Will Bohemia finally improve ARMA's PVP to attract New Players?

[LockDOwn 0]

Will they FINALLY make on online mulitplayer that will compete with those titles? As of now their game is far above those two. However I don't understand the business decision to not even try and compete in the lucrative online PvP multiplayer? They leave it up to random individuals with low populated servers. PLEASE try. You have the game, just build it!!!

Edited May 21, 2012 by LockDOwn

[metalcraze 290]

You do realize that CoD and BF are popular in MP simply because anyone can play it at random servers due to their extremely primitive gameplay and a complete lack of teamwork?

ArmA at its core can't be played like that. Besides why would you want to play ArmA like that? This game is about teamwork and tactics.

[Mr. Charles 22]

inb4 sh*tstorm

There's already a thread called http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?128939-MP-thoughts :)

[instagoat 133]

Online players nowadays are sort of like cats. You can´t herd them.

Once you have an established, organized squad hitting one of the servers, they´d make mincemeat out of the commoners.

And suddenly, ragequits and accusations of cheating everywhere, as well as foul language on the forums etc.

Thanks, but no thanks. I´d like the community to at least retain a semblance of maturity, civility and mental stabillity. Those don´t seem to be too common on public servers running CoD and BF3. I´ve at least not observed that every time I watched my brother play those games.

[batto 17]

You do realize that CoD and BF are popular in MP simply because anyone can play it at random servers due to their extremely primitive gameplay and a complete lack of teamwork? ArmA at its core can't be played like that. Besides why would you want to play ArmA like that? This game is about teamwork and tactics.

I share OPs dream. That's not the whole truth metalcraze. Look at Domination servers in ARMA. Sometimes some player may help you (revive, kill armor) but it's very rare. Most of time the teamplay here is comparable to teamplay in public Counter-Strike (sometimes even worse). And people like it. I like it because there's action most of time. But it's vs AI and sometimes you have to walk/fly/ride for a long time. Couner-Strike is just one example. There is a plenty of other small fun game modes. Unfortunately CS is too old and new CQB games doesn't care about realism and their gameplay remains primitive. It's not about running and shooting everywhere ((team) deathmatch, though it can be fun too) but repeating 1 task in small urban-like map (CQB) for some time (10-20 mins) or till your team reaches the score limit. And this task can be played with teamwork and tactics. You should look at some CS tournaments. It's a lot about teamplay if you and your team are serious. PR is good but it's typical ARMA game (= too big). Capture the flag is another example. I know the game mode it's totally arcadish. But isn't respawning arcadish too? Once I played CTF in A2 and it was fun! Unfortunately I've never seen that server/mode again. The truth is that this would please so many people outside community. And no, this would not turn ARMA into arcade shooter. If you think so explain why.

MP thoughts is too general.

[tremanarch 6]

Armas greatest strength are large battles. Why not build on that somehow. Maybe they could split the map in 6 parts, and all have to play it round after round each part, and after 6 rounds the sides can watch how many areas are conquered by whom etc.. and maybe in the last round its the whole map which the former conquered cities or sth.

The game basically needs some smoothing. Some more polishing. And apart from these mainstream game modes there can be the normal ones. But these do only make fun with nice people, so it is a good thing to have some mainstream servers.

Where BIS needs a little work is close combat gameplay. The movement is buggy. When you walk with the pistol you crash at doors and obstacles. The feel is clumsy. You fall from ladders sometimes etc. This needs some love. Then Close COmbat Lovers could play some rounds too. It is always nice to play a quick close combat round for training and just fun.

Thats why BF3 and COD is so popular. But after some close COmbat rounds players could want some bigger stuff, and then there is ArmAs true strength. So if ArmA could offer both I guess it would be a win - win situation.

Edited May 7, 2012 by tremanarch

[Leon86 13]

I wouldn't mind having working pvp in arma but arma plays so different it wouln't appeal to the typical shooter crowd. They'd say it's sluggish, boring etc.

I play battlefield 3 quite a bit and I have to say dice still doesnt have the weapons and vehicles balanced out. Basically the jet can only be countered by another jet and there's only a few guns worth using. In arma it would be even harder to balance stuff out a bit because arma is supposedly realistic or something.

[tremanarch 6]

Yeah but in Arma you wouldnt shoot soldiers with the jet I hope... ;)

ArmA is more of a simulation then an FPS Action-Game.

To please these kind of players, the modelmaker guys, playing with the Editor, it would be great to have a little more fun artificial Inteligence for the NPCs. They behave sometimes strange. And they are shooting much too precise.

[metalcraze 290]

I share OPs dream. That's not the whole truth metalcraze. Look at Domination servers in ARMA. Sometimes some player may help you (revive, kill armor) but it's very rare. Most of time the teamplay here is comparable to teamplay in public Counter-Strike (sometimes even worse). And people like it. I like it because there's action most of time. But it's vs AI and sometimes you have to walk/fly/ride for a long time. Couner-Strike is just one example. There is a plenty of other small fun game modes. Unfortunately CS is too old and new CQB games doesn't care about realism and their gameplay remains primitive. It's not about running and shooting everywhere ((team) deathmatch, though it can be fun too) but repeating 1 task in small urban-like map (CQB) for some time (10-20 mins) or till your team reaches the score limit. And this task can be played with teamwork and tactics. You should look at some CS tournaments. It's a lot about teamplay if you and your team are serious. PR is good but it's typical ARMA game (= too big). Capture the flag is another example. I know the game mode it's totally arcadish. But isn't respawning arcadish too? Once I played CTF in A2 and it was fun! Unfortunately I've never seen that server/mode again. The truth is that this would please so many people outside community. And no, this would not turn ARMA into arcade shooter. If you think so explain why.

MP thoughts is too general.

But you see - that kinda proves my point. Unless there's a teamwork it's boring. If Domi was really popular it would've been played by thousands at any time.

Small maps won't help either. Nobody plays on Shapur and Proving Grounds. ArmA is really boring when you fight at the same hill for a 1000th time.

The strength in ArmA is in an organized gameplay. When people gather, form teams and play a custom made mission just for that session. This can't be happening 24/7 obviously.

I also don't understand why people want bigger numbers of players? It will be a mess in any mission.

Even DayZ is limited to 50 players per server. Because it feels too crowded with more.

When UO gets 70-80 players - commanders can barely hold it all together. Why do you need 10s of thousands playing?

CoD and BF3 are popular because anyone can just run'n'gun. You can't do that in ArmA. It will never be as popular. It's a tactical team game. Some people need to realize this.

If you want CoD or BF3 or CS - well there is CoD and BF3 and CS.

Edited May 7, 2012 by metalcraze

[batto 17]

I play battlefield 3 quite a bit and I have to say dice still doesnt have the weapons and vehicles balanced out. Basically the jet can only be countered by another jet and there's only a few guns worth using. In arma it would be even harder to balance stuff out a bit because arma is supposedly realistic or something.

I think for most CQB modes this isn't a problem. It's just rifles, smgs, lmgs, nades, flashbangs, ... There is no need to balance anything. Let it be realistic.

[Desert1 1]

If the others heard about this game then it would be ruined ... no

[batto 17]

Unless there's a teamwork it's boring. If Domi was really popular it would've been played by thousands at any time.

Agreed. I try to encourage teamwork in every team game. Some people just ignore.

Small maps won't help either. Nobody plays on Shapur and Proving Grounds. ArmA is really boring when you fight at the same hill for a 1000th time.

But small CQB maps are different. Also the fun is not pure fighting. It's about competition, winning a round (CS) or a game (CTF) like a boss (+ statistics, tournaments, ...). Cheaters and kids that can't behave are inevitable. The only cure is willing admin.

The strength in ArmA is in an organized gameplay. When people gather, form teams and play a custom made mission just for that session. This can't be happening 24/7 obviously.

This will of course remain.

I also don't understand why people want bigger numbers of players? It will be a mess in any mission.

Even DayZ is limited to 50 players per server. Because it feels too crowded with more.

Of course. de_dust2 in more than 16 people would be total mess =)

Edited May 8, 2012 by batto

[Leon86 13]

I think for most CQB modes this isn't a problem. It's just rifles, smgs, lmgs, nades, flashbangs, ... There is no need to balance anything. Let it be realistic.

Obviously you wouldnt change guns for balance reasons, but CQB hasn't really been arma's strong side, in fact the opposite is true.

[LockDOwn 0]

I wouldn't mind having working pvp in arma but arma plays so different it wouln't appeal to the typical shooter crowd. They'd say it's sluggish, boring etc.

I play battlefield 3 quite a bit and I have to say dice still doesnt have the weapons and vehicles balanced out. Basically the jet can only be countered by another jet and there's only a few guns worth using. In arma it would be even harder to balance stuff out a bit because arma is supposedly realistic or something.

Sure Arma would. You just have to develop some maps (or use parts of what we already have) and then tweak them to play certain other game styles. You will always have the servers to allow for mods to do their thing, I am just saying you need to have a section that appeals to mass gamers to grow this game. Personally I only stop playing ARMA1 and 2 because after a month the pvp servers are non existent because there is no support or attention given to them. This game has the potential to really take off if done right.

[whiskeytango 11]

Public play of almost any game is pretty lame. Join a clan, problem solved.

Edited May 8, 2012 by WhiskeyTango

[LockDOwn 0]

CoD and BF3 are popular because anyone can just run'n'gun. You can't do that in ArmA. It will never be as popular. It's a tactical team game. Some people need to realize this.

If you want CoD or BF3 or CS - well there is CoD and BF3 and CS.

You could run n gun here if bohemia spent some time developing a game mode for it. No one is telling you ARMA has to lose its simulation play. I am just purposing the online portion be expanded to draw in the attention and massive amount of players this game deserves.

---------- Post added at 00:27 ---------- Previous post was at 00:26 ----------

You mean Bohemia would earns tons more cash and build upon this game even more!

[celery 8]

Having a pvp game mode that competes or even copies the two big brands is only a matter of a mission maker scripting those mechanics into a mission and adding appropriate assets to the sides. The problem I see currently is that a very big portion of the would-be pvp crowd has no interest in the editing aspect of the game, and those who might be able to do it are discouraged by the low number of pvp players active in the community, meaning that their hard work would hardly be put to use. I made lots of traditional style pvp missions for the CWR² mod but the game tracker hasn't shown them to be played all that much.

Edited May 8, 2012 by Celery

[LockDOwn 0]

Having a pvp game mode that competes or even copies the two big brands is only a matter of a mission maker scripting those mechanics into a mission and adding appropriate assets to the sides. The problem I see currently is that a very big portion of the would-be pvp crowd has no interest in the editing aspect of the game, and those who might be able to do it are discouraged by the low number of pvp players active in the community, meaning that their hard work would hardly be put to use. I made lots of traditional style pvp missions for the CWR² mod but the game tracker hasn't shown them to be played all that much.

That is because it is not marketed as such. And if you went this route the scripting would have to be made 'in house' to be successful. The game you are making means a richer and more dynamic PvP than has EVER been made and I see being highly unique and thus successful in my opinion. I don't know how many people have tried this game and then left because it is dependent on the community to make it successful to what they want. Where as if you made similar and some innovative MP PvP games, I don't see how anyone could touch what you offer.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

Having a pvp game mode that competes or even copies the two big brands is only a matter of a mission maker scripting those mechanics into a mission and adding appropriate assets to the sides. The problem I see currently is that a very big portion of the would-be pvp crowd has no interest in the editing aspect of the game, and those who might be able to do it are discouraged by the low number of pvp players active in the community, meaning that their hard work would hardly be put to use. I made lots of traditional style pvp missions for the CWR² mod but the game tracker hasn't shown them to be played all that much.

Agreed totaly. Personaly I've spent a great deal of my Arma time over the years playing a number of your pvp missions ( many fun hours , thank you), But pvp servers within my reach died off a while back and never realy revived. But coming back to the OPs point I think it would be a wise move for BIS to include a good selection of pvp out of the box. At release A3 will naturaly attract a bit of new attention and excitment and the best way to give that ball momentum is to make the pvp experience great the first time you start the game. BIS will do itself a dis-service if it expects many of its customers to wait for the community to start pvp (or if it listens too much to those that bang on about Arma player being a different breed). Too many of its customers won't even be aware of the community and our work, let alone want to spend thier first arma hrs finding out about us.

[twisted 128]

Having a pvp game mode that competes or even copies the two big brands is only a matter of a mission maker scripting those mechanics into a mission and adding appropriate assets to the sides. The problem I see currently is that a very big portion of the would-be pvp crowd has no interest in the editing aspect of the game, and those who might be able to do it are discouraged by the low number of pvp players active in the community, meaning that their hard work would hardly be put to use. I made lots of traditional style pvp missions for the CWR² mod but the game tracker hasn't shown them to be played all that much.

Thing is thats exactly the problem that comes with the segmentation of the player base. In fact I wasnt even aware of the missions existence.

Now imagine you took those same missions, finessed and refined and pushed them to the very highest standard seen in any game and included them as standard PVP missions available in arma 3. Theyd be played a ton more and the best would be played for a long time to come.

Right now the majority of player made missions trend to be quite unintuitive and confusing at first. Overcoming that is non trivial yet important.

[james2464 177]

The OP said you can't have it made by some random in a mission editor. I agree

BIS need to build an out-of-the-box system that has a lobby and squad based system similar to BF2/BF3/PR.

DO IT BIS! plz :)

[CameronMcDonald 146]

I made lots of traditional style pvp missions for the CWR² mod but the game tracker hasn't shown them to be played all that much.

Oh hai no AI support. :(

[Bee8190 10]

I think Domi has been so popular becouse of its replayability. The same case seems to be with DayZ. Missions needs replayability IMO

[NoRailgunner 0]

Sorry but why has A3 to compete with shooters like CoD/BF? Is it really worth to get down to that low level of "just shootin fun" or is it better to have more challenging mission goals, more main/secondary tasks that have an impact on mission progress and less or no respawn/revive options?? Imho pvp is stuck in just copying/mixing old stuff and not doing enough to be more innovative and challenging.

[Cyper 18]

Will they FINALLY make on online mulitplayer that will compete with those titles? As of now their game is far above those two. However I don't understand the business decision to not even try and compete in the lucrative online PvP multiplayer? They leave it up to random individuals with low populated servers. PLEASE try. You have the game, just build it!!!

The reason why these shooters are popular is because they're accessible, immersive, and simple. It's games that most people can just pick up and play instead of spending weeks and even months to properly 'master' the game. It focus more on entertainment than realism. Arma is to complex compared to those games. Everything from the controls, to how the weapons work is radically different. The whola approach is different aswell. In order to cater to the mainstream the arma series would have become the opposite of what it is now. If it became the opposite, I would ditch the title and a lot more people would.

Tripwire did slight changes with RO2 and look now; the community started to fall a part. Active players was 10,000 in the beginning now its ~3000. User reviews is full of complaints. Forums is full of complaints and it still is even six months after release. Now Tripwire has to release a 'Classic Mode' to appeal to the old audience again or what is left of it. If the same thing was done to arma (but even worse) the old fanbase would fade out while CoD and BF still would crush any attempt from BIS to compete with them. A business like BIS can't just magically go from simulation to arcade and expect to win. Doing both (e.i trying to do a simulation with CoD elements) is just going to be another Codemaster. So completing with those title is a really bad idea imo.

Plus, for what reason should the game copy the mainstream formula? What's the purpose? There are already hundreds of other games doing just that.

Arma have been built on innovation and realism for over a decade. Leaving that idea would be a real shame. Its a stupid idea imo. What the arma games can do though is to improve the multiplayer in other ways that goes in line with the arma's own formula. For instance, improving the close quarter combat and to improve MP experience in public matches.

Edited May 8, 2012 by Cyper