Battle for takistan huge pvp campaign

[Freerider117 10]

Calling all clans and players

The aim is to get as many people/clans as possible to do the following campaign...

There are many PVP groups and leagues set up for arma2, however there are none like this. What i aim to do is a realistic dynamic PVP campaign involving as many people as possible to really push the boundaries of this game.

The campaign will be set in Takistan and every week a battle will be fought between the Nato forces and the Takistani military. However these battles are decided will effect the next mission. For example If the Nato forces capture an airfield they will have air superiority over the campaign. I would like to run this similarly to the Project Reality tournament, however this will be more simulation oriented.

A few rules/features

NO respawn

Press reporters

realistic battles e.g not even. The war in Iraq was not fair and war is never fair, so the Takistani forces will be significantly worse off.

Political impact. e.g too many Nato forces KIA could lead to the end of the war.

This is not for the faint hearted it will be the most challenging environment for players yet. Every action by commanders on the ground will have significant impacts. This campaign will require more than just winning battles. Like i mentioned above loss of life is a significant aspect for the NATO forces, whereas to the Takistanis the loss of leadership (dicatatorship) could spell a quick end to the campaign.

So far this is very much an idea and i will need help from the community/ clans etc to get this rolling. However i believe this could be a significant step towards more realistic PVP

Any questions PM me or post in the thread I will send you TS details

Thanks for reading :)

Free

here is a mock up of the campaign map....

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Edited March 14, 2011 by Freerider117

[-45Cdo-Kotp 10]

Have a feeling you hit a lot problems here with this idea due to your post count as many of serious clans will prolly think its just another one minute wonder idea.

However, hope it all works out for you.

[Freerider117 10]

lol post count I used to be very much a part of this community and im sure a few people would vouch for tht :P believe what you want but the oppertunitys there :)

[Infam0us 10]

PvP Gamers for ArmA 2 ...

No respawn???

(At least thats my opinion as a Diehard PvP Gamer :p)

[Freerider117 10]

Community's there to be created lol this isnt about whos the best or competition between clans its for the community to take part in and enjoy

The problem with PVP in arma is the rivalry and indifference between other clans. If something has set rules outside of clan vs clan its an entirely different situation

---------- Post added at 05:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:43 PM ----------

Here is an example of how the reporting could work this was done in a PVP game but was really a test by no means the finished product... :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60Uty-ge_Io&feature=player_embedded

Edited March 14, 2011 by Freerider117

[smookie 11]

You should call for coop players, not PvP players. As a "pvp" player with 8 years of experience in OFP/ArmA/ArmA2 and constant participation in PvP community, I must admit, I laugh at such proposals - no respawn, super realistic battles... Definately not the way to go, dude.

PS There are a few innitiatives as yours already (or have been, at least). It's nothing new.

PS2 Because of similiar attempts, there are hardly any PvP gamers around here :)

[76 0]

hmmm... the beauty of PvP is there is no 4 hours of catch up like domo, warfare, evo etc etc.

Within an hour of true PvP play time you could of completed 2+ maps and had a ball playing against real people and feel well satisfied with yer ArmA fix.

[sas troop 0]

It shouldn't be considered PvP IMHO. but coop game. There is somekind of this type of play: RealOps.

Basicly, RealOps focuses on PvP gameplay for coop groups and players. It involves uber-realistic model of ArmA 2, that means no respawns, formations, often no additional gear and - most important - "War is never equal".

There are 2 or more sides fighting + Game Master. There are also plenty of AI units on the map, guarding locations, patrolling. Generally, we have full strategic situation, even logical systems etcetera.

Both sides are given objectives to complete, so they attack/defend/patrol locations full of AI. Trick is, West doesn't know what tasks East have received and vice versa. Teams are trying to full fill their missions (and survive, what is most important part of coop). Soon (when Game Master is good, fail of course happen) teams meet each other, often as meeting engagement, rarely as task eg. "hunt East/West down!" and winner is soon emerged.

With no respawn, that sounds cute :*

Typical game for real men, not for run'n'gun pussies (joking, of course) :P

Anyway, that campaign would have to involve at least 40 players with reasonable server. Also, some realism modifications could be provided like ACE2. ACRE probably wont handle such a big group and there are not enough frequencies not to get hacked quickly.

If we have 40 players, unfortunately we can only provide medium firefight. That campaign may be quite long then, eventually more than one mission can be played. Well, 20 NATO troops assaulting 20 Takistanis is firefight for 30-40 minutes... and what then? So, missions should be created fastly and with avoidance of unnecessary scripts. Leave as much as you can to the players, they can make it on their own, really!

I generally support that idea. I was even wandering about creation of similar campaign (but coop one) on Panthera, where second Yugo wars breaks off. However, think twice if - even with support - you are able to handle such an event.

BTW, what to you mean NATO? One of my ideas was to allow groups choose their own army. Let Czech play with ACR, Brits are welcome with BAF (lite, too), Germans with BW Mod (if they prefer regular forces), Hexagon etc.

Kinda much in download, but maybe worth of that climate?

[Freerider117 10]

I do find it quite funny how everyone seems to think NO respawn is ridiculous the idea is to have 64 players

regarding mods ACE and ACRE would be used. There are many things that can be discussed regarding this however it needs the interest in the first place. A meeting will be held with all clan leaders/ players to discuss what is plausible and what is not

@smookie i laugh at your comment lol, like i said before this is not competitive in the same way as tournaments are usually conducted. Yes i get your point about co-op players being more willing however this is for everyone to try and enjoy..

its very easy to mock an idea when you havent seen it....

to ur PS this is something new and different yes there are similar ideas out there il grant you that. If 2-3 big clans got involved with something like this that is all it takes...

@76 your apsolutly right about PVP and the exhilaration fighting real people is awesome.

This is not a game its a simulation its about time people started realizing this...

---------- Post added at 12:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:30 PM ----------

SAS your missing the point. This is about real strategy with real assets NOT AI the campaign will be fought in a series of battles not continuous. NO respawn is an important factor. In real life you cant replace lives and units just like that. It is vital that there is no respawn it changes how the battle is fought entirely and i wish people understood that....

---------- Post added at 12:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:33 PM ----------

Regarding being able to support this sorting out the server is no issue we have a dedicated teamspeak for command and control. Im not new to the idea of large scale organization.

In PR bf2 i organised a separate realistic tournament with 8 clans that was continuous for 6 weeks....

[Taxman 10]

I like the idea, but tbh.. it will be a very small amount of peeps interested in the "no Respawn" buddy... we had somthing similar running with the APL a pvp map with Limited respawn the difference being it was CQB you would play from both sides against real peeps to capture a particular area... max length of mission was 20 mins with most taking less time after you take out opposing team,,,,,,,,,, MY point is that once a member was dead (and even though they could take up a spectator slot) most just Left the server............. the only way this would work (I think) is in an actual league where Both sides are on TS and can actually add to the game even after Dead.. that way keeping the interest, but mix in Joe public and you may get one game and by the end of it the only peeps left on server are teh ones still alive.......

Still like the concept though. I personally found (and some of the other guys playing the "seige" maps) that it was much more exciting when you only had a limited respawn.

---------- Post added at 12:56 ---------- Previous post was at 12:53 ----------

‡ PvP Servers ‡

Player vs. Player

Cerberus 5 Public PvP (Chicargo US)

DAO-XR Valhalla Public C&H (Germany)

ArmA2.RU PvP Public PvP (Russia)

AGW Tournament (Central US)

of 650+ ArmA 2 servers.... .

Where's ours lol....

SBS PvP (UK)

[Freerider117 10]

I do realize this is not for everyone but i am after that small minority lol. It changes everything and puts huge pressure on the commanders and squad leaders. Any1 in command will start to understand what its like in real life. From a perspective ofc..

This is for that hardcore bunch in this community and they are the guys im after.. :P

---------- Post added at 01:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:04 PM ----------

hop on to UKTFclan.co.uk for teamspeak details register and i will give you ts password so anyone can actually speak to me.

[sas troop 0]

SAS your missing the point. This is about real strategy with real assets NOT AI the campaign will be fought in a series of battles not continuous. NO respawn is an important factor. In real life you cant replace lives and units just like that. It is vital that there is no respawn it changes how the battle is fought entirely and i wish people understood that....

I do not. I told you about RealOps as absolutely working proof of concept. We are fighting against AI because there are not enough men to make something other. With 40+ people I consider AI units generally needless, maybe in exception of logistics etc.

No respawn is most important factor for me. At least one community, where players watch for their ass instead of running like idiots and killing-as-much-enemies-as-I-can-before-they-gun-me-down.

You should generally look towards coop groups, and hardcore ones. As a leader of 15 hardcore coop players community I can assure you that feeling will be outstanding, action maybe not so dynamic, but scary and frightening. That's what it is all about!

BTW, you mean no respawn in one, SINGLE mission or permanent death for whole campaign? If second options, I'd think about it twice: after few actions there may be no players left. There can always be reinforcements way: death players are forbidden to play for etg. 2 missions, then they join back as fresh meat.

[Freerider117 10]

"the only way this would work (I think) is in an actual league where Both sides are on TS and can actually add to the game"

thats the whole point this is a CAMPAIGN so it will continue whatever happens in one battle will change the next one. I make each mission AFTER the other so i can adapt certain parameters regarding the first mission. Once the teams are sorted there will need to be ALOT of organisation and teamwork between everyone. TRAINING days for all members of one side to make sure everyone is working together properly..

---------- Post added at 01:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:15 PM ----------

BTW, you mean no respawn in one, SINGLE mission or permanent death for whole campaign? If second options, I'd think about it twice: after few actions there may be no players left. There can always be reinforcements way: death players are forbidden to play for etg. 2 missions, then they join back as fresh meat.

lol no for the single mission!! not the entire campaign tht would be madness. I am open to ALL players and yes i am very much looking at large serious co-op clans. I am very much in touch with HC atm but the point is this is for everyone multiple clans is what i am going for

---------- Post added at 01:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:17 PM ----------

ASSETS will be another main point. Commanders will have a certain amount of deployable units in total. IF they are destroyed they are gone. E.G if in one mission Takistan deploys 5 tanks and they are KIA they are gone for the remainder of the campaign

[helling3r 10]

Sounds interesting.

Depending on time of play, i and maybe some others of my clan would drop in.

To make it more atracting to players, i think it would be cool to replace takistani forces with RUS instead.

Also keep in mind that most of us have a real life so it surely not possible for some people to join every mission.

[walker 0]

Hi all

I am up for this

Kind Regards walker

[helo 10]

Despite there is only little pure PvP activity in ArmA 2, one could find a compromise in order to set the respawn time to 4-5 minutes to penalize the player hardly (in contrast to the usual respawn time in TvT, C&H, Warfare). Furthermore, as I implied with the term "pure PvP" one has to clearly define what PvP actually is, since there are variations existing in ArmA2: Some call Warfare where palyers and AI are involved PvP, others call it CooP with a PVP element. Same with insurgency by Pogoman etc. The views vary here highly in the community.

Apart from that, I personally took part in an effort to create such PvP missions. The were only played for 3 weeks, and most people lost interest, because their relatively "fast paced" gamestyle were punished so hardly, meaning they played these realistic missions with the habits of playing Berzerk, Valhalla or similar missions, where faults get penalized only in a small dimension in shape of 1 min or 30 sec respawn.

In this regards, the first time I played this mission, it involved 35 minutes of driving around, finding the enemy, and then getting tked by the own Mk19, because he aimed faaaaaaaaaaaaar to short (at the wall 10 in front of him, where i was moving along). I had to leave the game first sicne I was virtually super dead. Some people might find this not very amusing since every error/fault gets can have desastrous effects. The dude behind you might accidentally throw a grenade in front of his feet (because he thinks he is still in the semi auto mode) and killing 2 or 3 of his own men.

Implementing much higher respawn times might stress in that way the seroiusness of the virtual life and might preserve key elements of fun and entertainment for the participating players.

Concerning the scenario, it might work with BLUFOR vs OPFOR as long as the entire scenario is not based on brutal firepower like arty guns, TAB-locking choppers for only one side and very open. What do we mean by that ?

A scenario with three cap zones to hold or capture is pretty constraint since there is only one way to win: Keep the enemy away from caping the 3 points which is achieved by containing them in their base.

On the contrary, an open scenario would be a design where you have certain key ressources which are required for warfare, like oil reffinaries, factories (industrial capacity), ammunition, fuel, manpower, political targets (like cities or towns) etc. There are different elements which might lead to the defeat of the other side: Ammo or fuel shortages immobilize the army, political key areas are seized etc.

That means, the both sides fighting each other, have different strategic options to achieve a victory instead of pure annihilation of the other side. It also enforces a more realistic picture of warfare where you can hradly ( in the most cases) just burn your troops and eventually prevail cause you had a factory spitting out 20 tanks or Apaches more than the other side.

How can someone realize such a realistic more advanced scenario, sicne where are not talking here of brute theory but also about option how to implement that in a real multiplayer mission.

First of all, one has to define all the key ressources of the sceanrio like fuel depots, ammo depots, repair bays, region capitals etc. After having done one has a map of takistan or chenarus with a lots of ressource locations, which are spread all over the map and probably not in a very even matter ( more fuel in the west than in the east ).

If you now wanna splitt the map into half for OPFOR and BLUFOR (North vs South constelaltion), OPFOR has more fuel ressources danger close to the front and BLUFOR more ammo ressources, might lead to some imbalance so that the designer has to put some of the key resources as a "reserve" toards the "homefront". The distribution depends onthe setup the designer wants to have for his scenario.

NExt thing to do would be to keep the action close and intensive, in other words when 20 vs 20 people fight spread out over the entire map that might lead into a situation which sometimes occurs in Warfare where everybody is fighting at his own front. To focus more action in one area, the designer might structure the map/takistan/chenarus into sectors with its own regional capital, where also resources are located ( in the sector). These sectors can be static ( I devide chnearus into 8 sectors) or dynamic. Dynamic would mean that the sector where fighting is allowed and desired between the factions is moving with the pace of the battle:

The sector consists of a circle which has a radius of (let´s say) 3 ingame km. As soon as one side secures a certain amount of resources at the edge of the circle, the circle shift and include new resources of the side which has not the initative. The side with the intiative decides in which direaction the circle shall be moved a bit to unlock additional resources of the opposing side, which could be called overall strategy ( we gonna go for their ammo resupplies in the NW now).

The sectors are important in order to focus the action and the resources define the pace of the game. No fuel means limited range and amount of vehicles, no ammo means fewer weapons can be delivered to the side from their main supply depot etc. ( the more one side burns its vehicles the more fuel and ammo is consumed).

In this regard the main supply depot should be loacted far behind the front in order to simulate a long supply route: The more territory you gain, the longer it takes for the resources to reach the troops at the FLOT ( farest line of my troops in takistan). For example in caputred reginal capitals or political targets, the seizing side can build depots to collect resources there. When they wanna retreat ( which is better than losing all war equipemnt which would cost a lot mor fuel, ammo etc. ) the also should to evacuate their resources, otherwise the town has a very happy new owner .

Before I lose myself in more details I wanna stress here certain key points:

The scenario should be considered as a model. A model is always a simplification of reality. The more simple it is, the less dimensions it has and the easier it can be dealt with normally. In order to get close to reality and to a more demanding challange, the designer has to include additional dimensions to make it more complex. More compelx doens´t neccassarily mean, no respawn at all, but a more punishing respawn of 4-5 minutes where one can spectate an allied player, play mini games on the desktop or whatever. To my mind, stepwise complexity enriches the game by just implementing the extreme pole of a dimension.

However, it´s stil the responsibility of the designer to ensure; that even though the opposing side have different equipement or setups, both can achieve victory in different ways (like in RTS games where the factions have different options/tools to prevail), whereas teamwork aka combined ops should be the key element and not one army branch with superior equipment (which is hard to counter or only to be countered with one single element which might not be available on the other side for a reason ---> the balance attempts of RTS games are a good example, where there are different more or less ideal options to deal with a challenge).

Nonetheless or all in all, it´s a shit load of work to create such a demanding theatre/scenario which might interest more people than the hardcore brute. Sept by step you can make them acustomed to the model you have in mind.

[sas troop 0]

helling3r, war is never equal. Russians having enough firepower to stop americans are good for normal PvP, where people cry "because" they cant destroy enemy tank with 2 hits but 4, while enemy tank makes it in 2 hits". If takistani armoured forces are mainly T-55s, AFAIK T-72s were more rare, takistanis should use these tanks. In this case simply east players will have to think more. From Freerider's plan it seems NATO forces are attacking, so defence and terrain are main pros for them.

I am completely up for this, I need to talk with the rest of the group, but currently they are up, too.

We have only one demand: full realism. I played IC ArmA and then CF ArmA for quite a while, these were my best PvP memories ever. But it wasnt realistic enough. We are looking for full simulation, no respawn, ACE2 is VERY expected but not necessary and english-speaking at least friendly team leaders.

[Infam0us 10]

Still like the concept though. I personally found (and some of the other guys playing the "seige" maps) that it was much more exciting when you only had a limited respawn.

I liked them a lot Taxman, but I've found more often than not people like you say who die early just leave and never come back. Adding in no respawn does completely change the way you play though. Makes for a much more cautious and slower game.

[Taxman 10]

If you start adding ACE and other major addons you are limiting the amount of interest you will get.......... I for one will not install ACE just to run with this, hope you dont go down that path but hey ho! not my place to tell you what to do.

[Freerider117 10]

Good debates...

I LIKE DEBATES lol

Helo not gonna lie i havent read all of that yet but i will do. Regarding mods this is something that needs to be discussed in detail with the people that want to be part of this. NOTHING is set in stone all people need to do is participate before we start this debate over teamspeak

War is not fair that is true.

Im going to outline the same thing i have said alot HOPEFULLY everyone will understand it this time.

The whole idea of NO respawn and set assets is that it is strategical to the extreme and grants a true perspective. Every member is an asset. every squad every tank and helicopter. The whole idea of this type of gameplay is to conduct warfare realistically. IF A COMMANDER MAKES A MISTAKE in real life HE DOSENT GET A SECOND CHANCE. Thats the point and that is war...

That is the reason there shall be no respawn. Mods wise its not an issue. There may be none at all. THis needs to be discussed. Everyone who has so far said they want to join plz PM me so i can get u connected :)

[Dead_Meat 10]

Freerider, I commend your enthusiasm here, this community does need some pushing at times to get moving hehe, so I hope you do well with this.

For me, arma is a game AND a simulation, this is a system that CAN be both.

I play the faster paced PVP cos I dont have a spare 6 hours to spend on a long map (but I would love to :P) so something like this does interest me but sadly I won't get the benefit.

You aim this at PVP but all the PVP folk I know (yes its a small crowd I move in) this would be too slow for all the reasons given above, ie 35 mins driving then TKd etc To me, that isnt fun cos my free time is rather precious, but I do know that there are those folk that CAN spend 8 hours on a mission and still come back for more. I salute those guys hehe.

The lack of respawns certainly does add a huge degree of strategies to the game, ensuring the players are cautious and plan their moves etc but it does not fill me full of hope. Perhaps a compromise where respawns are set to 5 or 10 mins etc (like a sin bin) and perhaps even then, we only have 2 or 3 "lives". This will possibly placate those like me as well still maintaining a higher degree of realism.

Whatever you do bud, I wish you the best of luck and hope it all goes well. :)

Cuddles

DM

[Freerider117 10]

Im not just aiming for PVP players this is for everyone to try. I guarantee most missions will be over within an hour anyway. If a battle is taking a long time then there are issues with commanders strategy. I expect most battles to be over in 30mins to 1hour

cheers tho I appreciate it :P

[SBSDelta 0]

Yeah nice initiative but, with no respawn at all a couple of clueless fuckwitts could in theory decimate your team in short order, for example flying a full chopper into the ground, teamkills via tank and heavy weapons etc, just by genuine player error without factoring in the asshattery that can take place in this game.

I hope it goes well for you mate but as Dead Meat said i havent the time to devote to larger / longer battles of this type, and i would not use ACE just to play in this.

I played IC in arma1 and whilst i enjoyed it, the larger battles and specific units working together ie infantry and armour, covered by air support, made for a refreshing change but, the strict chain of command and poor decision making by the top brass did lead to, at times a stagnantion of gameplay, and subsequently you could spend a large amount of time seeing no action at all, add to this no respawn and you can expect a lot of players to lose interest pretty quickly.

Im not putting your idea down, but i am speaking from experience.

Good Luck anyway

[Freerider117 10]

Im only going to do this with people i can trust. Like i said the battles wont be long anyway It is very easy to see people who will fuck about and tbh they wouldnt want this anyway

[Freerider117 10]

For all who have so far taken interest the meeting is tonight at 6pm on UKTF teamspeak. If you do not have the details please message me