Why the multiplayer feels so unrealistic to me

[Tazor]

In short, there are no frontlines.

I was watching someone play and it's just... shenanigans behind enemy "lines". Just playing like a commando. He gave up on trying to play the objective. And it is much more effective.

The thing is there is no line of enemy troops to prevent such behaviour as there would be in reality. You can just drive a bit to the side of the objective and nobody will stop you. The number of players on a server is absolutely tiny when compared to the map size.

Battlefield 1 breakthrough mode somehow feels more realistic than Arma Reforger multiplayer. Going commando behind enemy lines is rare and very difficult to achieve due to the tightly packed enemy combatants.

[|H|H| Fr3ddi3]

The game itself can be fairly realistic, it's simply a player issue, more accurately, Public servers, there's no communication and no coordination, 'everyone' on both sides is the super sneaky beaky flanker operating behind enemy lines they either don't know or they don't care why having every person on the server run around with complete autonomy leads to disjointed gameplay, you will never win these players over, they will always 'push back' on being told what to do / how to do it. They categorically do not want to just be a cog in the machine ... which is at direct odds with the typical gameplay that Arma / Operation Flashpoint has always tried to offer.

As a counter point, at least Reforger allows you to buy AI that will defend bases, which at least means there 'can' be some kind of dedicated Garrison force in play. Players seldom just want to sit and defend somewhere from attacks because those attacks may never come, AI is a perfectly fine compromise in this regard.

At the end of the day though, this is just what public servers are like, Battlefield would be and is in fact no different in Conquest mode, the reason Breakthrough 'works' is because the map is cut off, it forces players into bottlenecks just like rush does and with 60 players on a team and just 3 lanes of travel you can almost always guarantee that there will be at least 10~ players will be defending a lane.

If you want a coordinated game, you are gonna have to find a server with players that want to have it, if not, make your peace with what public players devolve the game down to.

[andrieu_pizza]

A lot of these channels just spew basically content farming videos... hot topic is "behind enemy lines" and "ambushing this ambushing that".

More effective to do what? The more "behind the lines players" the easier it is to cap objectives on the other side ;)

[Sgt. Osiris]

I appreciate your insight gathered from the youtuber you watched.

[Tazor]

Originally posted by Sgt. Osiris:

I appreciate your insight gathered from the youtuber you watched.

It's the same thing in Squad and Hell Let Loose. Those I played. This is how these "tactical" shooters devolve during PVP.

In HLL I distinctively remember walking into an enemy objective with absolutely no resistance. There was this small town that was supposed to be defended but there was nobody there. I just walked in and AFKed in the objective. Yes, the server was full.

[Steven Seagull]

There are no frontlines if everybody is behind the lines, you answered your own question. Gamers are obviously commandos.

Guess what.. fighters who don't care for their life are also highly effective, untill they expire.