Lack of multiplayer teamwork.

[whisper 0]

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.

There are many ways to force player to do things in a way or other, or to rely on other.

Using complementary class system, for example, so that 1 MUST rely on another for certain tasks, is an example (imho, of good form of "forced teamwork")

Privileging transport vehicles is another

[galzohar 31]

Whisper, that really depends. If done realistically then cool, but if it's more needing eachtoher like power rangers needing eachother to form a megazord then that's kinda silly. Some examples of badly enfored teamwork include a zone that requires 3 people to capture even if there are 0 enemies within a 20 mile radius, a radio tower that can only be blown up by satchels which are only carry-able by a demolition specialist who in turn can only use an MP5 for a primary weapon, or arming all aircraft with nothing but LGBs (in their current form that makes them near-useless without someone designating from the ground).

[whisper 0]

Well, I'm not overly on the realistic side of things :) If gameplay decision brings more than realism decision, I'll go for gameplay.

If that means limiting C4 to demolition specialist (which is btw not unrealistic), then so be it. And I'll also limit this guy's possible range of weapon. Possibly not to only 1 weapon (even though that's what I'm currently doing in CTB, but that's a matter of laziness / dev time), but at least no AT for him (ie the AT job is limited to AT specialist, another enforced teamplay), no MG, no GL, no sniper rifle. His duty his demolition, with standard weapons for anything else. If he needs non standard weapon, he'll need teammates using them => enforced teamplay. Bordering to non-realism, but I'll prefer gameplay here.

Edited May 25, 2010 by whisper

[CarlGustaffa 4]

I typically go for gameplay as well. But anything I see (either with own eyes or as a potential) as an exploit due to the design, I try to remove. Certain weapons I'm limiting access to. Other weapons which are usually bound to a class, I'm just making harder to get. Having the class makes it convenient. Not having it makes it inconvenient but not impossible.

Examples:

1) SMAW and MG, and sniper equipment are restricted to class. No way of getting this stuff (and, with a couple of exceptions, ammo for this stuff) unless you are the class. I'm sorry, but I see no other way around it. Structured players will be able to restrict themselves, but for public servers, a nice hint just isn't enough.

2) Access to M136 AT4 is limited to the two AT guys on each team. Considering the low armor threat in the mission, that should be enough. So what happens if there are no SMAW or AT guys in play and you face armor? Well, the squad trucks are loaded with a shitload of M72s. It's less convenient, but you still have an option. Same goes for Stingers, the leaders have convenient access to them, others are limited to what the squad trucks can have. Lacking a class makes it more desirable to bring that extra vehicle to the field.

3) Scopes and rifle types I typically restrict to the squad "type". One squad type may get silencers, another may get flashlights, and the third may get ACOGs. Giving ACOG to "anyone" is a bad idea considering the enemy is also equipped with mostly Cobra sights.

4) Restrictions like these, based on class, dynamically changes the mission parameter, or challenge. In real life, you're typically assigned a mission, with the equipment you've got. In the game world, that transfers into defining the challenge. Also you get the sense that every class gets his own bonuses and restrictions. Making you think twice about what is best for the mission when you join.

Again, this type of "artificial restriction" wouldn't be needed among structured players, it is needed for the public gameplay that otherwise will be nothing more than a COD action game. If that means risking loosing the casual gamer because he can't get his DMR/SMAW/Medic/Pilot combo, then so be it - he's not the kind of player I would want around on our server anyway. You just can't have a global crate in the public scene, saying, "share this" - it just don't work - most people will take what they consider fun, with no respect to what others think. But also due to the JIP vs global crate contents updating bug.

So I'm all for restrictions. But I'm against "full restrictions" making the mission unplayable unless certain class is available as it drives people away from low populated servers. More inconvenient maybe requiring more logistics to get around the problem? Sure. Impossible for the solo lurker? No thanks.

[galzohar 31]

I was intentionally exaggerating with an MP5. Limiting weapons in a realistic method (aka "IRL you wouldn't have proficiency to use that weapon") is fine, but giving him something subpar just because he has bombs (or any other useful tools) is silly. Just as long as the limitations make sense and don't feel like someone cranked them out of his !@# or made purely from a "force player X to play with player Y in a Z manner" while completely ignoring realism.

The amount of AT4s should be more mission specific rather than something general. Sure you wouldn't carry a lot of them in a mission against insurgents hiding in buildings.

[Spartan 163 0]

Limiting weapons I agree with. I can't tell you how many time I have seen a pilot runiing around the AO with a smaw and a saw or tac50 (If your a pilot stay flying cap or transport). I have also seen someone drop an ammo box on a hill and just spam Javs into the AO.

But the point is if you want team work you need to go were team work is used and good admins are on. If you just keep going to server to server your just rolling the dice.

[An Fiach 10]

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

Your comparisons are false.

[galzohar 31]

I have to agree that in Arma 2 it's 99% of the time very hard to judge what you should/could have done better. Discussions after a mission is over (be it a COOP or an A&D) will be mostly speculation of what should/could have been done better, but you never really know because you simply don't repeat the same kind of mission enough times for that. Also a significant portion of the coop players (not all of them though) seem to not really care about how good they did, and more about how well they implemented RL tactics and procedures into the game, regardless of whether or not they were actually helpful for completing the mission.

[chiefredcloud 10]

There are obviously many ways that players feel that the game could be controlled. Some extreme and some not. Simply put if a person chooses NOT to be a Team Player they will find a way around it. Some are devious, hackers I guess, and some are just broad and blatent.

I set my own rules. I.e. I go to a server to play, I try my best to adhear to THEIR Rules. I personally try to be a Team Player. Sometimes this is mute point as some don't seem to care or be bothered.

In example if you enter a server and you find the MHQ deployed some where on base, there may be a reason for this. Perhaps you should ask, if curious. Or at the vary least, leave it alone.

Where as initiative is always welcome, in my book, movieing an MHQ to the field when checking your map (which you should do to orient yourself on the situation) you might discover there is already one in the field.

Taking a chopper out when you can teleport is a waist of assets. Do your joy riding in the Armoury.

Jumping in a Jet and dropping bombs WITHOUT coordination is a big no-no. Even if your an A number One flyer. If all you want to do is fly, then ask. Perhaps something can be worked out.

And my opinion on editing the game to make it restrictive is not to. Certain structure, yes, but perticipating in a Digital Battle is NOT a job, it's a pass time, a sharing of mutual time with those of simular interests (in the game). Some will always see themselves as Lone Wolfs but in truth, Lone Wolves rarely servive very long without the pack.

A private game server, to me, is like visiting someones house. YOU are the guest, so act like one.

As far as TEAM work is concerned, THIS is not an easy task. In my military days my team would work for weeks or more on what we had to do. Gaming often does not have this luxury. We all live on work differently. And normally only gather at certain times.

As such Team play is often regulated to just covering for your team mate and fighting for the same AO. We, our clan, do make it a point to try and take care of, Revive everyone who playes with us. And as such we expect no less from other players.

I guess the bottom line is that a player, a person, has to want to play with a group to experiance Team Play. If they choose not to, well, it's a long lonely war without support.

Edited June 2, 2010 by ChiefRedCloud

[Pain0815 10]

Some things should need more than 1 or 3 players to get done, then the teamwork will come along.

Watch project reality for example, there most things only can be done with more ppl, and the teamwork on public servers is great.

Special weapons only avaiable for groups etc, building sttuff only with help. Restricted arsenal and a fear for dead doing the rest.

no more 1 man armies with sniper + javelins, no teleporting and such shitshould help too.

Its all in the hand of the missionmaker, not the players.

Edited June 2, 2010 by Pain0815

[SuperStarwolf 10]

Some stuff I think I could drop here...

Teamplay doesn't necessarily need to rely on a commander issuing orders and the rest of a team asking if they can sneeze at a given moment; Several teams coordinated to achieve as many goals as possible is enough to do the trick.

The best way to enforce teamwork, in my opinion? Leave as little as possible in hands of AI and don't let it do things a player could do unless it's strictly necessary. Teleport? Sorry, that kind of technology hasn't been developed yet and there's a lot of bored pilots waiting to to something they're not doing because it's easier and faster (although not more realistic) to just pop up in the nearest MHQ. Long Respawn times? That shouldn't be a concern for people with a well built team with a medic in it... and ArmA2 gives us pretty much chewed up.

The problem is, like always, players; they don't want team: they want an edge and be as much as autonomous fighting machine as the system allows them to. It's not uncommon to see your average corpsman carrying an AT missile launcher on his back, a DMR in his hands and a handful of satchels in his pouch... Who needs a unit when you can be the medic, the sniper, the AT and the Demolitionist all by yourself?

It was mentioned before, and I fully agree that certain items should be restricted to certain classes: If you're not a sniper or a marksman, get your hands off the DMR; If you're not a demo, stay away from the C4, and such and such.

Back to teams: Even before you get into the fray, you get asked to pick your role, and, unknowingly to some, your place in a team... why not stick to it? If you're Bravo-5, the team's AA, you should stick to Bravo team and keep the air threats off its back, not grab the neck of the poor Delta engineer (whom by the way should also be tagging up with Delta Team) and follow him to whatever stunt he may be trying to pull.

To put it short: If there's something to do in the game, have the players do it... and more specifically, have the RIGHT guy to do it.