Multiplayer

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Try not to divide the multiplayer community even further: beta patches, BAF DLC.

In Arma 2 you were either playing ACE 2 or were on some private server with 30 mods. In Armed Assault you had people either playing the game, or not. In fact Arma 1 had more population online that the current situation does. Must've been old ofp players, since I haven't seen so many clueless folk back then.

[Zipper5 74]

Beta patches after 1.54 will work completely fine if they differ between the clients and server, as will using normal 1.54. The BAF DLC also has BAF Lite, so there's no splitting of the community there.

I'll agree that Arma 2 MP is 1 of 2 choices: only ACE2 or only vanilla, and then it becomes 1 of 5 choices: Domination, Evolution, Warfare, Berzerk or Chernarus/Zargabad Life, but these are outside BIS' control. I think ArmA had more of a MP community because there was still variation back then, and the aforementioned game modes were all new and cool but, like everything, if you overplay it they quickly lose their entertainment value. I know many people who played ArmA MP continuously after it's release, including myself, only to stop playing MP in these games entirely due to being burned out on the same things being used and played over and over.

I occasionally still get into MP games with small groups of friends in Arma 2 (and OFP as well, actually) using any mods we want, and it's a hell of a lot of fun. Public MP is a different story entirely.

[nkenny 1051]

*shrug*

With both Project Reality and the Vietnam: the experience around the corner -- I'm guessing we'll see some pretty cool new multiplayer "package" options.

-k

[twirly 11]

What multiplayer???

Can people actually play online with this game! Everytime I've looked at multiplayer all I see is the AI here....then there.....then there....then over there.

You can't get a bead on the little f*ckers when they are warping all over like that.

Unuseable in my opinion.

[Baff1 0]

I don't know if I've mentioned it already, so apologies if I have.

I was setting up a co-op campaign on my LAN the other night.

It's not something I really do that often anymore, despite being my primary intrest in the game, due to the price of buying all the copies and all the expansions for each PC. It's unfortunately financially prohibitive.

So I was just using vanilla Arma 2 and running one of those great new fan made campaigns I downloaded from the forum.

Unlike the stock missions this partcular campaign was very AI heavy. So my host PC was struggling to provide an enjoyable experience.

To this end I downloaded and setup the dedicated server software.

But alas, no option to host co-op campaigns. Game off.

[ArmAriffic 10]

whats the point of having 300 people servers, most people can't play on them (i get lag on a 40 peep server)

[spamurai 3]

If ArmA wants Multiplayer on the scales of more common mainstream shooters... which i think is possible... the ArmA needs to improve it's basic offering and standardize what comes in the box by default.

Almost nobody really wants to play vanilla ArmA. BIS has made a great piece of technology (not perfect, but pretty impressive none the less), but a lack-luster Multi-player game. Does anyone play a basic A2 MP scenario on their servers? Not even basic Warfare... everyone plays customized content, like Benny's version of Warfare.

This lack of Standardization has it's problems for fostering an MP community with lots of active server choices for players. The vanilla ArmA offering is a poor MP experience and offers a bad casual "Pub Server" environment. Personally, I find trying to play casually on Pubs to be a terribly uninteresting experience... it's hit and miss and typically boring most times.

ArmA is the only Shooter out there that NO ONE PLAYS THE BASIC GAME THAT CAME IN THE BOX. Players have to customize and generate their own content to make use of the great potential that comes in the box.

That's bad. That's why MP is lack luster.

I doubt anyone starts playing ArmA and doesn't IMMEDIATELY want to alter, improve or adapt something. Without my Sound Mod, My Effects mod my AI and GUI improvements I couldn't play ArmA2... and that's why I can't play MP.

I join a server and they don't like the MOD I have, but I can't turn it off... because I am unwillingly to play without it... it's what makes ArmA enjoyable... so I can't play on that server.

Then there is the fact that no 2 servers are essentially playing the same "ArmA"... everyone plays their own mission... complete with their own bundle of scripts that introduces are great deal of variance in the play experience. Some use badly optimized scripting, or scripting that places a demand beyond server hardware or bandwidth for the scale it's running at.

ArmA Multi-player ends up being a private affair then. Public Interaction is low because ArmA is usually best played privately with in organized groups that all agree on a standardized experience they will all subscribe too.

Isolationism like that is not good for the health and prosperity of a ONLINE community.

As much as we all loath mainstream shooters like Call of Duty and Battlefield... there is a reason why and how they manage to support 100,000 concurrent players on 18,000 dedicated servers. There is something to it, a basic structure they are built on that ArmA has yet to discover and recognize.

We all like being the "Foreign Relative" in the Shooter family, an outsider, a niche and different, "not like those other guys"... but secretly we want to be popular, to be accepted and to be played.

Well, it's time to swallow our pride and take a nice honest look at ourselves in the mirror. Acknowledge our wrinkles, our blemishes, deficiencies, warts and all.

BIS and it's community need to get together for a love-fest and decide on what's the best example that showcases ArmA Multiplayer and then make that the default "out of the box" , no modification or tweaks required, version of ArmA that players first experience and can reliably encounter online everytime they want to play ArmA

Is that ACE2? Is that benny's Warfare? Advance and Secure? Evolution Co-Op? What then?

[CarlGustaffa 4]

I join a server and they don't like the MOD I have, but I can't turn it off... because I am unwillingly to play without it... it's what makes ArmA enjoyable... so I can't play on that server.

That's the cost of having a system so open that it is easy to make cheats with it. I use cheats too. Since I'm into mission making it's pretty much a necessity. Do I expect to be able to join a MP server with these activated? The MP scene wasn't ruined by lack of blockbuster MP scenarios from the box, it was ruined by hackers and cheaters with one goal - to ruin the MP experience.

However, I'm sort of in the same boat. I'm also making "my sound mod" that I simply cannot live without. I also cannot release it to the public since I'm stealing east and west from other sound mods and even other games. So I can only play at open but hacker infested servers (I've given up that now), or play pretty much solo at our own server where I can make a key for my addon. Not good options, but it's the only ones I have, but I have to live with it, so I do...

[Avgeris 64]

Couldnt find the EXCACT tags to search this one. The exact supported number of players in multiplayer is 128?

[johncage 30]

if they can just get rid of these loathsome domination and evolution servers and bring back coop scenario, that'd be enough.

[Eclipse4349 0]

I will be releasing a pack of Warfare missions that are small scale, focused around only one town. It is great for smaller numbers of players. I am currently testing with up to 8 on 8 squad leaders with a max squad size of 5 units. The action is instant, unlike out-of-the-box Warfare, which is way too big and takes way too long to get interesting for smaller numbers of players. In my 1-Town Warfare missions, Opfor and Blufor engage in a matter of minutes. Settings such as income and supply levels are tweaked to reward the side that minimizes its own losses and maintains control of the town.

Once playtesting is finished and any minor changes or tweaks are made, I will have at least 10 missions across Chernarus and Takistan ready to go. Add me on xfire at tom43491 or Steam at tom4349 if you are interested in playtesting! Currently playing on my own hosted server on a 7Mb upload connection.

[sprayer_faust 0]

I am talking about the people who like to cause grief (with or without hacking tools).

In my opinion as little as possible time should be spent making anti-hack tools - tools that prevent the usage of malicious code. Ideally bad stuff should always be prevented, but in reality an (unknown) event must first be observed, before it's qualities can be determined. This means you will always be a step behind the perpetrator.

Instead, there should be a very effective ban system (most useful when no admins are around):

During the game the neccessary identification (GUID) of every player should be transparent to everyone. Right now only the changeable nicknames are presented to everybody.

Everything sent to the server would be recorded (with time stamps) in a readable format, one file per player.

Server time would always be visible on screen. The multiplayer menu (when you press Esc) would then have a "Report" button. By clicking on it a form would open up. You would fill out "Server Time" and "Suspect (GUID)" fields. The form would also have optional "Take screenshots" functionality.

After a report has been sent, the admin would check the recorded history of every player around the reported time. If no events of dubious nature were found (false report), he could (the decision lies on him) then ban the reporter. But if they were found, he could ban the right person.

There would also be a central server, which would register bans. But it would also have a list of trusted sources. People would be able to vote on the trust-worthiness of a server on a website (linked to central server). After a player received 3 (maybe 2) bans from different trusted servers, his GUID would be globally banned.

Of course anti-hack tools could still be used for easier detection of already known threats.

Flaws?

[smookie 11]

pls delete

Edited February 25, 2011 by Smookie

[Bazul14 10]

How about some tweaking that reduces the player lag or stuttering. I get about 52-55 FPS on most maps and towns and other players still stutter in front of me, but I have to agree that they do that to a lesser degree than before I tried to optimize my PC and game. I have a 2.4Ghz Quad Core Phenom with a 1Gb VRAM GTS 450 and 6 DDR2 GBs.