Reality and ArmA2. If you make a mistake in PR you are corrected within the next 1-2 minutes by a veteran playing the server.

[.kju 3244]

How about making concrete suggestions for CTI/Warfare/Domination and post the feedback

in a decent manner in the responsible place.

The other option is to tweak the mission yourself.

[Zipper5 74]

So blaming a mission and indirectly me is mature?

Then go ahead if you feel better and mature then.

You've got to accept that your mission does not in any way, shape, or form encourage teamwork. Therefore, many servers playing it have zero teamwork at all, and are just running around doing what they want.

And I'm not saying your mission is bad! Far from it. It's incredibly well made and well scripted. I'm very impressed looking at it in a de-pbo'd form. In fact, I've learned a lot of things from it. Plus, it's perfect for those who simply want simple fun and rewards for doing so.

However, due to the popularity of Domination, and other maps like Evolution, teamwork is almost a no-show on the MP side of things unless in a group/clan. We are not blaming you at all. We're also not entirely putting the blame on Domination. It's more on the community's decisions to host such missions constantly instead of more variety that the blame rests.

Please point out somewhere that someone was immaturely posting in this thread. I have yet to see such a post. It has been quite the impressive feat that this hasn't turned into a flame war. A rarity in the community as of late.

[oktane 0]

You guys know the answers but are ignoring them.

Domination is only relevant because its popular, it has such penetration that its criticism is inevitable. (parallel: being the president or someone popular)

Domination succeeds because its fun, inviting, and can be played by both skilled + disciplined teams as well as new players and rambo's. It offers many avenues of team-play without forcing them. (to say otherwise, is ridiculous.. maybe you should play it again) Server admin's like it because it can run all the time (even without an admin) and offers a reasonably different scenario depending on the players present. It isn't a conscious decision by the community so much as its the most flexible thing we have to entertain. There are a few others on this level, warfare, crcti, cipher, DAC maps, DYNAfgan, old ofp stuff. The draw is their depth, replayablity, familiar features, and always running capability. These features represent a different class of mission altogether from the standard one-shot coop. Team work is up to the players, and one of the reasons it's optional is that it is adaptable to player count. Xeno's map only offers many options to the gameplay, instead of funneling and forcing a method of play. (last i checked, arma players want freedom) We run domination and we don't have any problem playing as a team, or even getting pubbers work together. We use revive, certain classes are needed for support, etc.

I don't understand what you folks are complaining about. If you don't like mission xyz, then thru your own volition, change the landscape. This is exactly what xeno did. When you come out with your dynamic coop mission and it's a smashing success, we'll play it.

Xeno took the insults to his work personally, perhaps without realizing that he is the creator of the most popular coop mission, and should treat such comments with a grain of salt imo. You could have also dissected what makes domination popular as I have a little here and separate it from Xeno's work, without disparaging it.

The community speaks with what it plays. Some of us welcome new people and teach them how to play tactically as a team. Without a public server, we can't reach out to those people. If you don't like pubbers, don't play with them.. play with your mates on a private server.

There is nobody to blame except the community for which you are a part of, for playing the way they do. You can work constructively on changing the status quo, continue to complain, or leave it entirely.

Aside: I enjoy one-shot coop missions with story and cti/warfare pvp over dynamic coop missions. In dynamic missions I tend to see the math of the gameplay. They are not the same to me, totally different classes of mission and they have their separate places. Dynamic coop missions are ideal for public servers for obvious reasons already mentioned. One shot coops are not ideal for public servers and I doubt you will ever see the majority of servers running them unless some brilliant framework comes out that bridges the gaps between the two classes of missions.

Edited November 14, 2009 by oktane

[Murklor 10]

You've got to accept that your mission does not in any way, shape, or form encourage teamwork.

Eh? Of course Domination encourage teamwork - the core of the mission is your team capturing cities, the more the merrier. Just slapping down a transport helicopter on a mission is encouraging teamwork because what is the point of an empty transport?

What it doesnt do is enforce teamwork. It wont take you by the hand and lead you to teamwork glory nor will it punish you for going in alone. Well aside from getting killed faster.

Not that it cant be improved of course. One of the key flaws IMO is the complete and utter lack of unit coherence. Yes, there are groups in the unit setup but the squadleader is pretty much worthless. For clan games this is irrelevant - they will stick together regardless - but for public games players need a little nudge. Spawning/reinforcements is teambased (ie spawn at base or team MHQ), personally I think it should be squadbased (but the size of squads should increase to max).

Edited November 14, 2009 by Murklor

[An Fiach 10]

Eh? Of course Domination encourage teamwork - the core of the mission is your team capturing cities, the more the merrier. Just slapping down a transport helicopter on a mission is encouraging teamwork because what is the point of an empty transport?

What it doesnt do is enforce teamwork. It wont take you by the hand and lead you to teamwork glory nor will it punish you for going in alone. Well aside from getting killed faster.

Not that it cant be improved of course. One of the key flaws IMO is the complete and utter lack of unit coherence. Yes, there are groups in the unit setup but the squadleader is pretty much worthless. For clan games this is irrelevant - they will stick together regardless - but for public games players need a little nudge. Spawning/reinforcements is teambased (ie spawn at base or team MHQ), personally I think it should be squadbased (but the size of squads should increase to max).

I have to disagree with your transport statement on the grounds that Rambo is more than happy to transport himself. If you have a single individual on the map he will need transport at some point in time.

Xeno will start whimpering any time you even look sideways at one of his missions. Some people cannot accept that not everyone is going to like everything you do.

It has been said though, you have to have proper admins. Well rounded missions run by proper admins. If you can't manage a coop server, something is very wrong.

Personally, coop gets old very fast though because AI does not have independent thought and is easy to exploit and for maximum variety you need public servers, but that's my personal tastes.

Admins Admins Admins. It's as simple as that. That is why private servers work so well, because you don't let anyone in that doesn't want to follow the rules. You can't force people to play how you want them to but you can make them play elsewhere.

[xeno 234]

...and should treat such comments with a grain of salt imo.

I did that to long, more than a year now, including ArmA 1. There is allways a point where it is simply enough.

What those crybabies (sorry, but that is exactly what you are for me) don't understand is that all those countless hours that go into such projects are all done in spare time. And I'm not talking about Dom alone but ask Benny for example, how many hours he invests to get Warfare right or Zaphod how long it took for Berzerk.

None of the MP missions that get played are done by payed BI personal, all those missions are done by people who invest many many hours for free in their spare time just that others can have some fun. Fighting against limitations or bugs that the A2 engine has, trying to get out of the engine whatever is possible.

So instead of crying you should invest the same time to get what you want or try to solve your problem. Or invest money to get your own server and play what you want (btw, all the servers out there are not payed by BI but by others who invest their hard earned money).

But, as you can see in a thread like this, that is not the goal. It's easier to blame something else (whatever it is). Investing a minute or two to write some lines in a forum hidden behind a forum nick is much easier than investing thousands of hours for developing.

I guess I'm to old for that shit and that is why I stop here doing anything more for such a "mature" community. It is not worth it, it really isn't.

Xeno