Why are public games in ArmA II so terrible?

[-Total- 0]

Sure you *can*, but the nature of the mission does not require it in any way whatsoever, and thus it's not worth bothering it for anything other than the sheer "hey look we're playing as a team" idea (which does have its place, but it's not anything like actually playing a mission that requires cooperation in order to complete it).

That completely depends on the mission edits.

For us, we took out alot of indivudual-style elements to force teamwork. It's not uncommon to see someone come in and leave after 5 minutes when they realize our dom edit doesn't treat the game like BF2 on steroids :D

[streets 10]

Hey folks, been following this discussion and thanks to KELLO there might be a solution at least in some form now, check this out:

ARMACOM

[galzohar 31]

That completely depends on the mission edits.

For us, we took out alot of indivudual-style elements to force teamwork. It's not uncommon to see someone come in and leave after 5 minutes when they realize our dom edit doesn't treat the game like BF2 on steroids :D

Unless you did something that turns the mission to something more difficult than "you pretty much never lose, almost no matter what you do", then you're not going to have motivation for teamwork (not from the mission's end, at least). I don't see why players look for teamwork in domination - it's pretty much designed 100% for playing on public servers with no teamwork where you may end up being teamed up with anything from team killers to nobody to bad teammates to an actually good team. IMO this is both the greatness and downfall of this mission.

[An Fiach 10]

It all comes down to what servers have admins that enforce rules of play. Doesn't matter what the mission allows.

[galzohar 31]

Except not a lot of people would join a server where the admin makes up rules that have nothing to do with succeeding in the mission (and in the case of domination, any rule has nothing to do with succeeding in the mission as you can't lose). It's really a combination of good admins and an appropriate mission.

[tractorking 10]

I have to say I am impressed by the level of maturity in the ARMA comminity.

This thread would have deteriorated into flame wars on any other forum.

Kudos guys

Ive been frequenting 2 servers

So far the most well organized is the Tactical Gamer servs...very structured and fun.

TG tends to switch maps every mission and this is alot of fun.

the Other one is the 3rd Marine which is a little loser in regards to comms and what not but still very team oriented. They mostly due domination.

Not hyping either for any reason but fun.

3rd MD has an event a 4pm est tonight and Tactical Gamer holds events on sundays.

I missed the last TG event but it looks like the had 80 people and were all well organized into units and commands.

Edited January 29, 2010 by tractorking

[Defunkt 431]

It all comes down to what servers have admins that enforce rules of play. Doesn't matter what the mission allows.

I could not disagree more, what can or cannot be done (or should or should not be rewarded) should ideally be the sole province of the game/mission. It is surely the goal of any simulation, and especially one that is typically competitive, to present a world that is utterly free from interpretation. Any perceived need for intervention by admins ("I don't like the way you're playing") must be seen as a failure of the game/mission. If you want teamwork the mission should reward it.

[An Fiach 10]

Except not a lot of people would join a server where the admin makes up rules that have nothing to do with succeeding in the mission (and in the case of domination, any rule has nothing to do with succeeding in the mission as you can't lose). It's really a combination of good admins and an appropriate mission.

That's how you weed out the individuals you don't want to play with. If your rules are simply based upon enforcing team play, that's the kind of players you will attract.

---------- Post added at 08:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:32 AM ----------

I could not disagree more, what can or cannot be done (or should or should not be rewarded) should ideally be the sole province of the game/mission. It is surely the goal of any simulation, and especially one that is typically competitive, to present a world that is utterly free from interpretation. Any perceived need for intervention by admins ("I don't like the way you're playing") must be seen as a failure of the game/mission. If you want teamwork the mission should reward it.

Interpretation? We are talking about team play are we not? People that choose to avoid working with others on their team are not the least interested in the mission. If you have to design a mission that is so restrictive that it can effectively enforce teamwork; a) it will end up being stifling and linear and b)you aren't playing with the right people in the first place.

The goal of a simulation is to simulate an object or an environment. You cannot simulate team work (at least not yet). Only an Admin can make sure that guy filling the pilot slot is gonna do his job transporting the team rather than using the bird for a personal transport. Only an Admin is going to make sure that guy filling the medic slot is doing the medic's job rather than acting like just another rifleman.

I don't know how you can really reward teamwork in any substantial way and I'm open to discussing any options you may see as viable. In ArmA 2 points don't really matter to anyone. Winning doesn't seem to be a particularly great motivator toward teamwork either. TractorKing mentioned Tactical Gamer servers. I've played with them and the team play is great. The missions do not force anything on you (well some do because they are so complicated only the TG guys know what to do) but they enforce team play on their server. If you don't want to play along, then you aren't welcome on their server.

[nkenny 1051]

I most heartily disagree. A mission can encourage teamwork by making it necessary in order to complete the map.

The Example

Take a chaotic public setting like Domination. Lets assume we can divide the various roles into three categories. Recon(SF), Support (pilots) and finally Frontline(various infantry).

On a 32 server; 4 Recon, 4 Pilots, 22 Infantry slots, 2 other/various/leadership

• Remove Paradrop and MHQ Teleportation. Make transport helicopters worth their weight in gold!
  
• Transport Helicopters function as self-replenishing Ammo crates.
  
• Remove all AT weapons, except for M136 AT4 on BLUE side.
  
• Remove all ground and air vehicles, and all vehicle rewards. Keep the ability to 'spawn' various vehicles at target location though.
  
• Pilots may (through a special menu) create any type of western airship. Every pilot may have one 'active' vehicle.
  
• Pilots invariably respawn back at HQ and have no 'Alternative Injury System' active.
  
• 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]
  
• 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.
  
• 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.
  
• More side missions at Main Target should require a prerequisite number of frontline soldiers 'present' in order to capture. Say 4-6

Economy of Death

At mission start, limit the amount of available respawns. Say around 40 respawns. These are shared by the entire team. Any time a Frontline soldier or Recon trooper respawns; one of these are consumed. Anytime a Recon trooper 'HALO' jumps from HQ; consume another respawn.

Every time a location is 'conquered' add 10 respawns to pool.

Pilots always respawn at HQ and they do so 'for free'. Instead each time a pilot 'spawns' a new vehicle (presumably because the first is destroyed) the Main Target >one is reinforced by an additional 'heavy' element. MBTs, Shilka/tunguska, Mechanized infantry or worse(such as fighter planes).

Conclusion and Result

Boom. Suddenly there is a very real chance of failure. Also the different elements are 'forced' to work together.

Because ground forces have little to none effective AT available, they must coordinate with the airforce to take out hard targets. At the same time the support element is incapable of 'clearing' out a target zone, and only grunts can effectively hunt down dangerous ground based AA weapons. Finally the grunt is also dependent on the support elements for transportation and rearmament.

Recon provides an expensive but fast way of providing just that. Reconnaissance. The role of recon is VITAL. It is their job to make target assessments and to coordinate the intial LZ, and mark targets of importance for the air force. Left alone Recon troopers are hopelessly out gunned and outnumbered. They simply cannot clear a zone alone. Their value lays in eyes and ears.

The Support element is not only saddled in the most important logistical tasks. Pilots have the most powerful weapons available to them, but they come in the most expensive and fragile wrapping. Loosing an aircraft is a terribly costly affair, the lives of the GRUNTS are at stake!

In the end it is a battle of the grunt. Call it the war of the media, or public relations. Victory produce willing volunteers for the prestigious army. Body bags does the opposite. The mission fails if no grunts are living, and no respawns are available.

-k

Edited November 11, 2009 by NkEnNy

[-GCA- Salah ad Din 10]

include the disposable AT4's into above setup. Add mandos missiles for the air forces. Pilots should not have free spawn choice of their vehicles.

And the role of the Admin here would be to kick the Recon guys that keep repeating a "HALO in, snipe one to four enemies, get killed" sequence, instead of scouting out the location without engaging any units.

Also, restrict small arms selections. As much as I love the G36, it should not be used by US forces. maybe add small special weapon squads (two man) with SMAWS or Javelins, or Sniper teams for Officer removal side missions. But these will also have restricted weapon access. You can choose a sniper rifle? well, no AT or assault rifles for you then.

Edited November 11, 2009 by [GCA] Salah ad Din

[Sirex1 10]

NkEnNy you are wrong becouse you are not looking at the reality. A server playing that mission would be unpopulated thus you are wrong. You would need players willing to play that map and that is exactly what anfiach has been saing.

So you still need the right players before you can play realistic missions.

[An Fiach 10]

Well, people might play on that mission but it still doesn't mean they will work together.

I think many of us can agree that there are a lot of maps out there that are loaded with junk. Join Domination and Rambo can load up with a sniper rifle and an smaw, grab a chopper and lift a tank to where they want to go. It doesn't make the mission bad though because a group of team oriented players could make great fun of it and never touch half of the things in the spawn. I absolutely do think that a properly designed mission helps to organize things, static player kits eliminates guessing who needs to carry what and allows the mission to be scalable; If you design it so that one squad/team/group has the tools to accomplish the mission, you simply increase the number of groups per side as applicable.

It all starts with good admins though. Once you establish that on your server only team play is welcome you attract the right kind of people and then it doesn't matter what kind of missions you run, people will be there to play as a team and they will do so.

[galzohar 31]

There is also the fact that weapons are improperly implemented and thus some weapons are clearly better than others for most situations and as a result letting players pick their own weapons will result in an extreme lack of realism even if they're the most team-oriented players in the world (in fact, especially if they are, as they would be smart enough to pick those improperly implemented weapons to take advantage of them to best aid their team).

[nkenny 1051]

Don't bargain with terrorists

Sometimes it really seems like people let their fear of that mystical "bad player/jackass" guide the way they play their games. .Which happens to be counter productive to the very extreme.

If you are going to let the overriding fear that someone might abuse your game experience... well singleplayer is the only way to go forth. Isn't online gaming supposed to be some sort of challenge? Won't we get a more enjoyable experience by pushing the limits? Learning to handle new things?

Activating more players

Lets say we introduce a game mode with a capture zone that requires four players to come together. Nay sayers might declare this impossible as public games "aren't that organized" RUBBISH I SAY. How long do you think it takes for a group of clever players to learn what needs to be done to advance the mission? How much better a GAME EXPERIENCE will you get when four people are FORCED to work together contra the usual single-player-alike-rambo-nonsense.

Still impossible? Think of all the good men (and women?) who lug around Satchel charges on domination maps to blow radio towers and the like. Instead of the much more effective DMR/SMAW combo.

Now certainly a good server admin, or a crowd of players that know how to 'vote kick' will go a long way. But at the end of the day, the missions we play determine the inbound 'rules' of our game experience. These are the constraints, tactical limitations, and fact we simply must adhere to. Ie: They form the basis of how we play a given mission type.

Weapon Selection

The weapon selection most players limit themselves to is directly affected by the typical mission scenarios we play. Both domination and warfare provide very similar tactical scenarios; hence a similar weapon selection.

Were there more constraints on AT weapons. More soft targets like UAZs and URALS (loaded with squishies). More forced close-in work. More unpredictable 'ambush' scenarios. More penalties for making noise at inopportune times. We would see a quite different weapon selection going on.

-k

Edit: Interesting tweaks [GCA] Salah ad Din. Out of interest. Why not let Pilots choose exactly the vehicle they want to use?

[streets 10]

You girls are all being silly and wrong, the reason is that people don't care. Don't put out that bullshit on "it's about the mission" or "lets blame the admins". The fault is on the players. Everybody who has given a bit of time knows how ArmA should be played but we don't wanna do that on random public because it takes effort.

End of discussion.

[An Fiach 10]

You girls are all being silly and wrong, the reason is that people don't care. Don't put out that bullshit on "it's about the mission" or "lets blame the admins". The fault is on the players. Everybody who has given a bit of time knows how ArmA should be played but we don't wanna do that on random public because it takes effort.

End of discussion.

Gee, who stained your panties? :cool:

There's no 'blame' to place on admins, they can choose to enforce certain things on their servers or not. I'm merely pointing out that players interested in team play are going to avoid servers where hooligans are not quickly tossed out on their arse and where team play is not the focus. This doesn't obligate anyone to run their servers in any particular fashion.

@Kenny, there are mission types that do the things you just mentioned, they still do nothing to encourage people to work together. It is a far better investment of effort to create an environment to attract the kind of players you want to have than to waste it trying to get players who don't care to follow your lead. It's like herding cats. I'm not talking about Admins trying to convince players to play the way we all seem to want them to, I'm talking about them not allowing those players to be on the server at all. It has to be the choice of the host/admin though.

Edited November 12, 2009 by anfiach

[tractorking 10]

You girls are all being silly and wrong, the reason is that people don't care. Don't put out that bullshit on "it's about the mission" or "lets blame the admins". The fault is on the players. Everybody who has given a bit of time knows how ArmA should be played but we don't wanna do that on random public because it takes effort.

End of discussion.

This I agree with. We Americans are fighting a rampent and growing virus in our country.

The virus is called "Lack of personal responsibilty"

The primary symptoms are:

Refusal to accept ones role

Constantly blaming other for the lack of better skills

Not taking responsibility for theyre action

Failure to recognize the consequences of actions

Becoming bitter when negative consequences are thrust upon them for theyre actions

Failure to envision how ones actions affect others

Lack of regard as to how one actions affect others

There is always the blame game....its this...its that.....its not my fault.....

He did it!............

Now now before we all get worked up.

There is an element of mission and game engine and gameplay style that do affect the action and reaction of players.

If you want to make a realistic and teamwork oriented server that allows no room for run and gun and rambos..........remove the spawn

This is a huge factor in Americas Army that I like.

The game play is diffrent and the rounds are timed to a 10 min limit but......

If you had the same situation in Arma two things would occur.

1. no one would want to die.......the self perservation will force you to stick to teams move slow and tactical,avoid conflict when possible.

2. Rambos would die fast and get bored waiting and leave the server for a respawn run and gun server.......problem solved, no more kicking no more arguments..........just let nature take its course..

Those that die and are willing to wait till restart are mature and patient, really are the player you want anyway

You would still have medic and the revive system which would force more team play. In fact you could create the scripts that would force medics to stabilize the victim and then load him into a helo or ambulance to be taking to a field hospital ...and then he can return to battle fully healed.

It would create a real milsim environment and I am sure no one will want to be running out front trying to find enemy to open up on.

But back to the original point.

Games are played by people of all ages and backrounds. It is up to the individual player to function with the rest of the people on servers.

If someone tells you something and it seems resonable you should probably not argue and go with the flow provided they are a valid source.

There are some servers who spend a majority of theyre time looking for guys to kick for various reasons...this is also wrong and the admin needs to also hold himself to the same respect level that they expect in return.

What Im saying is nothing new, this is how we interact in life and should not be limited to how we play.

We alll need to take responsiblity for our actions and conduct ourselves in the manner that we would like to be treated.

Play responsibly and have fun!

Edited November 12, 2009 by tractorking

[HyperU2 11]

To paraphrase, people suck.

[An Fiach 10]

This I agree with. We Americans are fighting a rampent and growing virus in our country.

The virus is called "Lack of personal responsibilty"

The primary symptoms are:

Refusal to accept ones role

Constantly blaming other for the lack of better skills

Not taking responsibility for theyre action

Failure to recognize the consequences of actions

Becoming bitter when negative consequences are thrust upon them for theyre actions

Failure to envision how ones actions affect others

Lack of regard as to how one actions affect others

There is always the blame game....its this...its that.....its not my fault.....

He did it!............

Now now before we all get worked up.

There is an element of mission and game engine and gameplay style that do affect the action and reaction of players.

If you want to make a realistic and teamwork oriented server that allows no room for run and gun and rambos..........remove the spawn

This is a huge factor in Americas Army that I like.

The game play is diffrent and the rounds are timed to a 10 min limit but......

If you had the same situation in Arma two things would occur.

1. no one would want to die.......the self perservation will force you to stick to teams move slow and tactical,avoid conflict when possible.

2. Rambos would die fast and get bored waiting and leave the server for a respawn run and gun server.......problem solved, no more kicking no more arguments..........just let nature take its course..

Those that die and are willing to wait till restart are mature and patient, really are the player you want anyway

You would still have medic and the revive system which would force more team play. In fact you could create the scripts that would force medics to stabilize the victim and then load him into a helo or ambulance to be taking to a field hospital ...and then he can return to battle fully healed.

It would create a real milsim environment and I am sure no one will want to be running out front trying to find enemy to open up on.

But back to the original point.

Games are played by people of all ages and backrounds. It is up to the individual player to function with the rest of the people on servers.

If someone tells you something and it seems resonable you should probably not argue and go with the flow provided they are a valid source.

There are some servers who spend a majority of theyre time looking for guys to kick for various reasons...this is also wrong and the admin needs to also hold himself to the same respect level that they expect in return.

What Im saying is nothing new, this is how we interact in life and should not be limited to how we play.

We alll need to take responsiblity for our actions and conduct ourselves in the manner that we would like to be treated.

Play responsibly and have fun!

You are quite right about personal responsibility and players that complain there is no teamwork while failing to be a team player themselves deserve what they get. I do not at all mean to imply otherwise but we need to recognize that though this is a mil sim, there are many who view it as just a game. Certainly it can be played either way. Americas Army works well because the maps are small while most of us revel in the sheer openness that ArmA 2 provides. Not every mission and game mode will be well suited for such restrictions. I've played missions with TG that had no respawns and they were great, they had a limited scope and the time to complete them were relatively short. On the other hand, I've also played some great missions where that wouldn't be feasible and if not for their firm enforcement of server rules they could easily turn into what you see on most other public servers if people who are not interested in that level of team play were allowed to fill the player slots.

I most certainly do not advocate admins banning people left and right and I think that a simple kick is enough to get the message across to most people, provided that you inform them of what is expected and give them the opportunity to adopt behavior that is deemed acceptable. It is the community's responsibility to set the tone and establish an environment of teamwork, to ensure that when new people come in, they immediately see that this is how things are done here and will be more likely to adopt what we would consider good game play practices. The community needs people to step up and be leaders.

For my own part, I have obligations in another community that prevent me from being that guy and it will remain the case until I can find a suitable replacement. This does not prevent me though from supporting anyone who makes that effort or from offering suggestions toward achieving that goal.

First you need a place to go. A lot of people come here to the forums but that includes those not interested in team play and those angry trolls we see everywhere, also you don't have control over these forums to establish sub categories , etc., etc. So create a forum, freeforums.org is great and more importantly, free, but there are others. So you establish a place where everyone that is interested in the end goal of large scale TvT can congregate regardless of squad affiliation or not. Clansitemanager.com also offers website hosting that starts out free and can be upgraded for a low monthly cost that can be paid for by community donations.

Then, establish a player database. Create listings of the players that want to participate and divide them into regions/time zones/countries, whatever you want. Establish a list so that people can see who it is that shares their interest in team play and they can discover the names of those who are online at the same time. This facilitates people recognizing one another on the public servers and they will know who they can count on to team up with when they join a server.

Next, establish a database of missions that encourage and work well for team play. For instance, missions with clearly defined roles, missions with limited kits and spawns, and missions with objectives that require a team effort to complete. Don't only make a list of what is out there but also have people design and offer up their own missions in order to create variety and give server owners one stop shop to find missions for TvT players.

And one step further, a database of servers. Establish a list of servers that offer the missions you want to eliminate wading through tons of terrible servers in an effort to find something you like. Give server operators a place that they can inform you of their mission list and what mods, if any, are required for playing. They can also list their TS2/Vent/Mumble, etc.. that are used with their servers.

It starts with ones and twos teaming up and eventually they become 4 and 6 and so on. Also remember that it may take some time before significant results are realized. Be patient and methodical. Most out there are followers, they just need someone to follow.

[sparks50 0]

I would say that the current buggy VON must take part of the blame.

Its easier to teamwork when we can talk to each other like one could in Armed Assault(after patches).

Of course you can always use third party programs like TS, but then it isn't really "public" any longer.

[cri74 10]

Playing public games is a mess in ArmA II. First of all there is like 90% domination servers. What happened to the old fashioned co-op style games? When ever I join in it's a mess. People are running around everywhere and you just get in the chopper, get out, walk 2 miles to get to the place where AI is shooting everywhere, and then die. Why does no one stick in their squad? Inside Project Reality it's all human players and the public games are fine. Everyone seems to know what they are doing and no one is just running around. The players even *GASP* stick in their squad unlike ArmA II. I just don't understand how public games in ArmA II are an absolute mess while in Project Reality it's all nice and tidy.

Hi there ! Im allso one of the players coming to ArmA II with the PR experience. First of all i found thh game (arma2) to be very confusing at start, and like you i playd a lot of Domination at start when i joined a public game. I allso had a few friends that play arma2 and we enjoyd playing coop for a while, but what we really needed was to kill other players so to speak :) We found the Warefare by benny to be a fantastic mode to play. It has both AI's and other players and those joining can play lone wolf or as a part of a team where there are mulitple choices to make.

Unlike Project Reality you seldom have to listen to your group to be a part of the game, and you seldom get kicked.. Maybe its unfair or maybe its a good thing. I suggest you try to find a group to play with and find a good mission to play. If you choose to play online public there are som good servers around with a pretty set group of players online everyday playing them, a random game will allways have different players to play along side. Finding a few stabile servers are pretty fundemental in my eyes if you wanna play public :)

Please feel free to join on Tv2 servers

[galzohar 31]

Most people just want to run around and shoot stuff, and most servers just give those people what they want and load up domination which is perfect for that. If you want something else you shouldn't be joining those servers.

What we need the most right now is people willing to join servers that run the "good" type of missions - ones that require teamwork if you don't want to fail them, aka have no respawn (even revive doesn't require much teamwork, just that once in a while you run to someone and revive him in hopes he revives you back, and besides, it's totally unrealistic) and enough challenge so that they cannot be completed successfully if people just run around and shoot stuff. Then we need servers to host games for those people, though it really seems right now that there simply isn't enough demand. For example you can see zeus gaming nights have pretty much the same 20-30 people every time - where are all those players who are dying to play something that isn't domi/evo/cti/cl on those sunday/thursday nights?

[An Fiach 10]

Advertising can go a long way.

[cri74 10]

Then we need servers to host games for those people, though it really seems right now that there simply isn't enough demand. For example you can see zeus gaming nights have pretty much the same 20-30 people every time - where are all those players who are dying to play something that isn't domi/evo/cti/cl on those sunday/thursday nights?

Have a look here galzohar :) http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=86277

We are looking for more people to run servers as admins, make them popular and even bring more gamemods into Arma2. At battle.no we are given the tools, its the place where the players make the rules.

[tractorking 10]

I played an organized event with the 3rd marine division on tuesday, it was very fun.

We used the domination map. I doesnt matter what your are playing if the people do not co-operate.

If you would like to read the feedback from this event heres the link

Some quotes:

"Much fun. First time I've had the chance to enjoy actual organized and realistic gameplay from ARMA II, much like I've often wanted. "

"This was exactly what I try to get out of gameplay. Loved the organization of the game! It was awesome to be doing one thing and then hear/see an explosion across town."

"It gave you pride that what you were doing was actually helping out."

"I have been playing Arma now since the first one came out in 2007. However, not once have I ever experienced something quite like the realism event I experienced with The 3rd MD. Its been said before and I will say it again, THATS how arma2 should be played!"

"For the first time in a long time I walked away from my computer feeling satisfied and whole. "

Not specifically hyping this particular server but I am having fun there.