MiGeL_B

I disagree. Infinite scale and numbers is not always better. Take a look at Planetside 2, the battle goes on and on and your actions don't translate to much in the game. With those numbers teamplay is pretty much lost as well. If you check the success ( the multiple tournaments and many clans ) of Operation Flashpoint's cti back in the day. The right mix was just there: - No JIP, for balancing teams and tactics before hand. - Medium sized islands with only 3 front-line towns, 3 safe sector towns and 2 towns on each flank, so players had to engage each other on 3 fronts in order to gain town momentum - Limited view distance, so AI had a chance to retaliate and were hard to exploit and bases were more like fortresses that could withstand quite some punishment - 1 source income system, so base expansion limited unit output and the quality of gear used by players. - effective ai, the ai was sometimes better than a player - Short 30min -1 hour exiting games - Meaningfull actions. ( I just shot a player in Montignac and secured the town. Giving my ai and team players time to advance and to dig in, having 1 or 2 extra m1's pumped out the heavy factory the next coming minutes ) - Balance between air/armored and infantry Strategical wise it had the level of starcraft2, company of heroes etc. You pushed a certain town with tanks, then that move would mean the absence of tanks in other areas, giving opportunity to the other team to excel. If the enemy player was losing battles with tanks and saw that you bought a lot more to finish the job, they went for the at chopper upgrade. If you failed to see the lack of output from their base in time than boom, that chopper takes out your ground advantage, leveling the playing field. This translated very well in the higher end tournaments. Tanks battles lasted 3-6 min long, so during that time reinforcements, retreats, flanking all that good stuff came into play. Teamplay wise the game was quicker than warfare, but because of the manageable scale the oversight was never lost. Even starting players usually had a sense where to go because everybody was tightly connected. If I engaged a town a certain way it wouldn't take long before those tactics got copied by teammates. That said I completely agree with the topic openers title, but I think the problem is more severe than people notice though. The teams are always off or change during the long game, the missions revolves more about taking a town by exploiting the ai with range advantage and better equipment, the island and town placement have no strategical value to them, the bases are sitting ducks, the obscure money system ( like op stated ) , the weird non existing front line, the random loss of vehicles by advanced weaponry, the long uninteresting games, meaningless battles that have no direct output to the combat situation. I can see how a person enjoys playing it, but since it doesn't force people into a competitive mind set it's not going anywhere.

Hi, I got some me mates into arma 3 and so they were also interested in getting arma 2 for warfare ( which has unfortunately died out, which is painfull seeing ofp still has full servers when it comes to cti ), dayz, some interesting coops and life, since arma 2 has more basic vehicles and options and a mature community, compared to arma 3 alpha. Of course this counts for all game modes apart from life it seems. We tried a random server yesterday needless to say didn't make it past the first police check. We also tried to sign up for city life rpg but they get like 20-30 new applicants each day for interview and are a month behind if I can believe their facebook page. Are there any well moderated servers out there for the standard mission?

This game needs a better MP Lobby system. Back in the early ofp days when I thought it was hip to play flashpoint through gamespy. I could easily see which of my friends were online, I could favourite servers and always read extra information like where to get mods and what the general rule sets were. I played the predecessor of cti and warfare called [Campaign] there with buddies who I could always find with a couple of clicks. If I remember correctly that only covered the early patches and eventually I moved onto the in game mp finder. At that moment I was not discouraged since the ingame mp community was 20 times that size and I got introduced to game modes like serial killer, mfcti, crcti, nogville etc which were enough to keep me busy for the upcoming days. With the changes clearly seen in ArmA 3 Alpha I have managed to get my friends into the game ( all of them in fact, the alpha light was a god gift that keeps on giving, since I got their alpha light keys in return ). And the guys love the gameplay, atmosphere, coop and pvp, editing capabillties etc of this game. The only problem we have is that if a guy joins on a early game on a good stable server, we spend a majority of our time, trying to find the server and friends. As expected the game lobbies of other games ( even older ones ) has spoiled everyone in thinking that you can join a friend with one click. Since the game is now supported by steam I hope effort will be made to connect steam to the player profile in game. In fact after all these years of basically the same server lobby, I kind of expect it.

I am not sure if full list belongs in a ArmA 3 thread though. Point 1 is definitely a valid point. Ever since the view distance and power/range of weapons increased, the AI's have been given no changes to cope with these huge effects on the battlefield. When the map towns became more complicated AI path-finding was also not improved. Leaving them rather useless in ArmA1. I am not even sure if they are better at it now since the towns have become more basic, there have been only CQC improvements in ArmA2. Also their interface and order giving system has only become more complicated. Why can I not give some ai's in my team the ability to give orders? While the ai officer gives an order each 4 seconds involving movement, flanking and setting targets. An average human player just gives em a waypoint where they become a lamb ready for slaughter. The AI system definately needs an overhaul relieving the player of some the work and more options for them to manage themselves. Point 2 really depends on the script and town numbers. The reason why you can't see clearly what impact town loss has. Has to do with the large numbers of towns that can be taken. And the double currency system allows for impact of financial damage to be minimized. Also the loss of vehicles and winning of battles is so incoherent that the economy is usually a small factor of who wins. Unlike in OFP CTI there is no constant outgoing army to pressure the front line, so a money income loss is not even felt. This would be an arma 3 problem, if you wanted more support in islands made specifically for warfare that came automatically with downloads. Other than that it depends on mapmaker. Point 3 is on deaf ears for years. PVP is not a goal for ArmA and they are under false pretence that we can change the game ourselves. Even while the harsh truth is that if a super pvp mod would be released only 15% of the total pvp players would be able and bother to install it. Thats a combination of community lazyness, personal preferences etc. So the only thing we can hope for is more parameters options in the editor. But then it still comes down to what the scripter of the warfare version feels right about. And hope that the community or bis will support the pvp a tad more in arma 3.