Brady_The_1

could be a likely solution.

https://archive.is/Ggk00#selection-773.1-773.59 - https://web.archive.org/web/20161107221800/https://store.bistudio.com/products/project-argo ( Ultimately, the much longer-term aim of this project [Project Argo] is to develop a similar (most likely Arma-related) multi-platform game on a different engine.) This is really bad news. I'll be honest here, I doubt now that Argo will get anywhere ever. While Real Virtuality might work alright for PvE Roleplay, it definitely does not for PvP, especially in small-scale CQC environments (which the whole of Argo basically is). That leads to following: - Non-Arma FPS players won't stick around in Argo, or be interested in Argo at all due to the clunky movement and all the other problems with the engine. (Not to mention that the barrier of entry is still pretty high compared to standard FPS games) = No market - Arma players deem Argo as casual and unworthy of their time, because (at least) the vocal players deem shooting static targets or targets with easily predictable movement patterns with a Lynx from 3 km away while laying on their stomach in a bush wearing ghillie-suits as the pinnacle of tactical gameplay, while having to come up with tactics and manoeuvrers on the fly in stressful unpredictable CQC PvP situations is being called "casual". = No market

If the developing process ever gets to the point where the prototype enters a stage where Argo could be released as a fleshed out standalone game (which is a long way out, and would include an engine switch to make it suitable for the (mass) market), I hope the developers take the Pay(-Once)-to-Play model into consideration (potentially combined with the sale of cosmetics to beat down the price a little bit). People should, in my opinion, spend money on quality products to support the developers. This includes the "I spent the average price of an AAA title on Arma 3 four years ago and demand a lifelong free access to every Bohemia game ever released"-crowd.

The first two sentences are unfortunately a little hard to understand. How many errors do you get exactly and when do you get those? Without more details to isolate the problems it could be a lot of things. I assume you verified the integrity of the game cache? If not, do that first. In case that doesn't work I pull a Microsoft forum moderator and suggest doing the following: Go to Start, click All Programs and open Accessories. Right click on Command Prompt in the Program list and then select Run as administrator. If you are prompted for an administrator password or for confirmation, type your password, or click OK, or else click Yes. In the Command Prompt, type the following command, and then press ENTER: sfc /scannow See if that helps or does anything. Report back with results or if you have more details.

A screenshot or recording would probably help. The only instances with wrongly tagged players I remember, was this one, and that bug was fixed.

Thanks for the clarification!

If it happened on Clash it was most likely not a bug, but a feature. I don't remember the exact values, but if Defender leave a certain area around their fight zone their location will be revealed to the enemy team.

I agree. Additionally to an automatic temp ban triggered by excessive team-killing I would like to see a [15 - 30 minutes] temp ban on server leave while in a match. If you have valid reasons to leave you won't mind the temp ban, if you are an angry rage-quitter you should pay for it, instead of being able to join another server and ruin another team's match.

The Server Browser might be the tool you are looking for.

In my opinion the best way to find a sever is the server browser ('Official servers' tab). However, player numbers are always pretty low, so there is a chance that not enough people were playing when you tried to find a server. Right now, there is one full Clash server, and a Mixed server is filling up slowly. Generally you will have more problems finding many servers in US peak times. EU peak times are not that bad.

No, Project Argo is a dip into the waters of (somewhat) competitive games. That's funny, because I personally consider 'Mil Sims' PvE Roleplay. To each their own, I guess, eh. To answer your question from a non-developers point of view. Removing certain spots by blocking them is supposed to give the game modes a certain flow, and balance Hotspots (such as Flags in Clash) by keeping, both, the defender and the attacker side in mind.

I hundred-percent agree with you. Who do they think they are? Trying to survive by making a living as game developers? The nerve of those people. Unbelievable. And what kind of price tag is 'Free'? That's an awful lot of characters for what is basically an Arma 3 copy.

Thanks for fixing the problem. I appreciate it. :-)

I wouldn't necessarily go so far and call Link a 'glorified deathmatch without teamplay'. Raid you can theoretically win alone 1v5 due to the setup, and Clash, while it can profit from team play, is too open and random for team play to have any real effect. Link was and is probably the game mode where good teamplay would be mandatory to succeed under ideal circumstances. Link is brutal and unforgiving, the team that doesn't work together or makes too many mistakes loses, really badly. The problem with teamplay in Argo is not the game or a game mode, it's the player. The average Argo player is too bad, lacks common sense, doesn't want to improve, and gives up too easy too fast while going down the path of convenient excuses to shift the blame to the opponent or the game (all of it which really is typical for the average player in any multiplayer game, not just Argo). This is being supported by the fact that Clash is the most popular game mode. While I have no current numbers to back this up and come from a place of anecdotal evidence and the results of old twitter polls, this really comes as no surprise. Of course I do understand the reasons behind why the player base is what it is, and that it is most likely not going to change any time soon. I just want to offer a different perspective on this topic. ---- Regarding multiplayer stats: I agree, stats can and will be distracting for the player, especially K/D brings out the worst in players. However, I think that removing them completely from the game or a specific game mode would not be beneficial. Statistics and numbers, even K/D, are a valid indicator of skill progress and a tool in understanding and reflecting on one's game play. I would suggest a combination of nerfing point rewards of player-actions (like kills) and buffing point rewards of team-actions (like saviour-kills, objective-based actions, etc), which as far as I know has been already at least partially implemented in the game, and hiding certain stats (K/D for example) on the scoreboard in an active game, but displaying them after the match ended and using those stats for general leaderboards (which will/could be part of the so called "Meta game").

I am curious if anything is happening on this front. Using Firefox Beta I haven't had access to https://www.projectargo.net/ for the longest time now, but four days ago Firefox 51 was released (not to mention all the other browsers following suit), which is going to increase the number of affected people tremendously.

Maps and modes Baseraping on the current Link map is far more efficient done from the street, especially if you are playing from the North spawn. The South spawn barely has any cover which should be an easy fix. Besides that, while I called Le Port pretty close to being perfect, Airfield is the perfect Link location. It's really well balanced for both sides and it has a very clean layout. Giving feedback for the Raid location is a little harder. It plays very awkward on the defender side, mainly due to the fact that I find it hard to find good positions. While I had no problems doing that in any other Raid map, I still have no idea how to play Airfield. Clash's Larche is good, in my opinion better than any map before. One thing I really like about this version was the presence of some sort of cover on most of the objectives, which made the circles less of a slaughtering block. However, the way Clash currently works is my main problem with the game mode which makes it the least enjoyable for me. Bits and pieces Link: I would like to see either 1A or 1B "connect" to 2. Switching labels in updates of whatever node is closer to 2 may doesn't sound like a big deal, but it would be a little less strain on "muscle memory" and tactics wouldn't needed to be changed every week. All: Objective/Team markers can be quite obstructive, even downright deadly. In certain situations HUD elements can cover relatively huge portions of the screen and completely hide/cloak an enemy. In other instances team members were situated in completely different portions of the map, but it happened that their team indicator lined up perfectly with an enemy player standing a couple of meters away from me, which very often did not end well for me. It would be nice to either have HUD markers hidden when not in Line of Sight of the player or have an opacity applied to them. A perfect solution would be a mix of that, and a customisation option. That was one of the very few things the developers of Battlefield 4 got right. Example 1, Example 2 All: Hitreg was already mentioned, but I would like to add that I have made the same experiences as Janitor Sanchez. All: As nice as the spectator camera is, it is a little too OP in its current form in my opinion. It saved my or my buddies lives and brought our team to victory plenty of time, because either one of us was dead, spectating and giving call-outs. All: To be able to give more detailed feedback on maps it would be awesome if the developer could provide us with screenshots from an aerial perspective of the key points in the game modes (Nodes 2 and M, Flags, Raid compound). While we could use screenshots of the map I do think that the map itself is too abstract to highlight problematic (or even good) areas. The main problem I do have with Argo right now is the community. It's too small (especially in US prime time the population seems to half, or dwindle even further), and it seems that mainly the "wrong people" play Argo. What I have seen in my Argo playtime, at least for the vast majority, suggests that the community largely consists of Arma/DayZ players, not FPS players (which seems to be supported by Clash's popularity, objectively one of the most Arma-like, most random and thus least competitive modes in Argo in its current form). While the absence of common sense is present in every single Multiplayer game, and not a unique feature of Argo's community common "FPS skills" seem to be rather rare. While I do still believe that Argo is a great concept, and, if done right, could become a thing, I am afraid the community is going to kill it (empty servers, etc) before it even has a chance to take off, if not grown and diversified. Right now Argo is not very fun to play.

I thought my wording would indicate that my feedback was supposed to be rather broad and general. I guess I failed. If you want to expand on it by weighting every single existing round against each other, please feel free to do so. Anyway, I do think that the TTK currently is too low. I had the impression from their ADS blog that they wanted to simplify the whole process.

I can't say too much about the location, because I haven't played enough to give any valid feedback. Even though the Clash location seems already far better than the last ones. Link seems to be alright. Raid I cannot say much about just yet. While we are talking about weapons I will give my 2 cents to this topic, at the example of this weeks weapon rotation. Ak-12 GL - Calibre too high, especially in combination with UGL. Too OP. Zafir - Calibre too high in combination with belt capacity. Too OP. Rahim - Can't say anything about it, I am not sure if I even came across anyone using it (haven't played too much though). Could be an interesting Rifleman weapon. Type 115 - Assault rifle combined with a semi-automatic sniper rifle. Already its .50 cal aspect alone would be way too OP. ASP-1 - Silenced marksman rifle with a 12.7 mm calibre, using sub-sonic bullets with an effective range of 100 to 200 meters, which pretty much covers all game modes in Argo. Way too OP. Regarding the loadouts I have a couple of ideas, even though it probably goes against everything you have planned for the meta game. Grenadier: - Max 6.5 Calibre, maybe 5.56 | 1 (- 2) 40mm grenades | RCO/ARCO/MRCO = Nerf the abuse of grenade spam by reducing the ammunition count and making its usage more tactical (In my playtime I have never experienced any player using 40mm grenades to target a deliberate spot. It's always spam and forget). Mid range sights to balance the lower calibre. Machine Gunner - Max 5.56 Calibre | Iron sights = Nerf the ammunition count of 100 - 200 per belt by lower calibre, iron sights, and potentially restriction to 1 - 2 belts (depending on ammo count). Marksman - Bolt-action rifle | Scope without secondary optics (LRPS for example) = Nerf the "run and gun" usability of such weapons. Make it up by a higher calibre, preferably bolt-action, not semi-automatic. Rifleman - Max 7.62 Calibre, maybe 6.5 | Iron sights - RD sights - Maybe equip the class with one Medkit for self-medication to give it a reason to exist? = Depending on calibre nerf its stopping power by sights restrictions Scout - SMG/PDW (For example) | Silencer | RD sights = Give it unique characteristics by equipping the weapon(s) with a silencer, thus making it a valuable stealth character. Weapon choices within classes potentially would need balancing, depending on the weapon damage (50 bullets in ADR-97 despite low calibre maybe too much, especially in combination with a high ROF, for example), etc. Classes could be made more distinct and balanced by using different calibres (Grenadier: 5.56, Rifleman: 6.5, Marksman: 7.62 (single fire, potentially semi-auto), for example).

My feedback is not going to be as in-depth as initially hoped and thought, especially after a double-clicking mouse closed the browser window which got rid of an already rather lengthy comment, but eh, what can you do. General Argo could use an Idle kick (The most extreme case I experienced was a player blocking a lobby for a good 4 to 5 hours before they were kicked by Steam or BattlEye.) Argo could use a Ping kick. The game offers US and EU servers for a reason, and I heard that community servers are starting to pop up as well. Any encounter with a ping difference of ~100+ is extremely random, usually the player with the lower ping loses. The higher the ping the worse it gets. Playing against SA players for example is very unenjoyable. Argo could use a Vote kick. While I wouldn't describe deliberate team-killing as rampant, it definitely happens on a very frequent basis. AFK players are another frequently occurring problem. Waiting for the timer to run out is no fun for both teams. Argo could use a Temporary Matchmaking/"Serverjoin" Cooldown. Match-leaving is ever-present, ruins the fun for any remaining players, and imbalances unbalanced teams even further. Argo could use some sort of team balancing. Team-stacking is the rule rather than the exception, and constantly having to rebalancing the teams by yourself is getting really tiring (which becomes even more frustrating if it happens after the match started). While an authentically crafted scenery can look absolutely beautiful and add a nice immersive touch to a scenario, these small scenes are not necessarily needed in a competitive game. Things like this, this, this, this, or this could either be completely removed (trash, luggage, for example, cars that don't offer a strategical position, smoke clouds (performance?)) or reduced (6 parked cars with two strategical placed cars or one strategical placed lorry, for example). However, this point is total guess on my part because I have no idea what kind of impact those compositions have. But especially with Argo and its very demanding current engine every single saved frame will help tremendously. Raid The location is alright, but the scenery is a little too heavy. Too many hiding spots, too many angles too cover. Overall it is too cluttered for my liking. I eventually got used to it, and do fairly well in the current location, but I believe that a simpler and cleaner layout would be beneficial to the game flow. Week's 2 Radio Station was pretty close to perfection. Week's 1 Le Port wasn't bad either, its only down-side was the size of the compound which was, in my opinion, a tiny little bit too small to work well. Suggestion(s): The air drop rewards needs balancing. Reducing the game round timer to 60 seconds on the defender side is very powerful, while revealing the exact location of the terminal on the attacker side is pretty much useless, when all terminal are located within a radius of 30 - 60 meters anyway, while simultaneously being extremely exposed to any defender during security of the air drop. Too many risks, too little reward.Link The location is alright, the only real problem I do have with it, is the layout of the Main node. It is not as bad as Sainte Marie, but it still is way too easy and way too fast to cover all sorts of angles as an attacker, which puts the defender (aka, the team or player that is trying to link the node) at a big disadvantage, especially due to the fact that the "linker" basically has to hug the node in order to trigger the link process. Suggestion(s): Creating an objective radius similar to Clash could be beneficial. Maybe half the size of the Clash flag circle, potentially only at the Main node.Clash The main problem I do have with the mode, is the mode itself. The map only highlights the design problems. For a conquest mode in a competitive infantry 5 player versus 5 player environment the distances between flags are too long, the map is too open [A "borderless" map is no good, a funneling of the player movement is not happening, the defenders have no sense of direction, etc.], the vegetation is too dense [A defender can, depending on the map (very noticeable in Sainte Marie, noticeable in Cancon) choose between hundreds of bushes, dozens of rocks and trees. For the attacker this means that it makes a callout system for huge parts of the map impossible, and creates an absolutely randomised, unpredictable and disorganised environment due to the sheer mass of (mostly illogical) hiding spots. For the defender it means that they will be overwhelmed by choices. This, exponentiated by the potential inexperience of the player can lead to bad decision making. Their chosen spot of defence might be too far away from the objective ("Unable to see the wood for the trees"), the player gets separated and isolated from the rest of the team, and very likely either gets killed without being able to get support by his team mates, is unable to support his team, or is unable to reach the objective in time for a defence attempt (I won way too many Clash matches by sitting down in the middle of the objective and spinning in circles while lowering and raising the flag, because I knew that the last enemy player alive was too far out to be any real danger.).] Suggestion(s): Funnel the players movement by restricting the map either by borders created with assets, or "Out-of-bounds" borders Decrease the amount of foliage. Instead creating realistic forest and woodlands environments, use it to create tactical position and cover. (Or add 10 to 15 minutes to the round timer.) Restrict the spawn on defence to the objective that is being attacked. In my many hours of playing Argo I have never seen an effective usage of flanking on the defender side. It usually ends in players defending the wrong position, looking into the wrong direction, being bipoted on the wrong hills. Generally speaking most locations I have played so far could potentially work in an organised team versus team match. Unfortunately the nature of random public teams makes the overall gaming experience rather unenjoyable. While good players can adjust and adapt their game style to the circumstances, the average player is unable to do so and needs guidance (which unfortunately entails way more than explaining game modes). I don't know the direction you guys want to go with Argo, especially in combination with the mentioned potential engine switch, but I personally, knowing what I know right now, feel that Argo would do better in the long term with custom created maps specially tailored to fit different game modes (not necessarily one map each for all game modes, but rather "larger" maps that could be used for all modes). While Malden is a superbly crafted map that will definitely be in no way inferior to existing Arma 3 maps, and highlights realistic and authentic world crafting as one of Bohemias core strengths, I am not sure if Malden is fit to deliver a consistent stream of balanced and fun locations (which admittedly would be a lot easier if we were just talking about Raid, and in some aspects Link). Well, this turned out to be another one of my ramblings. With that all said, I am very curious to see what you guys have in petto. The latest Q&A video sounded very reassuring. You are definitely on the right way. Keep it up.

Because Argo is pretty much Arma 3 right now, Arma startup parameter work in Argo as well. -noPause should do the trick. Talking about map feedback I am afraid I have to join in the consensus. I played a little over 7 hours across all game modes and it left me with a rather stale aftertaste. I leave some more "in-depth" feedback after having slept about it.

While other people gave already their feedback about the new map, I want to chime in with my feedback. Game mode feedback Overall the new locations are pretty terrible. The only setting that nails it is 'Raid'. I very much prefer it over the old layout, the size of the compound is more appropriate, everything is less crammed and the area offers a good variety of fair entry points. While 'Clash' still has, in my opinion, a long way to go (too open, not straight-forward enough, etc) to be competitive, the map is kind of alright. The non-urban environment makes it pretty awkward, but you can make it kind of work. 'Link' was absolutely slaughtered, and crashed from 'most fair, most balanced, most competitive mode' to 'crammed, random mess'. The nodes are weirdly placed, the main node is too unbalanced and puts the defender at a severe disadvantage (too many angles to cover (basically 360°) combined with the fact that the attacker can circle the area in 5-10 seconds, weird capture area (you pretty much have to hug the node to link it)), due to the larger amount of bushes the player gets stuck everywhere, the map itself is way too cluttered/not clean enough, resulting in pretty random encounters. The old location and overall setup with its node placements, cover, flanking routes and balance was pretty close to (if not) being perfect. Game mode ranking 0.65.139114: Link (++) -> Raid (+) -> Clash (±). Game mode ranking 0.67.139265: Raid (+) -> Clash (±) -> Link (++) General feedback Urban environments work generally better for competitive environments (I do however understand that you guys are simply trying out new things to learn and see what works and what doesn't.) Fatigue needs to go in my opinion. Make classes slower or faster based on their loadout instead. While I am looking at this from a purely competitive angle, I do understand that you are going for a more tactical approach right now. I believe however, that, even in a "tactical competitive" environment adds nothing of value to the game, especially on a close-combat, small-scale base (no vehicle units, air units, combat in kilometre ranges, etc, aka Arma 3) like Argo offers Collision of certain objects needs to be either removed or significantly reduced. It did not appear as big of a problem on the first urban map, but now on the new map, especially short-ranged game modes like Link suffer immensely from it. I cannot recall the times I got stuck in bushes, sucked into rocks and trees, which usually resulted in death or missed opportunity that would have been crucial to the outcome of the match. Door closing and opening is very, very clunky right now. The "interaction trigger" is placed very awkwardly, and ends in players not being able to open/close doors, or pushing the player into solid objects (house wall, for example), resulting in players fighting the environment instead of other players. Players glitching into objects and either being killed by suicide, or other players, or missing crucial opportunities due to fighting the environment instead of players (rocks, scaffolding in the first link map, just to name two). However, I do believe that this is more of an engine problem that cannot be really fixed(?) or requires some more work. Nonetheless this is a problem, and needs to be addressed eventually. Loadouts need some work in terms of specialisation and balance. Right now there is no real need to play anything but the Machine gunner. Other game mechanics could play into making classes unique. (Note: This is no short-term goal that should be addressed asap, but rather something that can evolve over time. I have a couple of ideas for it, but I don't think Argo has already reached that point where this should become a priority.) It would be nice to have an option to customise Colours and Layout like in Arma 3. Show team mates on GPS Show pings on GPS A "kill card" that displays all details about one's death, that allows players to analyse the How and Why and improve their gameplay based on those information. Good example for a kill card: Ghost Recon Phantoms More advertising for the game. While I obviously do not know BI's plans for this, or potential reasons why Argo is not advertised more, the game and the game development could benefit immensely by a bigger, more diverse player base. Tournaments, or at least organised matches. Nothing big or fancy. Simply something that gives you developers the opportunity to spectate half-way organised team play and the flow of game modes and map. Looking at the game play of 5 randoms versus 5 randoms that never played with each other, may or may not communicate with their team mates, and do their own thing instead might give you some insight, but it will not be very accurate, potentially even directly contractive to the actions of a "real" team, which would hurt the development in the long run. (This point is another reason why Argo could use more players.) Anyway, this is enough random rambling for now. I would like to use this opportunity to thank Bohemia for having started this project. Project Argo (despite its early development) is a lot of fun, more fun that I had in any Multiplayer game in a long time, and I really hope that you guys continue working on it. This game, if done right, could become really good and close the gap between competitive games. I cannot wait to see where this prototype goes.

Before I am going to disagree with your disagreement, and give my feedback to Argo myself (even though I can already say that I am relieved to read that BI is not going to introduce 3rd person, that would have been an instant drop from my side) I do believe that Bohemia needs to clarify what goal they have for Argo in mind. Does Bohemia wants a competitive game, or does Bohemia wants to create a tactical competitive game (whatever that means, tbh), because both of those couldn't be more different. While competitive games most certainly have tactical aspects, tactical games are not competitive material. What the majority of people, you included, in this thread want is Arma 2.0, not a competitive game.

That's awesome. The missing recognisability was the main complaint the players in my group had about Tanoa's non-accessible buildings.

This is interesting. Before the achievement was fixed in the dev-branch, I tried for hours to unlock it, and restarted every time I did not one-shot enemies in stage 1 and stage 2, because I thought "Shot, but not killed = Alerted", especially because AI (obviously) changed their behaviour.

Hah, this is great news! I don't (and don't want to) know how many hours I spent on trying to make sense of this achievement. "None The Wiser" is a very appropriate name. Thanks for fixing this, BI! :-) Edit: After unlocking the achievement I have to say that it almost felt too easy now. I had several situations I would only describe as "I messed up", but in the end I still achieved it.