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

[twisted 128]

Woah, no one is asking to change arma 3 philosophy or core. Pvp shouldn't be incompatible with arma3 and more effort put into how to achieve that and because humans are the toughest, sneakiest opponents around.

I see all these pvp discussions as relatively smart discussions on how this can be accomplished without anyone trying to duck with the core that makes arma a game so many of us keep coming back to.

[liquidpinky 11]

Even in OA, PvP with the random town generator and team deathmatch module were pretty decent and the only let down were the clunky A2 animations.

I even almost managed to get a couple of my CoD kiddy mates into Arma through it.

If the player movement and animation is a little smoother then that alone could help draw in some of the CoD kiddies. Preferbly the mature ones. ;)

[Don Camillo 10]

I guess Cyper described the situation best...

The only thing to support Missionmakers to do such modes would be a more fluidly CQB,

maybe its in scope of the revamped Animaton system already, let's see.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

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..

Completely disagree with this statment as already said.

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...

So PvP need only be viewed as a mode or mission, no need to banter dramatic statements implying ArmA need be ruined

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.

.

The OP didn't say copy , he said compete. In order to compete you need only to encapsulate a few of the defining elements that makes PvP fun, then do it well. No need to copy anything.

This is precisely the sort of emotive hyperbole that makes constructive conversations on the topic so difficult

[batto 17]

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.

Not sure about CoD/BF, but serious CS palyers spent years to master this very simple game. VBS is for realism, ARMA focus on entertainment too (while being realistic). I think you exaggerate the complexity of ARMA. The stock A2 is simple, I learned all I need during few weekends (I'm not talking about vehicles now). The basic controls are same as in mainstream shooters and the rest is here to help you not just to make game complex (leaning, freelook, ...). The way weapons work is in fact advantage. In mainstream shooters every gun (even silenced ones) work as laser and it needs to be balanced somehow (ranks, credit, ...). ARMA doesn't need to balance anything. If ARMA will became mainstream it'll still be goold old ARMA. The COOP crowd (majority of community?) will grow thanks to more attention.

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.

No one wants BIS to leave simulation for arcade. What's so hard to understand? Simluation can coexist with "arcade" (in case of ARMA, simulation arcade). Where is the barrier between "simulation" and "arcade"? Is A2 domination arcade? IMHO it's fun. And competing with those titles is great idea because 1) no other game has properties of ARMA (that is realism of course) 2) (I guess) It's simple to do this in ARMA (while retaining rest of the game COOP fans love). But it needs to be official to have stable player base.

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.

Well, most of mainstream MP modes are copied from Quake, Unreal & CS, aren't they? (with little modifications). You mention improving CQB in public MP (PvP?) matches. The problem is there are none (except 1 PR server but it's not CQB). People like good old PvP modes and will welcome any innovation from BIS. I'm not trying to compare Quake/Unreal to ARMA. It's the PvP modes what is fun. The properties of the game just make the fun different (rocket jumps, rails in air, ... vs. smoke grenades, silenced weapons, ...).

Edited May 8, 2012 by batto

[ziiip 1]

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 thought you can play ArmA any way your want.

[On_Sabbatical 11]

ArmA is certainly more complex than CoD and BF3,but it's always compared to these ... it's a fact that BIS should take into consideration.

To be able to compete with those games,first,the game should be perfect technically and give more attention to details.

When it comes to these two aspects,arma 2 looks like a survivor.

[Tonci87 163]

How can you even dare to compare Arma that is aimed at realismk and teamwork with those generic FPS?

[jacknorrisuk 146]

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.

Completely true, but I think we need to give BF and COD fans a little more credit. I don't think they're ALL arcadey-shooter fanboys out for a quick bit of satisfaction. I would say that at least a quarter of BF/COD regulars become quite interested in actual military/war technology and tactics etc, and would look to discover the next level of this interest. This is where Arma 3 should plug the gap in the market.

BF3's marketing strategy actually focused on being more tactical, dynamic and realistic than COD. It drew on the military interests of COD players. Arma 3 should be saying, 'Hello there, modern war enthusiasts...if you think you can handle it, why don't you try the next one up?'

[Bee8190 10]

How can you even dare to compare Arma that is aimed at realismk and teamwork with those generic FPS?

Let me try.

Both are games and include various weaponery, (in BF and Arma case) vehicles that can be driven around, repaired, destroyed, manned..you name it so IMO player from BF sees arma as another BF but with much cooler toys, way bigger batllefields ( and no choke points lol!), ''easy'' graphics etc..

Except those games are ''easy'' and balanced in every possible way. Not the case with arma however and its why BF is BF and arma is arma.

So why isnt Arma more popular between COD-mainstraem players? I assume its becouse no killstreaks, no unlocks, as mentioned no balance btw teams etc..Contributing factor is no doubt lack of missions ala BF/COD - easy missions (get the flag and kill em all..)

I hope I'll be understood before hundreds of ninja assasins are sent inn :p

Edited May 8, 2012 by Bee8190

[katipo66 94]

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.

A good pvp option out of the box would be awesome... Especially if they 'don't' copy mainstream formulas and play to arma's strength's with meaningful objectives etc... Competing doesn't mean copying.

[antoineflemming 14]

The thing that will make ArmA3 compete isn't that it has game modes like those in COD or BF. If ArmA3 would simply have some established, polished, game modes period (as in not community-made), out of the box, then that would allow ArmA3 to compete. Whatever those game modes are, ArmA3 just needs to have some established game modes. And I just think they need to make their own polished versions of popular game modes, like TvT or CTI or Domination. And they need at least a couple PvP game modes. In fact to compete they really need to focus on PvP game modes for their multiplayer. Because COOP really doesn't need that much improvement (maybe some kind of survival mode would be kinda cool I guess).

[tremanarch 6]

They could make a quick-run-gun-fun gamemode. Just take 1/50 of the whole Island ;) So it is small enough for constant Action. A Vehicle Respawn Timer, and some Flags - and so you have a BF Clone more or less.

THis will help new players to befriend themselves with the engine and everything else. When they have mastered the small BF-Mod, they can move on to bigger things like the whole Island, several fronts etc Transportation, Ammo, Medics..

I see it as a door which should be opnened step by step, or else all newcomers get brightened by the light so hard they leave.

[mrcash2009 0]

Its already in Arma2, not sure of name but its the default BIS capture flag (might be wrong) for example the one for Chernarus down by the power plant area, the base for each team (just one and a spawn area by them) are but a road apart and its just a spawn team v team affair, up close and nice and easy for fun. I used to play it even offline for some quick battle spawn mayhem.

Question is, does Arma series/BIS have a need to compete?

Edited May 8, 2012 by mrcash2009

[max power 21]

In the strictest sense, I don't think it really can, and I don't think that would be desireable. We have seen Distinctly, Recent examples of milsim type games trying to compete with mainstream shooters and I can't say the results were very encouraging.

[antoineflemming 14]

They could make a quick-run-gun-fun gamemode. Just take 1/50 of the whole Island ;) So it is small enough for constant Action. A Vehicle Respawn Timer, and some Flags - and so you have a BF Clone more or less.

THis will help new players to befriend themselves with the engine and everything else. When they have mastered the small BF-Mod, they can move on to bigger things like the whole Island, several fronts etc Transportation, Ammo, Medics..

I see it as a door which should be opnened step by step, or else all newcomers get brightened by the light so hard they leave.

I don't think the community wants a BF clone...

[Horner 13]

Well I think Bohemia has more pride in the community that it has now then having one filled with whinny and bitchy 12 year olds for starters. And also, I think people would loose alot of faith in Bohemia if they did do such a thing. Those games are there because they are easy to pick up and play. Honestly I do enjoy playing BF3. But it's a different kind of game and I would never want ArmA to be anything like that. ArmA is not everyone's taste and people need to accept that. But for some people, ArmA is a game like none other where you can do essentially anything you want.

[onlyrazor 11]

It's odd I've never noticed this thread before. Oh wait, It got posted "Today" according to the forums. Does this look like flamebait to anyone else?

Anyway, I'll just sum up the collective response:

YKss2uYpih8

[celery 8]

I don't think the community wants a BF clone...

Well I think Bohemia has more pride in the community that it has now then having one filled with whinny and bitchy 12 year olds for starters. And also, I think people would loose alot of faith in Bohemia if they did do such a thing. Those games are there because they are easy to pick up and play. Honestly I do enjoy playing BF3. But it's a different kind of game and I would never want ArmA to be anything like that. ArmA is not everyone's taste and people need to accept that. But for some people, ArmA is a game like none other where you can do essentially anything you want.

Could either you gentlemen please explain how a multiplayer mission could turn the whole game into a Battlefield clone favored by preteens? Is it the mechanic of gradually seizing certain areas around the map that does it?

[max power 21]

I think the issue is the vagueness of the concept in the original post. It is hard to imagine how a mission could both alter a game like you say, or suddenly make it competitive with the mainstream FPSs. I think most of the posts in the thread are made under the assumption that more would have to change than just the mission.

[spotter001 82]

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!!!

no thanks, if people want BF's or MW's multiplayer then the solution is simple-go and buy BF and MW (like i did btw). however, don't spoil arma with their "War is cool, let's start runnin & gunnin" approach. I perfectly understand that kids like the notion that war looks cool, but Arma is something different in it's very essence. Arma makes it plain clear (both in SP and MP) that war is an ugly place where one reckless move means game over. so, i don't think we need BF's MP clone. much more important (and useful for selling) is to make Arma look graphically stunning like modern games.

[katipo66 94]

One option ive thought would be good to introduce is a fatigue system.

Now when i first saw this in ace i thought it was the dumbest idea in gaming, then i messed around with R3F Realism i realized that i could not move far and was forced to use whats around me rather than constantly trying to move to 'Better' areas and hunting out action, the recovery was not instant and it made me to learn a kind off patience when playing and i actually enjoyed that and saw the beauty in it for MP.

As in it will restrict ridiculous movement ability, small maps become large because you could no longer run across half of it non stop... transport becomes important.

Also ive played a bit off insurgency as Opfor for a bit, at times it was some of the best MP/PVP gaming ive ever had, far better than anything i played on BFBC2/COD, unfortunately (for me) its core is coop with the idea off reduced player options for Opfor, does no one in BIS have the vision too see this would go off as a full blown PVP/TVT... well in my old head it would at least, still dreaming of the day :)

[Maio 293]

One option ive thought would be good to introduce is a fatigue system.

...

Ahem, they already cooked up a such a system for A3. Quote form A3 site:

Adapt your gear to the mission at hand, choose a fitting uniform and balance the gear capacity, protection level and weight.

[jblackrupert 14]

They could make a quick-run-gun-fun gamemode. Just take 1/50 of the whole Island ;) So it is small enough for constant Action. A Vehicle Respawn Timer, and some Flags - and so you have a BF Clone more or less.

This already exists. It's called "Advance and Secure" except the flags are not capped in random order.

but it could be modified to let you do so. There is also a pro-mode competition version.

There is a BF2 mode on Armaholic that lets you cap in random order. it allows bots.

http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=8371&highlight=BF2 There is another, can't find it though.

Part of the problem getting PVP servers populated is the fact that the server browser doesn't have a filter for PVP

you have to have PVP in the server name and hope that people search for that.

The few PVP servers that exist are buried under a mountain of COOP servers.

Edited May 8, 2012 by jblackrupert

[pathetic_berserker 4]

I think the issue is the vagueness of the concept in the original post. It is hard to imagine how a mission could both alter a game like you say, or suddenly make it competitive with the mainstream FPSs. I think most of the posts in the thread are made under the assumption that more would have to change than just the mission.

Still its just an assumption and none who have made have looked back to see what it has made of them.