ArmA Multiplayer and humans

This is about the interface, tools and public gaming with other people.

Granted: I don't play Arma MP as much as I wanted to but that is related to public gaming beign best described as "annoying", and it's barely related to players or mission design.

First of all there is the Server Browser. I won't get into this because we all know its short comings and I strongly believe that, with the SteamWorks, things may change. The just added friend invite may be a sign of that.

Then, the Role Selection. I can see this working with general coop missions and big organizated events but other than that, makes little sense. Even less on PvP mission styles. Related to the next point which is....

Squad Management. If you want to add a usefull module to the editor, add one for squad management. Right now every mission has one that is a little different from the other; access, design, functionality varies but in the end all you need is: to join\leave\kick, see players\squad members, set roles or teams and pass the command. A2:PR has a good template for all that and it looks friendly and good, IMO.

(This whole paragraph is based in my experience this evening on a Domi server) I'm on a squad. I know the name of the players that are on it but I can't tell who is who, nor what are their primary role (medic, pilot, AT). I can't tell where they are (without looking at the map): the diamond thing has the same size for the guy that is next to me and for the guy that is across the map. To add to the confusion, the squad leader keeps telling everybody to "Return to formation", reporting dead squadmembers, "Taking command" to give it back almost right away and calling targets; Nice for working with AIs but for humans makes no sense, at least not when it's automatic (Player\Server difficulty setttings, but still). As a squad leader, you don't need the extensive command menu a simpler menu with useful orders would make it (move, ROE, destroy, watch).

Interaction with other units outside of your squad is almost non existant. Voice (either from ingame VON or server TS) is the norm but a ingame radio (+3D sound) would add a lot. You can have useful communication with simple commands though that in BF42, BF2, Wolf:ET and in CS you can almost have a full conversation. An expation of the "Status.." menu.

___________

What I'm suggesting is an overhaul on the user interface, mainly on humans only scenarios (either Coop or PvP). I know the game is far too open to try to squad everytihng on simple solutions, that human to human interaction is mainly done via voice and on top of that the Dev time is working on bigger problems with few resources but I had to write it down. Arma is a game too good and it's a shame that the only way to proper play it is via scheduled sessions.

I'll sleep on that, maybe better ideas and concepts appear until tomorow. What you guys think?

Sounds nice overall but I would thing that

I know the name of the players that are on it but I can't tell who is who, nor what are their primary role (medic, pilot, AT). I can't tell where they are (without looking at the map)

Its been a while since Ive gamed publicly but how does one not know what the roles of his teammates are? Wasnt it on the selection screen? ala~ If not then I think it lies with the mission maker to properly outline squad makup in selection screen. Everything after there lies with being in a shit squad.

I would agree SL dont need an extensive menu but even after taking quite a bit out I think it will still be extensive.

That is a big chunk of the problem. I must stay in the same squad the whole time and the only way to check them is thought that menu and the briefing one, which is less detailed? "Disconnect" and change your role? What we have work for those 1 live mission, either PvP or coop, for the rest is kind of messy. For PvP that screen shouldn't even exist (unless the mission maker want to), just pick a team and you are good to go.

Look:

A2:PR - Not the best image to show it, but the only thing I got online.

Or the BF2 one, enhanced in PR:

In both I can see all players, their roles, get in\out easily, name your squad. In the A2 one you can set up teams divided by colors, makes wonders with the ShackTact-looks-like-radar-thing. On the BF2 one you can easily see what everyone is doing because you can highlight them in the map.

It is not an issue on organized missions but outside of it, it is.

Ah I understand. Ty for the clarification.

Yea..

A2PR's Teaam management was huge improvement over "default' ArmA's slot based system for public MP

For team based Coops 'default' slot-based system wasn't so bad..although totally restricted on starting mission makers plan/which again is not a bad thing..

Squad management is a great feature for organized play.

The A2:PR ui shown has excellent features:

-Name/title a squad allow people to form-up by language/type/function, etc, ex:"Helo crew, Polish, need mic".

An easy way for people to organize, ingame, on the fly.

-assign fireteams [hud]

-Tag players [hud]: handy feature for buddy-teams, fireteam leaders, etc.

-Kick player and lock squad: squad leaders can kick problem players and limit the size of the squad.

When squads are sorted out, ingame Comms work without the need to spam side channel. Leaders can use 'command channel'; squadies can use group or direct.

This is how ingame von is meant to be used.

Smurf knows what he's talking about. Hope mission makers take note.

---------- Post added at 12:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:11 AM ----------

Created a feature request on the tracker.

Please Vote!

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=11127

Hello...

Bringing this thread from the deads to ask something else: Public MP in Arma will ever be a thing?

Read: I will ever be able to pick a server with a considerable quantidy of players at any time and any day to play something that resembles a tactical simulation?

Right now the MP scene is pitiful and wasn't much better with A2. Some servers almost filled playing Wasteland or somekind of Domi variation, almost no TvT servers at all and a huge dispersion of players between mods and versions. There are many servers and missions that could cover that but it seems there is no interess from the players to. What is the problem? OP may be related (with general bad UI overall) but isn't the main problem.

Granted, anyone play as he wants to and you only get the best of the game on a semi\closed environment but c'mon....

Exactly my thoughts (regarding OP and your latest post)! I really hoped Arma 3 would make public gaming more pleasant, but most of the time it's simply horrible. In 150+ hours of MP playing I've managed to run into 2-3 servers that offered somewhat decent public PvP experience, coop is ruined by the AI anyways.

As noted, we need UI overhaul, but we also need out of the box scenarios which are targeted exactly at fun public experience (mainly PvP because there's so much potential) and which utilize pretty much everything game has to offer.

Well, there are the new modules ready for some types of gamemodes and things like this (couldn't find a server running it, but I only looked for it once; will try tonight again, seems pretty good) which sounds good enough but doesn't seems to have public for it.

I honestly don't know what happens here. MP browser might have something to do with it (is not THAT bad but it sould be better)? Lack of interest from the players? Stratis is too old already \ Waiting for the full release? The whole mod\versions mismatch that often occurs?

And I agree that the game has so much potential unexplored on quick and simple gamemodes - Pick team, squad, role => AAS - yet somewhat tactical focused instead of the "free for all" that are the norm on the modes running now.

ArmA Multiplayer has always been an issue of "Some Assembly Required". There has been very little proper and dedicated attention given to the out of the box state of the game when it comes to online PVP MP. Thus.. there has never been a standard to base the ArmA experience on. It's always been up to the community to come up with the content and just make it work. That leaves 101 different ways to play Arma and most of them are superficial and generic or unsuitable for what many would-be players are looking for.

ArmA 3 could really use a "Day Z" of it's own to really set the stage and draw players in. And by "Day Z" I don't mean a Zombie Apocalypse survival game mode... I mean a game mode that gets every one talking about ArmA and wanting to get in and play online, just like Day Z did for ArmA2:OA. Huge numbers of unreached people came to play (and buy) ArmA 2 because of the DayZ phenomenon. People who would never have given ArmA any prior thought. That was a huge PR jackpot BIS hit on out of pure luck and random fortune. So, it's sad that there doesn't appear to be any attempt at capitalizing on that boon.... or at the very least, there appears to be a lack of understanding in how to make the most of it and apply it to ArmA 3. I'm surprised they didn't make any effort to get DayZ into ArmA 3 and instead went for spinning it into a stand alone based on ArmA 2.5 engine technology.

A game mode I'm working on might be what will make Arma's MP (including PvP) feel like a proper milsim for once if it catches on. :rolleyes:

The only problem is that the engine fights back at every turn to prevent what is a relatively simple concept on paper.

Well, there are the new modules ready for some types of gamemodes and things like this (couldn't find a server running it, but I only looked for it once; will try tonight again, seems pretty good) which sounds good enough but doesn't seems to have public for it.

I honestly don't know what happens here. MP browser might have something to do with it (is not THAT bad but it sould be better)? Lack of interest from the players? Stratis is too old already \ Waiting for the full release? The whole mod\versions mismatch that often occurs?

And I agree that the game has so much potential unexplored on quick and simple gamemodes - Pick team, squad, role => AAS - yet somewhat tactical focused instead of the "free for all" that are the norm on the modes running now.

I agree 100% with your posts this is something that needs to happen in order for PvP to work in Arma 3.

@Celery - that is the best news I've heard in a while (that you are working on an MP gamemode).

** crosses fingers for A3 Road Rage ** :p

What strikes me just now is that I'm using the Dev branch, which may explain the low populated servers all day long?

How's things on stable?

Right now the MP scene is pitiful and wasn't much better with A2. Some servers almost filled playing Wasteland or somekind of Domi variation, almost no TvT servers at all and a huge dispersion of players between mods and versions.

to be fair, Wasteland kind of gives players something they don't get in other games. it's still a crappy game mode, and needs a lot of improvement. but everything else (objective based PvP, large scale PvP) other games do better. Arma 2 really only had Warfare for people to play against each other, and I never thought Warfare was a good PvP game mode (a lot of potential, crappy implementation). Wasteland is similar to Warfare in a number of key features, though. only Wasteland is a free-for-all sandbox, while Warfare players really need direction.

that's the thing, in Wasteland you can just jump in, play for 30 or so minutes, get some fun out of it and disconnect. while in bigger and more complex game modes like Domination, if you really want to enjoy it you have to invest a lot of time into it, and one single person can just ruin it for everyone in 5 minutes. hence why most servers require certain mods to join: oftentimes it's a retard filter.

I don't know if there's a way around it. either Bohemia or modders need to come up with an MP game mode that doesn't punish other players for one player's mistakes/bad conduct; that doesn't require you to spend 10 to 30 minutes before you can see some action.

another issue is lack of official servers that are up 24/7. only servers we have are provided by other players, and they will always want to enhance their experience by adjusting the rules and/or adding mods. that has always been the number one cause of splitting the community. it happened in A2 with mods like ACE/I44/DayZ etc. it will surely happen in A3 (especially if the Dev Build function remains post-beta test and replaces beta patches)

Dwarden said that there will be a MP GUI redesign for A3, but it maybe happens after release.

Basically, to get a new game mode up and running on a server with players actually playing it, you need some sort of a fanbase/community/friends/etc that is big enough to get things going initially, and that simply isn't easy.

Maybe we should combine efforts, like coordinating dates/times where all us tactical PvP fans can join in on the same server and play a mission we actually like - Ones where teamwork is made useful and easy (and not like in wasteland/TDMs where everyone spawn scattered around), where deaths matter (unlike most CTF/CH/AAS where only objectives matter regardless of how many times you die and the game becomes a race from the respawn point to the objective) and where everyone are encouraged to fight over the same area (again unlike cti/wasteland/etc where everyone are spread out and thus teamwork is not a real option). And of course no money/unlocks/personal scores - Only team effort actually matters, and only possible restrictions are squad or side based and only when it is needed to keep things in order (like kit and vehicle limitations, vehicle locking, minimum player count for taking a vehicle). I might open up a facebook page where we can coordinate things more easily in a way that will be visible, as in having announcements show on your notifications/phone rather than you having to check a forum thread. But to make it work it'll require multiple people who actually do look at the notifications, come play and actually bring their friends along as well.

I dont know how people can think of pvp, if at ranges above 200m the missing high-res-textures, shadows, grass and the brightning from units in opposite to the environment make it a suicide run with a "Im HERE! Shot me!"-sign or crawling in prone to be sunken out of the dimension.

Would this be Tribes I wouldnt say anything, but not in a milsim in which I can get OHK'd thats pretty gameplay and immersion-breaking.

They could remove scopes and any kind of zoom.

I'm just waiting Project Reality missions to come in A3. Best public PvP games I've ever played in Arma 2.

I dont know how people can think of pvp, if at ranges above 200m the missing high-res-textures, shadows, grass and the brightning from units in opposite to the environment

you're exaggerating. and most games don't even have that (engagements at ranges over 200 m).

I think we need some a multiplayer game mode created by BIS like America's Army where 2 teams fight it out:

- Best of x number of matches wins the game

- Fixed player slots (only 1 DMR per team for example)

- Matches only take a short time (max 10 minutes)

- Some sort of auto balance teams

- scoreboard

- matches are confined to small area's with objectives inside buildings. (and a plausible method of stopping players from leaving this area)

- because this is Arma and not AA we can actually have a sniper sitting on a hill 600 meters from the fight who can assist in spotting and maybe shooting)

- No respawn during a match and spectating mode.

I've tried to recreate the Americas Army multiplayer gamemode in arma 3 using the guidelines above but i failed. (I don't even know how to use triggers.) Like mentioned earlier in this thread this could be the gamemode that attracts a lot of new players and its easy and quick to get into.

I think we need some a multiplayer game mode created by BIS like America's Army where 2 teams fight it out:

- Best of x number of matches wins the game done in DTAS

- Fixed player slots (only 1 DMR per team for example) Easy to do (I did it in Escalation), but redundant as in DTAS the kits themselves are rather balanced with each other

- Matches only take a short time (max 10 minutes) done in DTAS

- Some sort of auto balance teams not really possible in ArmA, at least not in an acceptible way

- scoreboard Total team score is kept in DTAS. Personal score is unneeded but does show normally at end of match like in all ArmA missions

- matches are confined to small area's with objectives inside buildings. (and a plausible method of stopping players from leaving this area) In DTAS you aren't forced to stay there, but if you don't defend it you will lose pretty fast, and if you don't attack it you will just run out of time.

- because this is Arma and not AA we can actually have a sniper sitting on a hill 600 meters from the fight who can assist in spotting and maybe shooting) happens often in DTAS

- No respawn during a match and spectating mode. Done in DTAS (simple spectator added with last update)

I've tried to recreate the Americas Army multiplayer gamemode in arma 3 using the guidelines above but i failed. (I don't even know how to use triggers.) Like mentioned earlier in this thread this could be the gamemode that attracts a lot of new players and its easy and quick to get into.

So yeah, just try DTAS? :)

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?153398-Dynamic-Take-And-Secure-Randomized-Round-Based-No-Respawn-A-amp-D

In the end, getting a proper game mode made is not THAT difficult. It's getting the players to actually play to the point where it becomes well known, popular, and can be played any time on a populated server that is difficult.

Seems really good but I never have heard of it until now. My fault but also a side effect of having so many things spread all over the place in ArmA.

Maybe BI could help here not only putting it in the Community Spotlight but also promoting somehow a "PvP Week" to encourage players and servers admins to run those modes. Could be an opportunity after release (when these modes are also ported to Altis, I imagine) to hide the lack of initial content on BI part and make a strong start on MP side.

ArmA Multiplayer has always been an issue of "Some Assembly Required". There has been very little proper and dedicated attention given to the out of the box state of the game when it comes to online PVP MP. Thus.. there has never been a standard to base the ArmA experience on. It's always been up to the community to come up with the content and just make it work.

That is the biggest problem with ArmA IMO, more so than any bugs or missing features. It's incredibly difficult to just hop in and play a game, and get a somewhat fun and engaging experience. I wish they had a few missions out of the box that behaved like BF2PR's AAS or Insurgency modes. Those missions really encourage teamwork (most of the time) and provide a DECENT tactical experience (compared to public ArmA servers)

Over at International Conflict, we're hoping to end this poor multiplayer pvp experience by offering users a structured weekly Team v Team campaign-based tournament for every ARMA community member to freely take part in. Everything is only beginning to take off now, but anyone is welcome. We'll be hoping to work with other communities within ARMA (For example, the before mentioned ARMA Israel) to combine and bring a monstrous playerbase in a dedicated environment to the ARMA community.

Best of luck Bugs hopefully it takes off. Our community is primarily COOP in Arma but with Arma 3 I'm hoping to change that and bring in more PvP / TvT objective style missions. Most of us hate the regular pub PvP play (too many idiots) but the more structured stuff is quite enjoyable.