Lack of multiplayer teamwork.

[Daniel 0]

I find removing respawn causes a massive increase in teamwork...

But of course that's where public servers fall down.

[galzohar 31]

From the PvP I've played, the individual comes before the team if doing so will win you the mission. This I guess is the competitive element, where you will do anything to beat your opponent.

Individual coming before the team is based on the players you play with. Also I don't understand how can the individual come before the team in a way that makes you win the mission, as winning the mission is a collective team result and not a personal thing. Sure you're not going to do "teamwork" stuff such as formations as that is useless (though IMO it's most of the time useless in COOP as well), but if you care about your team more than your kill count then I don't see why this would change in PvP (unless when there are people on the other side you feel a need to "pwn" them all of a sudden and forget about your team, but again that's a player problem, not a PvP generic or even mission specific problem).

Missions with roles and structure can be made for PvP, but mission makers need to make them and people need to be willing to play them, but just like in coop many people just want domination where roles mean very little and each player can do whatever he wants, in PvP people generally want the same stuff (pick any weapons and do what they want). The only thing is that in PvP people are less likely to be willing to force themselves to play by their role when it's not effective and the mission doesn't enforce it, while in coop people are more willing to lose efficiency for the sake of some "roleplaying" aspects. In fact one of the things I like the most about Zeus is that the "roleplaying" aspects aren't enforced artificially (at least not much).

[An Fiach 10]

Galz said it quite well, but I'll give it a go anyways:

I am used a fairly rigid team structure, where you get a role and thats what you do. Team comes before individual, even when doing so is detrimental to the outcome of the mission (leave no man behind and all that).

From the PvP I've played, the individual comes before the team if doing so will win you the mission. This I guess is the competitive element, where you will do anything to beat your opponent.

If you put a coop team against a pvp team, the latter would win everytime because the coopers are restricted by certain dogmas that simply don't apply to pvpers. Both teams cooperate, but along different lines.

I hope that explains what i meant.

For me personally, teamplay is king and I don't really care much about the killing (it gets old after nine years), so coop caters more to my taste.

PS: The teamplay in planetside was quite a sight, back in the good ol days. I played with Sturmgrenadier, and having a complete battlegroup of 100+ players doing their thing is just a tremendous experience.

Thanks for that but I still have to disagree as in other games I have witnessed teamplay in pvp that was not egocentric (focused on individual achievement) and the cooperative team structure actually works better than rather loosely affiliated pvp groups. Kills are only important if it achieves the objective and a team working together overcomes the individual every time. Who gets the kills is not important. So a pvp group that uses the same doctrine as what you refer to as the coop formula actually works very well.

If an individual completing an assigned goal wins you the match that isn't putting the individual before the team unless they go off on their own, but then they aren't playing as a team are they? Assuming of course they aren't a scout/sniper element that has been assigned to post in a position on their own.

So maybe I don't fully understand what you mean but I'm pretty sure that if you wanted to you could include gameplay elements into the missions to reflect what you want.

Leave no man behind? Do you mean by corpse recovery or leaving behind a wounded team mate or what exactly? That sounds like putting the individual ahead of the team. Even in real life it goes, we will come get you when we can, but we don't risk the team for the individual. Even then, it would depend on the mission whether it would be detrimental to the outcome or not.

What I think a lot of people are missing in the pvp game is that many want to have a coop like experience except they wish to play vs human beings. Naturally there are differences, AI isn't expecting you and it is predictable. Dead AI soldiers cannot talk on teamspeak either.

The best pvp I've experienced in ArmA 2 so far was in a Tactical Gamers server. Each side had a commander and then there were subordinate team leaders. There was a central objective and each side had to maneuver their troops. Teams were positioned, contact was made, battle lines shifted, one position or another had to be reinforced or was overrun... It was a most enjoyable time. We didn't try to recover bodies but then, it wasn't in the mission design.

[Flash Thunder 10]

You summed it up perfectly Bushwookie.

"Arma 2 Multiplayer the experience that doesnt need to be experienced."

[hund 0]

Yeah, I'm not sure I explained myself very well at all. But we can agree that pvp gaming is different than coop gaming, yes? So by that rationale PvP teamwork is also different from Coop teamwork. That's basically it.

About the corpse recovery thing, that wasn't my point exactly. What I meant was that you do everything as a team, or you don't do it at all. That approach is completely suicidal against a well versed pvp team, beacause they will come at you from every direction, and while you might overwhelm a few of them with fire, the one you don't see will ruin your whole day.

Screw it anyways, I am tired of analyzing arma pvp vs coop. Whatever floats your boat is good enough for me. If I could play a PvP match like it was a coop, I'd be a happy man, but I can't and never will, so why bother? :D The closest we get on Zeus is a human platoon vs an OPFOR high commander. That adds some human intelligence and tactics behind the AI, but still retains the basic tenents of the coop, of which I am so fond.

PS: Tactical Gamer is indeed a very good server, and I would urge people to go check it out for themselves. Naturally I haven't had much experience with their PvP games, but their coops are quite fun to play when a lot of dudes show up.

Edited May 18, 2010 by Hund

[nkenny 1057]

Teamplay

The apparent lack of multiplayer teamwork comes down to this. Particularly in PvP situations is the unforgiving nature of its participants. I dare say most casual players and many alleged ‘experts’ have a poor understanding of what constitutes effective tactical drills and doctrine for Arma2s multiplayer environment.

If some random person calls for “lets form a fireteam†and the end result is not effective.. Well I for one will not join. Teamwork isn’t only done for teamworks sake. Not in PvP. One applies teamwork to WIN. It is my experience that COOP games are more forgiving in this way.

Real Soldiers

On the other hand it is not as simple as taking real life tactics and applying them in arma2. The players avatar is by human standards nearly fearless, of Herculean strength, implausibly clumsy and surprisingly fragile. Some concept may apply, but then again how do you communicate these?

Tactical Realism shooters like Counter-Strike, various asian replicas, and to a lesser extend CoD4 have comparatively transparent gameplay – gameplay made specifically for semi-tactical (but highly colourful) experience. This blunt and straightforward approach has its advantages. Popularity. Witness the legion of similar games made the last decade. They keywords are instant rewards and a faster evolution of gameplay.

Tools

That arma2 offers few if any effective tools to connect and dynamically organize internet squads doesn’t really help. In addition few commonly played arma2 scenarios offer plausible combat encounters – again tactics suffer.

Therefore ARMA2 represents something of a conundrum.

Developing easy to use and effective tactics is difficult.

Communicating said tactics is often challenging.

Convincing potentially unforgiving participants to join in can be hard.

Until these hurdles are effectively crossed – getting a commonly accepted “teamplay†community will be challenging.

-k, selfproclaimed ‘expert’

Example:

In CS it is commonly accepted and easily proven that an organized team wins. In arma2 its hard to organize, hard to develop tactics, and therefore more difficult to show what works and what doesn’t.

[An Fiach 10]

Interesting view. I agree that it is difficult to organize teams sometimes but just look at the Domi variants, they have the ability to join groups on the fly and 3rd party voice provides this as well. Teamwork is done for winning, yes, but that is kind of the point when playing pvp, to defeat the opponent. I don't understand you though about not joining a group if it isn't effective. How can it be an effective effort if nobody joins? We are back to a player issue and not the game. Not everyone can be a great leader, but at least some people make an effort to organize.

Tactics, everyone knows the plan goes out the window when your boots hit the ground. Everything is situationally dependent, so basic protocols are all that is needed for consistent team play. Adapt and overcome.

Instant rewards and CS clones have nothing to do with teamwork.

[Lamerinio 10]

This is quite interesting threat.

Myself I prefer to play on my own. Or like many people stating here as "Rambo".

But, that does not mean that I am unable to play in team.

I like to play as demolitions, get satchels and get tower down as soon as possible.

Every time when I join TS, I hear plenty of crap talk going on TS and that is what putting me off to join TS servers.

Once, I joined one server and they had that squad night going on. And they had some kind of command structure, just like most of communities here do. What made me laugh is that when they talk, they talk like "Permission to open fire sir?" - "Permission granted". They tried to act and simulate "real" military. But its not that talk that makes me laugh. While having all these talks in place, they have game mode where you can see from 3rd person and see enemy contacts on the map. Now why would someone who want to simulate military would have enemy contact showing on their map and having 3rd person view? Why wont they have 1st person view only with no contacts on the map? That shows how much people want to be a wanna be military only they don't know how to simulate it.

So, I spend good 2 hours with them playing as a team which resulted me in firing 4 rounds and rest of the time is plain useless talks.

Another game I joined, it was domination. So I joined their TS and they gathered. I picked my demolition gear and para dropped on the zone to get that tower. Once again, these guys tried to act as a military squad, sitting on the hill with HQ trying to figure out how to get to the town, while I blown up tower, got static mgs down and pin pointed armored units for them to destroy from that hill, but they just ignored me. Result was that I got more infidels kills than their whole squad together and I had less deaths than any of their squad member.

Now, did I ruin their game play? Perhaps in their view, but in my view if you are organising squad you shouldn't die more that a single lone "Rambo" and you should be able to clean town faster than any lone rangers.

I and my friend don't play arma much, but when we do we can clear towns without much of the casualties and much time. When we play warfare we can destroy enemy bases within few minutes and hold an attack on the town just two of us against multiple players and succeed. And reason is that we don't talk like yes sir no sir, its because we talk like friends and both of us know what to do without any orders or hints.

Now for the "Rambo" style. Many think it is bad, but I think it is good for future team play. Why? Because when you doing stuff on your own you get to learn things much faster for all directions. Be it a sniping position or a good position to start moving onto target. Once that lone ranger finds what he is best at, then he will perform well at tasks he is doing. And once you get these Rambos into one squad all you need is to bunch up get someone who knows all aspects of Ramboing to coordinate that bunch of Rambos and drop onto position.

Regarding forcing people to play in a team. Some people joining server to shoot infidels for 20 minutes and then dash. That involvement in a team play is time consuming and not all got that time. Some people don't like playing in team because they don't want to be commanded by someone who has no clue what he is doing. Some are not mature enough to play in a team because they used to play COD and treating Arma same way. Some like to do their own mission they set to themselves aka Rambos.

But restricting respawn time is just over the board, because even in a team, bunched up and doing everything careful can get you killed just because AI can shoot trough bushes but you can not because no one can see them. You can get killed because some glitch where AI shoot trough walls of buildings. Or while changing weapons you cant hit the dirt. There are many things that can kill you and you nor your team and team play can prevent it. And when you play as a team, spend good few hours getting into position to shoot and then get killed because of some stupid game mechanics and wait long time for respawn, that puts all interest away.

In my opinion, if people want to have team play they (map makers, server runners) should make it easy for everyone whoever joins. Maps should be made that way that the only way to get to position is by some kind of transport and no teleports or para jumps. That way helo can drop bunch of people and most likely they will stay together after extraction and helo pilots will be happy because they will have constant trips.

Make missions that require special amount of people to complete it. Make missions that you need someone to lead an actual attack and coordinate CAS and such and without that commander mission will be 80% harder to do. Make mission that, commander is the only one who knows next mission coordinates and that he can direct squads and give them instructions where to go and what must be done. Make missions like a blood baths, that every time you get to AO you get into hell in which you cant get trough without someone's help but even when you get shot you cant wait to get back again because someone who tried to help you while you were wounded might be wounded now too and you want to try to pay with the same coin and try to help him/her. Give each squad different mission at AO that each squad should work on it and then overall objective to be completed after all tasks are done by all teams. So when that happen, all Ramobos will bunch up and you'll get team play where everyone know what they are doing and can help each other by their actions. But whoever does not know what to do should be assisted and shown ways of doing things properly. Separate new comers and experts by allocating different teams to each. Say special forces to experts and ordinary marines to new comers. Separating people by skill might put them off, because some people don't want to show to everyone that they are new comers, but I don't see any shame in coming to Arma show that you don't know much and get help from people. Many people want to be in special forces but a lot of them have no clue how to be one....

Just don't limit people actions, coordinate them instead. But as I see it people cant be asked to coordinate people but want them to team play. If you want team play then go ahead and do a hard duty of being an officer and group people together.

So I think that mod makers should be the first point of team play integration/promotion in Arma multilayer.

---------- Post added at 11:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:27 PM ----------

If you put a coop team against a pvp team, the latter would win everytime because the coopers are restricted by certain dogmas that simply don't apply to pvpers. Both teams cooperate, but along different lines.

I disagree with that.

Because PvP was always about amount of frags and PvE about mission completion and patience.

So there is a balance between this, PvP is speed and PvE is getting things done but at a slower pace but smarter way.

And warfare is a good balance between PvP and PvE.

Therefore if you want to be good at pure PvP you should play warfare mode more than pure PvP games.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Lamerinio

[mosh 0]

Because PvP was always about amount of frags and PvE about mission completion and patience.

So there is a balance between this, PvP is speed and PvE is getting things done but at a slower pace but smarter way.

And warfare is a good balance between PvP and PvE.

Therefore if you want to be good at pure PvP you should play warfare mode more than pure PvP games.

That is, as someone else said earlier in this thread, just bat shit crazy. Where the hell did you come up with that reasoning? :j:

[whisper 0]

Because PvP was always about amount of frags and PvE about mission completion and patience.

You're misjudging PvP big time here

[galzohar 31]

Yeah, PvP is not about amount of frags unless you're either playing DM/TDM or are on a server where a significant number of players want to play DM/TDM regardless of the mission that it's running. Unfortunately most of the times I managed to get into a PvP game, it was one of those 3 situations, so I can see why Lamerinio has such opinions about PvP.

Though I agree with a lot of the (very hard to read) things he wrote about COOP. It's a major phenomenon in Arma 2 where people focus a lot more on playing as a "team" and forget about playing effectively, as in completing the mission with minimum casualties and/or whatever else the mission demands from you. That's one of the main reasons I like playing on Zeus - They try keep the BS to a minimum and focus mostly on teamwork that actually improves effectiveness.

I also agree that ramobing is the best way to learn how to deal with certain technical aspects of the game, such as actually using the different weapons and not getting shot. Sure it won't teach you how to be as effective as you can be in a team, but everything you would learn when you play "rambo" will also be useful when you play with a good team. Of course you will still have a lot more things to learn, but at least when that enemy finally pops in front of you, you will be able to actually kill him rather than die and have him continue to mow the rest of your team down. I mean, I was always wondering why walking through a town with my friends was so difficult until I played some TDM with them in a small town - They just don't have good enough ability at using the weapons. Trying to play as a team is a waste of time if you don't first know how to be a single soldier, and a lot (not all) of the coop players I've ran into seem to not understand that.

Of course there are many that would say they enjoy the "teamwork" and "tactics" more than actually getting good end results in a difficult missions. No disrespect to them, but I just wouldn't play where the main attitude on the server is like that. If people don't care about mission success, then I might as well just log off while they work as a team to fail the mission.

Edited May 20, 2010 by galzohar

[nkenny 1057]

Instant rewards and CS clones have nothing to do with teamwork.

CS

Play one hour of Counter Strike. Run through 60 minutes (approx 15 rounds at 4 minutes per) of repetition and potential for improvement.

You win, you loose. You gain frags, you die. Easy to read rewards no? Teamplay works. because you gain more frags and you win more.

A2

Play one hour of Arma2. Depending on the mission you MIGHT get past the briefing and you MIGHT get assigned to a helicopter, and you just MIGHT see the enemy before the server crashes due to script error or whatnot. --- or you can just rambo around like lamerinio suggests... hey. atleast you are fragging.

Warfare and battlefield clones play closer to the games they emulate.

Did you win? Did you lose because of poor tactics or because og real life issues? (ran out of time, server crashed/lagged, ragequit, etc) or did you just sit around and have a laugh on the server? Did you even have time to get to the applied teamwork?

Points still stand

1. Developing easy to use and effective tactics is difficult.

2. Communicating said tactics is often challenging.

3. Convincing potentially unforgiving participants to join in (unproven/confusing tactics) can be hard.

Also:

- Lamerinio makes a few good points -- once you've dredged through the Wall-of-text-hits-you-for-5d20-damage -- post.

- Galzohar. I agree. the key is EFFECTIVE teamwork/drills/tactics or whatnot.

-k

[Vipera 10]

Myself I prefer to play on my own. Or like many people stating here as "Rambo".

I could sign under each word Lamerino said. I totaly agree with everything he said. I had a big experience playing BF2:Reality Mod and I can say that teamwork should be enforced by mission makers. If goals could be reached by "Rambo" style than there is no reason to make squads. I have tried different ARMA2 styles and I play only Warfare now.

[jw custom 56]

Has anyone else noticed that multiplayer, Domination in particular seem to be lacking a huge amount in teamwork. I joined a server just before and everyone was going off on there own and getting killed, then moaning at me because I wasn't reviving them, even though I was under fire and didn't want to risk my life by running out into the road to revive some idiot who has racked up 20 deaths. Has anyone else noticed this or do people just not like being in my team?

If you just join a server and expect to see teamwork you'll often get disappointed. Maybe you should do something about, join as teamleader and start give orders or follow the current teamleader.

It's like any other game sometimes you see teamwork other times people run off for themself. Join a squad if you wan't constant teamwork.

[Infam0us 10]

I'm just gonna jump headfirst into this thread and come from the PvP, Clan background ...

The thread title says there is a lack of multiplayer teamwork, however I play for a few clans in the community were teamwork is essential and widely used. For example in CTF maps I play with Fusion teamspeak is constantly alive with chatter about were the enemy is, what is our next move, who is were and so forth. Further, playing in season one of APL with DK we were constantly using teamwork, telling each other were the enemies are, whose got the flag and so forth.

Of course I only play in small communities and am always on the TS server of the group I'm playing so that maybe an issue. But I find that multiplayer teamwork is far from lacking in the games I play.

If you join a random public server you'll find it difficult to work as a team, but this is the same as any other number of games. Just find a community you like to play in and encourage teamwork, its far from lacking :)

[qwertz 10]

I agree with Infam0us, teamplay = TS (Mumble, Ventrilo).

If you want to have teamplay, join the game server's voice communications. If you don't, don't expect teamplay. It is like in real life: coordination requires communication. Don't expect everyone else to read through your text chatter just because you don't want to use a microphone for some reason.

If the server you play on does not (want to) provide comms, change the server.

Edited May 21, 2010 by qwertz

[ryguy 10]

But there are some people out there that simply don't have mics, and I've been on some TS3 servers where it's 20 guys all talking over each other and, even though we're all on comms, still very little Teamwork.

On the other hand, I've talked to "typers" on a lot of games where 10x more teamwork was completed!

It all depends on the person.

[Infam0us 10]

But there are some people out there that simply don't have mics, and I've been on some TS3 servers where it's 20 guys all talking over each other and, even though we're all on comms, still very little Teamwork.

On the other hand, I've talked to "typers" on a lot of games where 10x more teamwork was completed!

It all depends on the person.

Of course, I've been in games were everyone talks over everyone in which instance I resort to typing myself even if I'm on the TS server just to get heard! My point being is that its who you play with and how that makes the difference. The teamwork is out there you just need to go find it :)

[Michael Withstand 10]

Love this thread as I have exactly the same sentiment. Lack of teamwork online. many times even people don't bother to reply to my greetings.

And many don't bother to reply to my voice chat.

But a few tried to cooperate still.

I just feel that cooperating and coordinating is a BIG part of the game and WOULD add much more enjoyment to the game. This is not counterstrike guys.

As for TS3. I don't know why but I always feel reluctant trying to use this piece of software and when I did yesterday I found out my mic volume is waaay too small. The wonder is people could still reply me when I spoke through the inbuilt chat system in ArmA 2.

[Rhomen 10]

Hey there,

15thMEU(SOC) Realism Unit's servers are up and running, we support teamwork and have a working ventrillo for those of you that want to do what we call Realism Play. Come join us for some fun, simply filter for 15th and our servers should pop up.

Once inside ask for ventrillo information and someone should get back to you when they're not in a fire fight. Server admins are always in vent and ready to jump in and give the banhammer something to do if people are breaking our rules.

Hope to see you gents there.

Edited May 23, 2010 by Rhomen

[Infam0us 10]

Hey there,

15thMEU(SOC) Realism Unit's servers are up and running, we support teamwork and have a working ventrillo for those of you that want to do what we call Realism Play. Come join us for some fun, simply filter for 15th and our servers should pop up.

Once inside ask for ventrillo information and someone should get back to you when they're not in a fire fight. Server admins are always in vent and ready to jump in and give the banhammer something to do if people are breaking our rules.

Hope to see you gents there.

Clan advertisement thread is that way -> ;)

[celery 8]

PvP in essence does not provide large scale teamwork, CooP however on the right server with a bunch of mature guys will give you that.

What is the point of saying that? You can say the exact same thing the other way around.

PvP was always about amount of frags and PvE about mission completion and patience.

So there is a balance between this, PvP is speed and PvE is getting things done but at a slower pace but smarter way.

And warfare is a good balance between PvP and PvE.

Therefore if you want to be good at pure PvP you should play warfare mode more than pure PvP games.

You had a good post but I disagree with this part. I've noticed that the best overall players, be it in coop, pvp or something in between, are first and foremost pvp players. My theory is that pvp game modes force players to forget everything that doesn't have to do with accomplishing your objectives because humans are unforgiving and intelligent opponents, and in time that mentality makes you more effective in any mission.

I had a big experience playing BF2:Reality Mod and I can say that teamwork should be enforced by mission makers. If goals could be reached by "Rambo" style than there is no reason to make squads. I have tried different ARMA2 styles and I play only Warfare now.

Forcing players to play in a way that would otherwise be suicidal or ineffective isn't the way to go. Teamwork itself has many different forms, and staying close to your group and leaving all decisions to the leader are the most superficial manifestations of teamwork, yet sadly perceived as the defining characteristics. If you read Lamerinio's post, he explains that doing what you can without extra BS in the form of seemingly tactical planning and movement is the best way to win the mission. Some call it ramboing, I call it good playing.

[Rhomen 10]

Clan advertisement thread is that way -> ;)

And we have one of those too if you're interested, i'm giving people an option to come play on servers that encourage teamwork, have voice comms outside of ArmA's and have admins present 99% of the time. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Franklin 0]

I have to chime in on the comment about PvP teams being better than PvE teams, this is flat out ludicrous... You can't judge a team based solely off the style of gameplay they focus on. I have been on two separate teams that focus on PvE and have had matches against purely PvP teams, and have thrashed those teams. The teams I wont name, but they were no slouches when it comes to PvP.

Most of the guys on my former team were absolute badasses at PvP, we simply preferred the objective based gameplay with a realistic military feel. Most pure PvP maps, and warfare do not deliver that. Some of the PvP campaigns like ATOW may offer a similar experience, but when i say pure PvP maps, I'm speaking more along the lines of AAS and TDM. I personally enjoy PvP and am pretty damn good at it, hell I hosted the "American PvP" server which nobody ever used... but at the same time I participate in PvE based teams due to the different types of missions that can be conducted in that style of play.

Edited May 23, 2010 by franklin

[chiefredcloud 10]

But even when you're working as a team it's very likely that you're still going to die in a game-world as dynamic as Arma 2's.

Very true and the simple facts are that some players die excesively while playing as a team memeber and some die excesively while just plying for themselves.

I personally fall in the first catigory. I always try to play as a team mate no matter where I play. Rules are rules, period. I try to be a good soldier but I guess I'm not that good of a soldier. I get killed a lot.

And yes, it has to be frustrating for my clan/team members to always have to try and revive my sorry you-know-what. But they do. And try, always, to repay this by reviving ALL my team members. In our own way, as it is with so many clans out there, like AGE, SPARTANS, and 1st 2 Fight are a Band of Brothers.

In all our walks of life we take time from acroos the world to come together to enjoy & share the commrodery and to fight a good battle. As a TEAM, for each other.

This is not an easy task even for those with present and past Military backgrounds. Digital Wars are SO different. So I's say to the who started this thread to take heart and don't loose sight of the fact that some do care. So revive that knuckle head Hot Dog and just maybe he will finally get the message, that team play does indeed work.