romanshell

Of course this guy gets banned. 15 years, people still getting 15-25 fps max in multiplayer. Doesn't matter if you have a 500$, 2000$ system, or Lowest or Ultra settings. You can get like 60+ on singleplayer but be capped at 18 in a 30 player multiplayer server. I'd love for them to finally prove me wrong, but it's clear they just don't know how to fix this issue due to horrible coding. It started as another move-in-all-directions-endlessly simulation.. it turned into this pile of junk that only works on singleplayer after 15 years of work put into it. I would not buy another BI game based on this. They are childish and once this guy received any attention on the matter he was banned or ignored as usual. gg

You should know stuff like this does not matter. Even if Arma is using 50% of each core that should be about the max it needs, especially considering some of your rigs. If you understood the inner workings of computers you would know this by now. BI just has a crappy game where you can max at 60+ fps on ultra and then if you get on any server with like 20 or more players, you'll get like ~20 or less fps even on Lower. If they had someone who knows how to do real optimization the issue would have been fixed about 10 years or about.. 3 games ago. Keep on dreaming. 60+ fps.. on an Arma online server. It'll happen one day.. until then they're just ignoring you and taking your money for their crappy singleplayer mil-sim. No one even looks here and they never have, except for like Dwarden to ban people like me for telling the harsh truth as if it's trolling. (or let's be real about it: some kids they hired as moderators-without-pay to give them the idea that they're important or something).

It won't matter. Pay 2000$ to barely manage 30 fps on a bad but populated Arma3 server or you're stuck. The developers of this game are shit at optimizing. Their optimizations are nonexistant and so is their ability to do anything but spam content onto an overloaded and crappy base ystem i.e. a simple system that lets you walk endlessly in any direction and highly outdated/unoptimized code. I can run Crysis3 on ultra and the latest DX11 games with 60+ fps but regardless on if I use taht system, or my laptop which has a 4.0GHZ intel processor, it can only manage a 10-25 fps on any populated arma3 server due to the horrible optimization. I feel like complaining but the devs clearly do not see this asa problem. If the average user could get 40 fps and not be restrained by bullshit bottlenecking that is related to their multiplayer code then maybe the game would be less boring overall. I used to play OFP as a kid and I tried to like Arma as a series, but I grew up and realized Arma is a waste of time and horribly broken.. defending it for being nonboring or nonbroken is just a waste of time because it actually is. There are a few optimizations I would suggest codewise for them to try and also would suggest doing a simple trial and error or debug session and log how long it takes to perform certain operations in milliseconds.. maybe that way they can finally find out why there's only 20 fps in multiplayer by checking what is bottlenecking in the main threads. Hackers are too bored to fix your game because for them it's like 5x harder to do something like that without source code. Anyway don't waste money or time. Just have fun with what you have because everyone hast he same problem. If you get 30 fps you might have a big advantage in a PvP game but it's really not your fault.. it happens if you're on lowest too or Ultra, doesn't matter at all..

Oh really? It's not my fault they are so self-important, and they spend years making a mod for a game which isn't theirs only to be 'unappreciated'. Since you bring it up, I don't even care. Anyway, look up old OFP videos and Arma3 videos, then look up Arma2 videos. There is a reason why all the Arma2 videos are generally hours long and full of realism units doing coop, and the other ones are generally short and sweet. I understand that most of the people who would actually dwell this forum are like that and will bash anyone who threatens their ideas of realism mods on Arma2, but that is not what most gamers want. Not that it's a bad thing, but I mean just get to talk to the average person on Arma3 and then do the same on Arma2, and make logical comparisons. You are not 12 year olds anymore, you have to make logical choices and be able to see things through a logical lense. I don't believe that is the truth. I think BI is a great company and Arma has always been a fun and realistic game to mess around in on the sidelines. The thing is, again, you are not 12 year olds. There shouldn't be a need for me to explain why Arma3 is better than Arma2. If you need to see how, just look it up on BI's official site or do a google search. Else, if you are here to cry about other things like forgotten modders, why realism units "aren't boring", well that's your problem. By the way its* community differs when you go to see the people still playing on OFP. I think Arma2 will keep a lot of the realism players there, and I am glad for it, because joining a server of fake elitists who don't let you do anything and yet stand around doing nothing for hours is not my type of game. Arma3 is already acquiring its new mods and missions from places like the Steam Community and other sources (thus why it has more vanilla servers atm even after only a year). Of course, I'm satisfied. Not sure what point is trying to be proven against me here, I just post the facts and the gestapo realism Arma2-lover police comes after me. Anyway, have fun, bye, I'm sure no one "here" will miss me while I'm making "facts" like this. *In third grade elementary school, most english speakers typically learn that it's is an abbreviation for 'it is', so I always wonder why people would actually add the ' when they don't have to only to display their lack of education.

I guess I must explain or dumb it down. I meant that the general community that 'clings' to Arma2 is the realism crew which claims Arma2 is more realistic and has more mods (which of course it does, it has many years on it). In Arma3 you can already see movements to other experimental types of gameplay which can fill up and don't require you to do the boring realism bullshit where you might kill 5 'weakened AI' over the span of 3 hours of so called tactical manuevering, and only after installing tedious mods to play with a substantial amount of players on a Sunday or something like that.. In Arma3 I jumped right in, found a few full Team vs Team servers, a few coop servers with at least moderately challenging AI, found some new missions/mods, and my experience was so much better than when I was in the stages of 'trying to like Arma2'.. It isn't even a question, Arma3 is just better. When you move to it, it's just up to you. Really, all I originally posted was that yes Arma3 has more servers than Arma2 if you take away the DayZ. I didn't need to post other facts but I was challenged about it by arma2 lovers. In the end it's like this for all games. There's always a 'why is this worse than that'.. In this case though, the new one is essentially the old one with more features, added performance, and basically it's like Arma2+more so.. I mean there's always the kids who say like 'Why is that old game so much better?' and then everyone rolls their eyes, but the thing is I know you guys aren't exactly like 12 year old kids here so the fact I have to explain what was added in Arma3, why it is better, why it has more servers, etc.. is kind of stupid to say the least to me. The main point I was making was yes Arma3 has more (I guess you can say 'vanilla') servers, wheras Arma2 has more DayZ and modded servers.. yet Arma3 has similar mods and such so yes if you really want to, the capability is there to use Arma2 stuff and more. I don't see where the complaining comes from when I'm dealing with adults who should be able to use logical conclusions here.

Well to each his own. There are those who are into those hour long ultra-realism sessions, but then there are those who are clearly more interested in what the newer game has to offer. You can cling to Arma2 all you want, Arma3 still has more servers when you take away the DayZ mod. You are into this: (avg 30 min to 5 hours long, realism/related mods) That is ok but .. others are into OFP, others are into Arma3 which is like a modern combination of both, and usually doesn't take as much time. 'Standing around doing nothing' like the realism community does in Arma2 isn't 'fun', and pretending that it is 'fun' or 'trying to make it fun' isn't fun either. Arma2 players aren't into any sort of 'competitive' play so to speak, but that eliminates any funny, difficult, or truly fun PvP/coop type of play. Anyone who has played in and preferred OFP would likely agree. The Arma2 idea of being 'elite' in gaming is pretending to be so, so to speak, yet it's boring and that gameplay bores most of the gamers who go to it (little action, too much roleplaying). I would just ask you to look at the facts that Arma2-DayZ mod < Arma3 already. Also look at what happened in the past with people who took about 2-3 years to finally upgrade and play the new game. In the end Arma3 is already better factually (performance, physics, fun factor, important mods, totally new mods) so it doesn't matter what some opinions are. I like the deathmatch and new missions/mods in Arma3 already. I enjoy them much more than that boring, empty, void of Arma2 where I simply got 30-1 kills:death as infantry and owned some noobs so to speak anyway, over the span of 3 hours which was mostly wasted imo. I'm an oldschool type of person but I still don't beat the dead horse when it comes to Arma; once I see the new thing there's no going back.

Arma3 has a different set of players/modders from Arma2. If what you said is true, it's only a handful of those old disgruntled, "I dont want a new game where people don't recognize me because the community is larger, and because a lot of old bugs are fixed". People in Arma used to say they don't want to run Arma2 because it's too 'blurry' or 'clunky'. People in OFP didn't want to go to Arma (although to me, the deathmatch, tvt, clans, mods and community of OFP were/are in a league of their own). In the end those disgruntled people have to either adapt and move on to where the thriving players and the better engine is, leave, or try to hang on to what they have for as long as possible.. In the case of Arma2 old modders, a lot of them got mad because they were 'no longer needed' when Arma 3 came out and the community is different, with new players as well who never even heard of them, but that's about it. I find Arma3 to be the better game, and there's no problem using all of Arma2s content in Arma3's engine which runs smoother to me anyway. It just comes down to how idiotic a player wants to be as they cling on to their inferior tech.

I've been interested in this Zeus gamemode for a while and it's not too bad doing a Zeus vs Zeus. However, I already see other simple ways it can be used for simpler missions, whether they are small scale or large scale. a) Make 1 or more Zeus defend a town (or towns) by directing and placing AI. The Zeus player(s) can direct their AI to either attack other towns, form alliances/negotiate with the other players and towns, or expand their influence by conquering. (Hard) b) Make 1 or more Zeus defend a town (or towns) and simply apply it to a boring regular 'conquer the island' coop mission. This will allow a town to be defended by a real commander who can place more elite troops, AA, militia infantry, and direct them to make it hard for the players to take a town. (not that it is easy, it is settable but yet people complain about AI all the time being either too easy or too hard for them). (Moderate) c) Give the players a cool base in some abandoned building and have them defend against a limited-Zeus and waves of AI, for a simple defense style of gameplay. (Easy yet still fun) I was thinking of trying to make some missions like this myself, but I have been too busy in real life for quite a while. Anyway I think there are good ideas to help expand on using this great mod.

I think they need to add the old 'clunk' sound from OFP when you hit someone with a bullet.

This. You can even use the Arma2 content to get the same feel with a mod or if you feel anything is missing. If you take away the people who want to run DayZ for free or from a mod, Arma2 has a terrible amount of servers, because all the good ones moved or at least ported to Arma3.

You simply misinterpret. Sometimes people like myself don't want to deal with the retards. It doesn't matter or have anything to do with 'hardcore simulations' or 'realism', as you seem to think. It's more the fact that you can get friendly-fired or completely set back by how bad some players are. I couldn't care less if you are new, but the players who claim to be so called veterans or think they are some kind of hardcore 1Lt. guy in some random group are just hypocritical when they can't tell the difference between friend and foe. I feel like if you're going to pretend to be a unit, you shouldn't shame them if they actually exist by being shitty in the game. The same goes with imaginary units which claim to be so open, and then if you call them bad players they will get mad and yet refuse any sort of PvP. Yet, most guys like this seem to pretend they're so big and important as they blab on their mic about some retarded thing, possibly just being led on by a troll who couldn't care less about anything but enraging the stupid oaf so to speak. It's really just bad players so to speak en-masse.. I separate bad players from those who simply go for the mods and casual feel because they're highly distinguishable, and they cause problems. Haven't you ever joined an online coop server where some old, high-ranked clan guy started cussing you or someone else out because they went in a chopper? Ironically their entire unit are utter trash at the game anyway so it doesn't seem to matter. It's just that they lack any sort of foresight to see how bad they really are at the game and how it affects others and MP in general. My friends and I get annoyed, to say the least, when people are really 'that bad' and it ends up setting us back, or when someone is 'that stupid' so to speak. I'd imagine if you've played Arma you've at one point run into one of those old guy types who do pretty much nothing but wait until someone breaks some 'no profanity' rule and then says "HEY!! HEY!! YOUBROKE A RULE. YOU'RE GOING TO GET BANNED! HURRDERR". Like, as if I haven't been trolling since I was like 12 years old on just about every videogame imaginable. I've heard it all. Hell, I've hosted successful game servers when I was around that age. It's just like "herrdurr guyss we runa christian community heree" and they think that their actions are somehow keeping the server afloat by enforcing some stupid rules. The fact that kind of attitude can be found on just about any Arma domination server (which are all trash anyways) just reflects the stubborn and unintelligent mindset of those MP players involved and ruins MP in general for new players.

I would disagree roshnak. AI is settable to be either Recruit, Regular, Veteran, or Elite; with most server preferring Recruit and Regular and scripting the AI accuracy to be lower. Players are now used to such low difficulty/standards they actually have been complaining about having accurate AI now.. It's saddening to see this on Arma3, where it's no longer as clunky and restricted and thus there is no real excuse. I have been playing since OFP and I think I am credible enough to know what was fun, what wasn't fun, and when the series began to decline in playability (Arma2 era). btw, Counter-Strike is fun, but having CQB in 5v5 style is not exclusively limited to Counter-Strike. I was referring to the general idea of having a gauged system where you can compete with skill instead of sucker into the boring idea that you have to join a realism unit, get mods, and play against boring down-graded AI to be good at the game. That is, without playing the weeded down dynamic open-world co-op missions which dominate Arma's MP today (domination, sandbox, etc). There is no personality and no fun to be had there for many players.

Sorry for the profanity. I do like the realism, somewhat. But there's arguably nothing realistic about the game, with the exclusion of map size and bullet trajectories, unless you play with mods like ACE2 which really help the realism a lot. The thing is there is a 'fun factor' which comes into play. If it's realistic, great, but when people get bored of pretending to roleplay as a soldier then there will be nothing to keep them in. When Arma2 first came out, the people I met and played with eventually formed a group that I joined. It was vanilla (no mods required), but yet the content they created in terms of missions and the stuff we organized was fairly interesting. I've never had the same amount of fun on Arma2. Have you ever had an organized PvP with about 70 people in it, and yet still be divided up into taskforces/teams that have specific roles to carry out? If you've seen ShackTac, that is a group which might not be as versatile but they at least know how to make fun scenarios, so you can get an idea from that. It wasn't necessarily the mission forcing them to do it, it was more like a mission layout and the people organized it themselves to make it fun. Arma3 needs more of that new elitism and veteran play-style instead of the migration of the junk from Arma2 in the form of Domination co-op servers, self-proclaimed realism units and other hard to manage but inefficient/boring styles of play. Long explanation about the problems with Arma2 -> Arma3 with proven examples and such:

Quote Originally Posted by ProGamer Arma 3 took the OFP route. Gameplay over realism. They have said they wanted to make it more like OFP. I've always thought like this, but I also feel it was a good decision. Arma3's engine with Arma2 content is amazing as well. It's pretty much the same only much more fluid and immersive due to the physics. I remade an account here even though I pretty much played OFP when I was 13 and have been around Arma for quite some time, so try to hold me credible for what I can contribute. There are still a few factors to consider when you look at the Arma2->Arma3 process with the immersion of realism lovers: 1) Arma2 really boomed with the idea of easy-going coop, with the innovation of Domination (co-op mission with the idea of using the whole map dynamically, but is typically boring as fuck due to the settings applied) and similar coop style missions. Soon emerging mods like ACE2 and thousands of user created mods helped really spark interest in having a so called 'realism scene' as well. 2) Arma2 soon gave birth to a bunch of easy-going realism lovers who eventually grew comfortable with their mods; mainly ACE2, Acer, and other immersive modsets. This means that realism lovers on Arma2 still love to mod Arma2 even considering how old it is, or are simply glad that they set up their quite intensive mods in order to play with their buddies. Still, mods were considered good enough for most realism lovers and vanilla gameplay was mostly considered a mixture of boring and unplayable. -------- Looking back: OFP was really innovative, but if you played it in multiplayer you'd notice a difference. -------- 1) In OFP, there was a competitive scene. Groups would compete in CQB and CTI maps (close quarter battle, capture the flag, zone holding, and more casual capture the island). People really were taught and knew that to play OFP, you were expected to be the guy who kills 12 AI soldiers and blows up a T72 tank with 2 rockets. 2) Mods in OFP were obviously the first of their kind, and the first ACE or other mods could never really achieve full realism due to graphical limitations. This led to a favoring of mostly vanilla gameplay and mods on multiplyaer servers were kept to a minimum; or scripted completely into downloadable missions to avoid the hassle. --------- Now: Arma3 is a mixture of good graphics, fluid gameplay, better infantry and movement mechanics.. numerous improvements, yet it doesn't have that clunky realism feel of Arma2 --------- 1) There is a re-emergence of some DM/TVT/HOLD servers, which were mostly prevalent in Arma1 and OFP, and a decent amount These were and now are some of the only strongholds where new players can learn the mechanics of competitive play. This means a balance between the realism lover fiddling with his mods (e.g. "Oh, sorry for the FF dude" "Oh shit theres 5 AI on easy mode, time to apply tactics" "How do I equipt my weaponnnhuehue") and new/veteran players who will learn how to properly play the game. 2) There are still those easy-ass systems of coop missions such as Domination which attempt to use the whole map and actually just shun away players who want actual gameplay experience. An example of this is when a mission is dynamically assigned to take a new town randomly. All of a sudden, there is a need to get to the AO. Let's say we avoid the clan/group issues and anyone can fly, and you make it to the AO fairly quickly in a helicopter. Odds are, there are already a handful there in their own (possibly restricted to clan/group) armor or support units and they have already killed the easy-mode 20 AI units that spawned in there. That, or some randie guy who thinks he's all that flew by in his jet and bombed them all as the AI were spawned in a huge cluster. So.. after walking 1000m in about 5 minutes, people are already asking for evac and you might have realized you wasted 30 minutes doing nothing at all. ------ My opinion: ------ I wish there was competitive 5v5 in CQB, or platoon vs platoon (team vs team) type battles where there were things like a set number of lives or a number of points you need to achieve as a team by completing objectives. This coop shit just seems like something that should be left behind in Arma2 as we progress to Arma3.. I'm sick of the typical "Oh, sorry for the FF dude" "Oh shit theres 5 AI on easy mode, time to apply tactics" "How do I equipt my weaponnnhuehue". I really like the DM/PVP coming back in Arma3 but it still hasn't fully replaced the shitty domination and easy-ass system of coop missions. At least make some cool shit like back in OFP where there were unique and specialized missions where you had goals and pre-placed items. The whole dynamic sandbox shit was/is boring and should have been abandoned in Arma2 where it pretty much spawned from.. Coop is not inherently bad; but what happened to the fun shit like DEFEND CHRISTMAS HILL - just a spam of units assaulting a hill and it was hell, or those maps covered in tanks where you only have AT and you have to kill about 10 of them, or just the servers where AI settings are actually high and it's considered difficult to carry out a simple and non-laggy mission. Time to move on and create fun game-types guys. In Arma1 one of the funnest experiences I had (albeit somewhat laggy) was on a coop server with a mission called Take The City (1000 AI). The AI was pretty versatile, and there were actually tons of them in the city. This wasn't just fly in and take the city from 10 easy-mode AI like the usual so called 'elite' Arma2 unit does, that was some hardcore fun stuff that I can't bother typing out. This shit, in comparison, is boring; to someone who only has played Arma2/Arma3 they might get the whole stale atmosphere and dump the game as a pile of trash. That, or join a realism unit, and they never do anything fun like organize PvP scenarios or gameplay against players; they are also tending to be afraid to do PVP because it would break the morale of their bad players to lose against some other group. Imagine if you could choose your 5 best for a squad and pit them against 5 others, or just do a full on war/comparison of groups? That would be fun.. that's what popular FPS games have. I hate COD and consolegames, but I love PC games with the exception of easy and casual stuff. Arma has degraded alot into something boring; though Arma2 is realistic I don't want to see any of those easy-going faggots who joined Realism units to migrate over and infect the Arma3 scene. I'd rather see some fun and creative missions than some crap like that. Sorry for the long post, but I type really fast and I had a long opinion.