Arma2 pvp - Did this game change into a RolePlayingGame & PvE Game ?

[james2464 177]

Since when a downloader/launcher does change the experience and immersion of the game itself?? Are we little bit exaggerating again or just too much caffeine? ;)

Lol no not at all, think about it. A gamer that otherwise would not have known or downloaded a particular mod for whatever reason suddenly has access to a full list and explanation of content available to you the player. It changes the dynamic of play and community spirit.

[NoRailgunner 0]

No its only another way to download stuff, nothing or less to do with "dynamic of play" or "community spirit". But its always good to have more than one option! Just imagine we would be forced to like a specific way of using additional content....

[james2464 177]

No its only another way to download stuff, nothing or less to do with "dynamic of play" or "community spirit". But its always good to have more than one option! Just imagine we would be forced to like a specific way of using additional content....

I suppose when or if Arma gets a much larger fan base then perhaps there will be more sense of urgency to find a solution.

[sickboy 13]

No its only another way to download stuff, nothing or less to do with "dynamic of play" or "community spirit". But its always good to have more than one option! Just imagine we would be forced to like a specific way of using additional content....

Having something out of the box available does not force you to use it or disallow other means.

Also IMO Sinnister's point is that you would expose many more people to the ArmaVerse (incl Mods, Missions, etc), and at the same time make it easier.

Step 1 is making people aware, Step 2 is actually using it :)

E.g Im sure a large part of the gamers does not use Mods because they are unaware of their existance, or perhaps can't be bothered due to complexity, maintenance, etc.

I mean how many people would remain on old or unpatched game versions (as long as possible) - I think a large part, the same applies there.

---------- Post added at 16:24 ---------- Previous post was at 16:15 ----------

Personally I wouldn't want to force anything on anyone, but at the same time I feel your resistance to SU or similar tools is not justified. To me it's an example of a more common issue - resistance to change :)

Also just because you feel more comfortable with manually fiddling with modfolders and files, does not change that there are probably many times more inexperienced gamers who do not know, nor want to know how to do all this fiddling.

Besides, I would ask why spend valueable time on manual operations while you can save that time and effort (use it for something else), and have it automated.

You only need to look close by - requirements of CBA changed and those who are manually fiddling with files get a heart-attack and starts to complain...

That not alone, arguments like "How am I going to explain this to my 20 players?" - Ehr, Sorry, you are still instructing people how to join your server with Mods??? NUTS! Now imagine 100 or more players..

Best not speak about having to add say 5 (or more) islands/mods with dependencies to play on the server then :P

IMO automation beats manual steps hands down :) If you don't believe me, ask any number of communities who converted to SU :)

But, I do think it is a bigger concern in MP than SP, but still.

And e.g Game/DLC/Patch installations are largely automated - I can't imagine anyone manually disecting the DVD and copying files and creating registry entries. Why should it be different for Mods?

Besides, time and time again people bring up the complexities of mod management/maintenance, especially concerning MultiPlayer, as a true PITA.

It was a big reason, next to Mod incompatibilities, not to run (many) Mods in MP for a long time. And probably still is.

As Mod Author you invest time and efforts in part so your mods are played right?

Which is sad because many mods enhance the gameplay experience (and much more important - increase the longetivity of the game),

and bring much more to the table than the vanilla game has to offer.

Although admittedly, both A2 and OA added great things. Still, as all things, it starts to wear out after a while - this is also where Mods come in.

Clearly there is need for automation, simplification and improving the distribution.

Damn these posts become much longer than I intend :)

Edited April 19, 2012 by Sickboy

[NoRailgunner 0]

Imo for game dev its more "step one - make the game itself as much enjoyable you can", "step two - make new content (or support it via tools/documentation/tutorials...)" I'm sure that large parts of gamers would use more addons/mods if there would be more + better missions to play with. Why should one bother to download addon/mods if there are no or just a few missions that require these addons/mods? Agree that all people like to have a userfriendly solution to download/launch additional content incl. the possibility to rollback to last known "stable"/"beta" version of an addon/mod. On the other hand its always good to know that at the same time there are still some "oldschool" download options available.... having more options to find & use content is better than rely just on one. ;)

[sickboy 13]

Sure, but I don't claim anywhere that there should only be one way, one option :) If anything, I do believe SU is a great help and I'd wish more people to realize that and enjoy it as well, so I try to convince. But that doesn't mean it must be the only way.

As to mission availability - many mods/addons work without specific missions for them, and for many islands there are many missions too, just the same problem as with mods - accessing them isn't the easiest.

Also often when you get people gathering for a server, then there are missions being made by one or a few people of that server.

There's also many more general purpose missions that can and are ported to different islands and mods, so imo the problem again is access/distribution.

---------- Post added at 17:00 ---------- Previous post was at 16:56 ----------

Still, of course, more and better missions available for more mods would be benificial.

But I believe this is a Chicken-Egg problem - as soon as it's easier to deal with Mods and Missions, you will get more and more usage, more and more missions :), one stimulating the other.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Imo for most gamers there is no benefit to download community made addons/mods without more and better missions that do require them. Some of them might be downloading them anyway but the majority want to enjoy good missions.

[jedra 11]

I have got to throw my opinion in here.

Looking at the forums here and over at Steam and other places, the majority of questions from new users are all about, downloading mods, loading mods, getting the latest update, being thrown off servers due to incorrect mods. Frankly it puts a lot of people off Arma and probably will continue to do so. With Six Updater integrated into Arma and designated as the official launcher/updater things will be so much smoother for the users. With Six's ability to automatically select the right mods for the servers, it's ability for admins to create and distribute custom repositories and it's much more flxible server browser, it would make joining online games much, much easier for the 'new guys and gals'.

I actually think it will dramatically reduce the amount of questions that are asked time and time again (questions that I myself asked as well) and allow people to concentrate on playing rather than setting up.

Also the fact that Six supports other BI games as well, like ToH makes it even more of a candidate for inegration. The fact I can launch, ToH, ToH:Hinds, Arma 2, OA, CO and now Take On Helicopters:ReArmed just by selecting a preset and a profile is amazing - a one stop shop. I have even got Six Updater launching Project Reality for me.

There are downsides of course. SB is likely to loose some creative freedom if it's an official launcher and we probably wouldn't get access to so many builds maybe. There will also be a lot more people online kicking my arse!

[james2464 177]

I actually think it will dramatically reduce the amount of questions that are asked time and time again (questions that I myself asked as well) and allow people to concentrate on playing rather than setting up.

Also the fact that Six supports other BI games as well, like ToH makes it even more of a candidate for inegration. The fact I can launch, ToH, ToH:Hinds, Arma 2, OA, CO and now Take On Helicopters:ReArmed just by selecting a preset and a profile is amazing - a one stop shop. I have even got Six Updater launching Project Reality for me.

There are downsides of course. SB is likely to loose some creative freedom if it's an official launcher and we probably wouldn't get access to so many builds maybe. There will also be a lot more people online kicking my arse!

+1 to everything you said,

What does Dwarden think?

[On_Sabbatical 11]

With all respect to Life mission makers:

Go do your stuff on other well suited game for your gameplay style , life missions are killing the game and PvP.

I am a Warfare BE dedicated player,and i think it's the most complete mission (you can use all vehicles in the game,scouting,basehunting,taking towns,fighting other players on the ground,inthe air) ... but it lacks some PvP because other GAY missions are absorbing 90% of the community.

Domi missions are PvP killers too ...

PR is a good initiative,but for me it starts getting boring after a while since there is no evolution in the mission,and it's nerfed and lacks a lot of freedom when it comes to equipement and vehicles and boxed because missions use just a part of the map ... well it's like counter strike currently :D

Warfare BE +ACE is what can save PvP in this game (IMHO).

Buying a game to play online against AI or GAYlife missions is an eyesore.

[sickboy 13]

Qazdar, You appoint other missions / game modes (the ones you do not like and call 'GAY') as the reason for low PvP count.

IMO you have no clue what the actual problems with PvP and ARMA are, then.

I'm not claiming specialist on the subject either but i'm pretty sure the amount of "other" missions and "game modes" is rather a result, not a cause.

If ARMA would be better suited for PvP from the get-go (talking about incl A1, and A2/OA around release as the current OA build is already better due to improved netcode and slightly better animation(speeds)),

then there would be more PvP missions/gamemodes, more PvP servers and more people playing PvP.

PvP is said to have been big in OFP, and with the bad state of A1 at release, amongst other issues that sat PvP in the way (netcode, animations etc), PvP has never become as big in A1/A2/OA as in the OFP days.

AFAIK, PvP has also mostly been about 'no-mods' - hence the higher importance of a good experience out of the box.

With the recent improvements in the game, and mods/gamemodes like PR (and their PvP platform), there is higher hope.

If PvP still can get big in OA - I do not dare say, but I do think if A3 gets a lot of things right from the start, chances are higher.

Lastly, with such strong conviction about "GAY" missions (made by people in their free time for the enjoyment of others) and what game someone should or shouldn't make his missions for - I would expect to find you have created most awesome non "GAY" missions, saving the (PvP)day...

Edited April 21, 2012 by Sickboy

[Guest]

+1 for using the word "GAY" everyone

:popcornsmilie:

[jedra 11]

I am not sure how a GAY mission would work? "Three, get in that four" perhaps? Who knows what it is that squad gets up to when they drive off into the hills in a locked vehicle to 'set up a FOB'? Each to their own.

Anyway, here and now, Arma is competing against a lot more games than it did in the days of OFP. PvP games are pretty easy to come by, and a lot of people seem to just want an instant fix with a stats overload. I doubt that any other type of mission within the Armaverse is contributing to the death of PvP (if it is indeed dead or dying) - it's just more likely people are playing other games. Tastes have change too.

I think that BI would be wise to come out on day one with a storming set of MP missions. I suspect that with some of the forum members here that have been 'recruited', they realise this and I am hopeful that they come up with something. It will be a shame if it's like ToH which was released with a very poor set of MP offerings (some of which were not even dedi compatible!).

[On_Sabbatical 11]

We all want arma to compete against high level games and not get satisfied by just doing the necessary :D

[xeno 234]

We all want arma to compete against high level games and not get satisfied by just doing the necessary :D

I think you are totally right. Please, to all other mission makers, stop making missions. The only opinion that counts is the one from Qazdar. He is the only one who knows what everybody else wants to play.

All other game modes are gay. (I had to use gay again because it's cewl).

And once you are mature, Qazdar, please tell us what to do next :)

Xeno

[[frl]myke 14]

I've stayed out of this discussion as i know that certain people will blame me as "PvP-hater" which i'm surely not. IMHO there is no gamemode superior to any other(s). People should play what they like to play. Hope that's clear now.

So, when i look at the Serverbrowser, i do realize that ArmA 2 is probably the most democratic game around:

- None of the servers is driven nor controlled by the development company. Server owners are 100% of how to set up their servers and what missions they are offering to play.

- None of the missionmakers is forced to create a certain type of mission. Every Missioncreator is free to do whaterever he likes to do.

So looking at the servers, nearly 100% run non-BIS missions or heavily edited variants of BIS missions.

That said, there is all freedom to either create Coop missions or TvT/PvP missions.

There is also all freedom for everyone to make a server to his own likings, offering any kind of missions the server owners would like to see played.

Conclusion:

Coop players do take the challenge of creating missions for the gamemode they like to play.

Coop players do take the challenge and effort to set up a server, offering the missions they like to see played.

PvP/TvT players do nothing (exceptions known) of the above. Now, that's GAY.

Obviously, ArmA 2 isn't for the crowd that expect everything presented on a silver platter but for real men (sorry Ladies, no offence intended) who have the cojones to take the required actions.

You want more PvP action? Just do it.

[sickboy 13]

Im not sure I completely agree on the comparison there between Coop and PvP players, but otherwise agreed.

You want more PvP action? Just do it.

QFT - for basically anything. Passive, finger pointing and bitching from a distance is easy and does not accomplish much :)

However not all problems can be fixed on mission or addon side as mentioned.

[Defunkt 431]

Without wanting to excuse poor attitudes or suggest that they can't actually make an effort for themselves, the difference for P-v-P that I think fuels this type of expression is down to the required critical mass. Q: How many people do you need to test and play a co-op mission which utilises ArmA's scale? A: Two. Q: How many more people do you need to do the same for P-v-P? A: Lots. So there's an element of promotion and community building outside of just making the mission before you can even begin to play it. Plus, it's just a lot harder to make good P-v-P missions, the A.I. are infinitely patient and won't complain if it takes the players a long time to engage them or if the mission isn't balanced to give them an even chance but players aren't so obliging so not only is it harder to get the mass required to test and play, you need to spend a massive amount more time playing and testing to make it work.

[.kju 3245]

Where there is no pvp player, you cannot make an active server.

Repeating the reasons why people left again and again won't bring them back.

Use forum search to read the reasons up. See #3 for example.

[[frl]myke 14]

Q: How many people do you need to test and play a co-op mission which utilises ArmA's scale? A: Two.

To properly test a larger scale Coop mission it takes a few more than two players. Two players might be enough to check the general mechanics, triggers and scripts but wont be enough to test the flow of the mission.

The same goes for PvP missions. You can test the general mechanics with two players but it needs a few more to see if the mission does work as intended.

Plus, it's just a lot harder to make good P-v-P missions, the A.I. are infinitely patient and won't complain if it takes the players a long time to engage them or if the mission isn't balanced to give them an even chance but players aren't so obliging so not only is it harder to get the mass required to test and play, you need to spend a massive amount more time playing and testing to make it work.

Would you like to discuss this point with Xeno? Or Benny? Or with some of the other coop mission makers out there? I wouldn't say to make mission for one or the other gamemode is "easier" or "harder", it is different. In coop missions there are just other problems around than in PvP missions, which aren't always easy to solve.

So there's an element of promotion and community building outside of just making the mission before you can even begin to play it.

Exactly. You (not personally, generally speaking) have to take action, do the required steps. You have to become active since nobody is presenting it on a silver platter. So we're back at the beginning of the problem.

At release, coop players and PvP players had the same starting point: a sandbox called ArmA2, giving all freedom to create whatever people like to create and play. AFAIR, never ever any coop player demanded that BIS should give more (or any at all) support for coop game modes. At start, every gamemode had the same chance to evolve. Coop evolved, PvP didn't. Is it BIS fault? How can it be? They never favorized coop before PvP as far as i can tell. It all goes down to the community itself.

I had a few chats with some people that would like to have more PvP servers. Whenever i told them to go ahead and start something, the response was always the same: naw, i don't want to make something, i just want to play.

Say thanks to BF and CoD.

I wouldn't say that ArmA 2 is for the more mature players but i surely would say that ArmA 2 is for those people that have understood that life doesn't offer everything on a silver platter.

Again, i'm not against PvP at all. Because i'm not interested in it doesn't mean i do hate it. The armaverse is big enough for all kind of players. However, i dislike people that do think that PvP is superior to coop.

Last note for Qazdar:

About your "GAY" argument: i'm more man that you'll ever be and more woman that you'll ever have. :p

[.kju 3245]

Myke please read and try to comprehend what other people are saying and explaining.

You seem not to get it at all. Sorry to be so harsh, but your conclusions are completely off.

[NeuroFunker 11]

With all respect to Life mission makers:

Go do your stuff on other well suited game for your gameplay style , life missions are killing the game and PvP.

I am a Warfare BE dedicated player,and i think it's the most complete mission (you can use all vehicles in the game,scouting,basehunting,taking towns,fighting other players on the ground,inthe air) ... but it lacks some PvP because other GAY missions are absorbing 90% of the community.

Domi missions are PvP killers too ...

PR is a good initiative,but for me it starts getting boring after a while since there is no evolution in the mission,and it's nerfed and lacks a lot of freedom when it comes to equipement and vehicles and boxed because missions use just a part of the map ... well it's like counter strike currently :D

Warfare BE +ACE is what can save PvP in this game (IMHO).

Buying a game to play online against AI or GAYlife missions is an eyesore.

you make yourself look gay, by repeating gay so many times.

I do love playing warfare, and also life missions. If i'm tired of combat, i usually go to life missions, and that doesn't make me drop warfare for ever. I know a lot people, who are playing warfare and life for change.

You seem to be very limited person, by playing 1 mission over and over again, and complain about any other missions there. There are warfare servers with lots of players, usualy with same amount as at life missions. Like some wise man before me said: if you want more PvP, then go make it yourself, just bitching won't help.

So why the f.ck do you complain, nobody forces you to play life missions or any other, play your warfare, but don't say other missions are gay, keep it for yourself!

Edited April 21, 2012 by NeuroFunker

[DetCord 96]

As a long time COOP player in OFP and the ArmA series and recent TvT/PvP convert, I can honestly say that I'll never go back to player vs AI. If done properly, a TvT match can and does often outshine any regular COOP game, no matter what its mission or mod. I'm not talking about running about the map aimlessly, shooting everything that moves. I'm trying to get the point across that another player has the ability to think on the move, to counter the other players tactics, and to possibly defeat a larger more versatile force. Take TvT with a dynamic mission, COIN operations for example, toss in ACE II, tactical decision making, and you have a sure fire winner.

Case in point:

[NeuroFunker 11]

nice videos man, keep up!

[Defunkt 431]

Myke;2138465']Would you like to discuss this point with Xeno?

Happy to discuss it with anyone but I'd have thought the case was self-evident. Q: Which team wins in a game of Domination? A: It doesn't matter. You can only fail to complete and nobody's going to feel aggrieved whatever the outcome. To the degree that it might be thought of as competitive the playing field is always perfectly level, everybody starts from the same base, with the same access to the same gear and is required to negotiate the same geography from the same starting point.