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

[metalcraze 290]

A more fluid and realistic expereince indoors and out so the game can progress. Not fast paced bullshit like battlefield but fluid and realistic.

But battlefield players want fast paced bullshit, bro. They won't play ArmA unless you can do magical one hit knife kills, can bunnyhop and run'n'gun. That's why they aren't still playing it.

Not because it's "clunky".

America's Army was slower than battlefield and other casual shooters but still more fast paced than milsims like ARMA and it is one of the top 5 most played online PC games of all time. So don't tell me gamers don't want a slower, higher skill and tactical shooter because they do, thats your proof. They just want it accessable and fun. Something that ARMA just lacks in a lot of the time due to the way the game is structured.

I haven't noticed a lot of difference between America's Army and BF. It still plays like a dumbed down arcade run'n'gun.

I don't know what you mean by "slower higher skill and tactical" since America's Army is none of these.

But most of all BF players hate teamwork. That's why they made threads here crying about how they want magical respawns near their group, magical markers on the magical minimap that will tell them whenever someone is wounded, etc. How will you make them play ArmA which requires teamwork or otherwise it turns into a boring crap that you can see on public servers where everyone is running randomly around, dies, respawns, dies, respawns. This is not the way to play it obviously.

Edited May 23, 2012 by metalcraze

[Dragonshot 1]

Most battlefield players hate battlefield

[batto 17]

... ArmA series ... Requires a lot of ... skills (learning to play) to win the race ... CoD and BF ... Very simple and accessible cars that millions can drive

Nope. Current large scale ArmA missions (mostly vs AI) require skill that you can't learn in other games. Anyone with past DM experience could learn DM in ArmA in 5-10 minutes.

But battlefield players want fast paced bullshit, bro. They won't play ArmA unless you can do magical one hit knife kills, can bunnyhop and run'n'gun.

You're sooo simple. Srsly. You don't know! Run'n'gun isn't what team PvP is about! Not even in Quake (You can't even win a deathmatch with run'n'gun without brain). I mean... you can't get people that want to play without brain. Not everyone wants it.

That's why they aren't still playing it. Not because it's "clunky".

Who are you? Some kind of mind reader? Marketing? No good PvP out-of-box? Sure, the lack of hit knife kills must be the reason. So simple thinking...

But most of all BF players hate teamwork. That's why they made threads here crying about how they want magical respawns near their group, magical markers on the magical minimap that will tell them whenever someone is wounded, etc.

This can be done in ArmA too, no? I'm not saying it's good.

How will you make them play ArmA which requires teamwork or otherwise it turns into a boring crap that you can see on public servers where everyone is running randomly around, dies, respawns, dies, respawns. This is not the way to play it obviously.

ArmA isn't the first game that requires teamwork FFS. You're not special! Face it. Every team PvP game requires teamwork. If some kids hate it "vote kick" will solve the problem.

Note: I'm not BF3/CoD player.

Edited May 23, 2012 by batto

[metalcraze 290]

Nope. Current large scale ArmA missions (mostly vs AI) require skill that you can't learn in other games. Anyone with past DM experience could learn DM in ArmA in 5-10 minutes.

Anyone can learn how to turn the wheel and hit the gas pedal.

When playing team-based public deathmatch a lot of public players can't even tell friendlies from enemies. Considering that US marines are brown and russkies are green it takes a special talent to have a friendly kill.

BF just marks friendlies and enemies for you. In ArmA you have to learn. And see below

You're sooo simple. Srsly. You don't know! Run'n'gun isn't what team PvP is about! Not even in Quake (You can't even win a deathmatch with run'n'gun without brain). I mean... you can't get people that want to play without brain. Not everyone wants it.

People who want to play ArmA play it. The only "clunky" thing here is movement indoors (we already discussed the solution for this). Since 99% of game time is spent outside - it shouldn't be much of a problem right?

As for what BF players want - check out their threads.

I still remember lulzy threads like "Cut AI out", "add bunnyhopping, it's a soldier sim so why can't I just jump sideways? Human can do that!", "why can't I have a minimap with friendlies and enemies marked on it?", "why can't I respawn at my team's position when I die?", "why can't I see wounded marked on a map?!", "add achievements like an achievement for teamwork for staying within 50m from your team leader!", "stop making big maps, make small maps with chokepoints like in BF!", "why can't I have knife stealth kills?", "balance tanks! why tanks have different damage and armor for blufor and opfor?", "a friend told me ArmA2 is like Battlefield 2 on steroids and what is this?!".

So I kinda have some idea what Battlefield players want.

They want Battlefield. And best of all - they have Battlefield.

How about BIS will cater ArmA to ArmA players? It's an outrageous thought I know.

No good PvP out-of-box?

There's no good coop out of the box either. So what? There are thousands of community made missions much better than the ones from BIS.

BIS can't make good coop/pvp missions, I thought in 11 years that would become clear. And that isn't the problem at all.

Edited May 23, 2012 by metalcraze

[batto 17]

Anyone can learn how to turn the wheel and hit the gas pedal.

When playing team-based public deathmatch a lot of public players can't even tell friendlies from enemies. Considering that US marines are brown and russkies are green it takes a special talent to have a friendly kill.

BF just marks friendlies and enemies for you. In ArmA you have to learn. And see below

Well, it sucks. ArmA team PvP must not be so simple. Note that CS, a >10 years old game, didn't mark anything and it's still popular.

People who want to play ArmA play it. The only "clunky" thing here is movement indoors (we already discussed the solution for this). Since 99% of game time is spent outside - it shouldn't be much of a problem right?

It is a problem. CQB is another kind of fun. It can be played in A2 too but the clunkyness and not good team PvP except CTF is a problem.

As for what BF players want - check out their threads.

I still remember lulzy threads like "Cut AI out", "add bunnyhopping, it's a soldier sim so why can't I just jump sideways? Human can do that!", "why can't I have a minimap with friendlies and enemies marked on it?", "why can't I respawn at my team's position when I die?", "why can't I see wounded marked on a map?!", "stop making big maps, make small maps with chokepoints like in BF!", "why can't I have knife stealth kills?", "balance tanks! why tanks have different damage and armor for blufor and opfor?", "a friend told me ArmA2 is like Battlefield 2 on steroids and what is this?!".

So I kinda have some idea what Battlefield players want. They want Battlefield.

I've 3 friends (grown ups with kids) that play BF and they're not like that. Those who create such threads wants BF. That's not "BF players" that's "small portion of BF players". One sticky thread and BIS forum mods would handle this problem =).

[gunso 10]

I'm sure BIS can easily make this game smoother and flashy like BF3 by reducing the world size to the same as BF3. Remove the editor and all the goodies then it will become same as BF3 or RO2.

No way, i dont mind clunky arma 2 controls as long as i can play warefare on a large map with all the complicated controls.

Bought BF3 when it came out, found that the MP video with the big looking map is fukken BS. Post 2nd hand BF3 for sale ASAP the next day.

Just accepts it, there are many type of players out there. Some like realism like arma2 and some play TF2/BF3/COD just for the mindless killing spree, some like to mix it a bit here and there.

Games like arma 2/OFP open my eyes to a new type of game, a game that allows me to try multiple approach to a mission. Just look at the simple steal the car mission in OFP and arma 2 CWR mod. I'm sure whoever here that have played it have tried it multiple times and still finds it enjoyable. Make it linear and you get the typical FPS game like stated above with only replay value is the harder difficulty settings.

Try this, set a BF3 server but let the players to only have 1-2 life per player. I'm sure that server will be empty pretty fast. Most of arma 2 games are played like you only have 1 life but we dont really mind that.

It's just different games that caters to different player type. Players with different preference, mentality or even maybe maturity i guess.

When Diablo 3 or starcraft 2 came out, i'm like meh.... But when XCOM,Iron Front or Close Combat III:Russian Front type of games, i'll be getting the preordered asap.

Edited May 23, 2012 by gunso

[metalcraze 290]

Well, it sucks. ArmA team PvP must not be so simple. Note that CS, a >10 years old game, didn't mark anything and it's still popular.

CS has markers for friendlies. CS doesn't have large open spaces with realistic detail. It takes place in a low detailed boxes of Quake 1 engine. Camo also doesn't work in CS like it does in ArmA2.

It is a problem. CQB is another kind of fun. It can be played in A2 too but the clunkyness and not good team PvP except CTF is a problem.

There are a lot of TvT games played. CQB is not just running around in corridors and headshotting n00bz with madskillz. CQB is just close quarters battle which may as well mean shooting a dude behind a bush 10m away.

People played TvT games since OFP where indoors were much more of a hell than ArmA2 because you didn't even have leaning (by default).

CQB in BF is nothing like it is in reality - so why should it play like that in ArmA again?

And why all of a sudden BIS should cater to BF players? Don't they have their own games? What about ArmA players?

Just look what catering to arcade players did to R6, Splinter Cell and Ghost Recon. Even Jane's plane sims. Why do you want that to happen to ArmA? Why not play Battlefield if you want arcade CQB? I mean... think about it.

I've 3 friends (grown ups with kids) that play BF and they're not like that. Those who create such threads wants BF. That's not "BF players" that's "small portion of BF players". One sticky thread and BIS forum mods would handle this problem =).

And 3 friends represent the majority of BF players? Come on man.

Also judging by the sales of BF3 - that's exactly what majority of BF players want.

[rye1 21]

CQB is just close quarters battle which may as well mean shooting a dude behind a bush 10m away.

Lol. :raisebrow:

[batto 17]

CS has markers for friendlies.

CS friendlies has markers only if you aim at them AFAIK.

There are a lot of TvT games played. CQB is not just running around in corridors and headshotting n00bz with madskillz.

Of course!

CQB in BF is nothing like it is in reality - so why should it play like that in ArmA again?

It should play like in ArmA.

And why all of a sudden BIS should cater to BF players? Don't they have their own games?

No idea. Money maybe... I don't care.

What about ArmA players?

They'll not suffer.

Just look what catering to arcade players did to R6, Splinter Cell and Ghost Recon. Even Jane's plane sims. Why do you want that to happen to ArmA? Why not play Battlefield if you want arcade CQB? I mean... think about it.

metalcraze, wtf? For Nth time: ArmA is a sandbox and we just want BIS to focus on PvP a little bit too. More details are in previous pages. And please stop redirecting me to BF3 or whatever arcade shooter you hate most FFS. I'm not into games that looks like military and plays like Quake you know.

And 3 friends represent the majority of BF players? Come on man.

And BF3 forum represents the majority?

Also judging by the sales of BF3 - that's exactly what majority of BF players want.

I wonder how can you tell what BF3 players want from BF3 sales.

Edited May 23, 2012 by batto

[metalcraze 290]

If they didn't like how BF3 plays they wouldn't be buying it in millions. Simple.

It should play like in ArmA.

Then why the 'cater to BF guys' talk?

ArmA is a sandbox and we just want BIS to focus on PvP a little bit too.

"Too"?

[batto 17]

If they didn't like how BF3 plays they wouldn't be buying it in millions. Simple.

Yeah. But you talked about kids ranting about dumb things on BF3 forums and runin''n'shootin' in the game. That's not "BF3 players". Very simple.

Then why the 'cater to BF guys' talk?

You started it. Possible attraction from BF players is just nice implication.

"Too"?

Yeah. Go several pages back and start reading again to find why PvP in vanilla ArmA is currently not ideal. And it's not the run'n'shoot, silent-knife-kills and other crap. The point is that ArmA is missing just a little bit to easily surpass those arcade shooters you hate and it would still be good old ArmA with everything you love.

Btw, I guess that new tactical position is one thing that'll greatly improve runnin''n'shootin' =) Be mad please.

Actually melee attacks and jumping would be cool too. There's a Zombie Plague mod for CS1.6. If you're killed by mortal (serious milsimer) you become very fast zombie attacking by claws... Expecting ninjas =).

Edited May 23, 2012 by batto

[zoog 18]

But battlefield players want fast paced bullshit, bro. They won't play ArmA unless you can do magical one hit knife kills, can bunnyhop and run'n'gun. That's why they aren't still playing it.

Not because it's "clunky".

Well, please explain to me why at least 30% of the people I know playing BF3 are actually hardcore/serious game fanatics but play BF3 because there is nothing similar on offer in the tac shooter genre. At least not anything that lets you easily get into a PvP match without downloading a shitload of mods, fiddle with beta-patches or any other issues the general Arma player has to go through. Based on the opinions from the people I know who used to play games like the original rainbow six and ghost recon it actually IS the clunkyness that's holding them back from Arma + the numerous custom things you need to do before you get the game ready to join a server (for example downloading 3rd party programs likes SU, finding out how the - sorry - user unfriendly SU interface works, downloading a shitload of mods to join one single server if it's not password protected etc).

[Minoza 11]

Well, please explain to me why at least 30% of the people I know playing BF3 are actually hardcore/serious game fanatics but play BF3 because there is nothing similar on offer in the tac shooter genre. At least not anything that lets you easily get into a PvP match without downloading a shitload of mods, fiddle with beta-patches or any other issues the general Arma player has to go through. Based on the opinions from the people I know who used to play games like the original rainbow six and ghost recon it actually IS the clunkyness that's holding them back from Arma + the numerous custom things you need to do before you get the game ready to join a server (for example downloading 3rd party programs likes SU, finding out how the - sorry - user unfriendly SU interface works, downloading a shitload of mods to join one single server if it's not password protected etc).

Count me in. Played old Rainbow Six (Rogue Spear, Raven Shield) and both Vegases. Played Ghost Recon, playing BF3, played BC2... etc... metalcraze has a good point from time to time, but when it comes to things other games do better, he is suddenly full of shit because he doesn't want Arma to turn into that other game he has never even played and he keeps judging it by random forum people.

@metalcraze

One of the points was that BF3 simply has awesome CQB due to it's fluid animation system, which you denied because BF3 uses "floating hands". Well, that is actually myth, since both BF3 and Crysis 2 have full body animation (visible) in 1st person - yeah, you've heard right. You can see it anytime in the game, but yeah, you haven't played those, if you did you would know it. Still, you claim it's stupid arcade, although it has body and weapons handling simulated better than Arma has. You can get killed inside armored vehicle from the AT round, even though vehicle might just get disabled, you don't need ACE mod for that in BF3. But how would you know. Also there is "hardcore" mode in BF3 which turns all the HUD helpers off, just like Arma does, and it's as popular as regular mode.

Implementing good features other games are using is anything but bad, and it certainly wont turn Arma into Battlefield...

Edited May 23, 2012 by Minoza

[graill 10]

This thread isnt as bad as some might think. A couple of "holier than thous" repeatadly taking out of context snippits to suit their own soapbox but other wise some interesting feedback. The devs have also twice had to push this back on track as it hit some fast curves and almost derailed.

Arma will always be more complicated than the arcade shooters, a turnoff to a good portion of people. To "compete" Arma would need to actually dumb down alot of details and make gameplay more simplistic or provide a setup area in which everyone was given the time they need to equip, setup an opord, loadouts etc, things a good majority simply would not do nor wait for, they simply want the deathmatch style rush and get into play. Several concerns are the "clunky" feel and lack of fluid movement as opossed to the arcade shooters. i suppose,d epending on the amount of info removed from the game in general (excluding the current engine) Arma could go on a diet and get to where the arcade shooters are, but then what is the point?

We play arma for the deep game, not the insta grats nor the quick fix that some want. Arma does not need to compete, it owns the ground combat sim arena. I would rather have what we in the military call hours of boredom with moments of nail biting hell. Arma does that for me. I feel alot of the compete mentality are the newer folks that like the depth but want that arcade feel. I would pass on that. Other things are already out there.

To be honest here is my solution for competing. Mass advertising, more advertising, and more advertising. The more coverage the more popular. Bis has already shown some really great vids on Arma 3. Example, a room full of joes watching the stingray looking tank getting hit and a few seconds later returning fire out of the smoke, cheers went up in that asik4 classroom and Biss gained a few more fans. Getting the word out is far more important and much more gratifying.

Though i do occasionally dream about DCS and BIS getting together.......sigh.

---------- Post added at 05:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:09 PM ----------

Count me in. Played old Rainbow Six (Rogue Spear, Raven Shield) and both Vegases. Played Ghost Recon, playing BF3, played BC2... etc... metalcraze has a good point from time to time, but when it comes to things other games do better, he is suddenly full of shit because he doesn't want Arma to turn into that other game he has never even played and he keeps judging it by random forum people.

@metalcraze

One of the points was that BF3 simply has awesome CQB due to it's fluid animation system, which you denied because BF3 uses "floating hands". Well, that is actually myth, since both BF3 and Crysis 2 have full body animation (visible) in 1st person - yeah, you've heard right. You can see it anytime in the game, but yeah, you haven't played those, if you did you would know it. Still, you claim it's stupid arcade, although it has body and weapons handling simulated better than Arma has. You can get killed inside armored vehicle from the AT round, even though vehicle might just get disabled, you don't need ACE mod for that in BF3. But how would you know. Also there is "hardcore" mode in BF3 which turns all the HUD helpers off, just like Arma does, and it's as popular as regular mode.

Implementing good features other games are using is anything but bad, and it certainly wont turn Arma into Battlefield...

@Minoza, are you supporting BF3 as superior? Correct me if i am wrong in that assumption.

You are talking about the game that allows people to get of of jets, fire an rpg into a person and then get in their jet, all while vertical, all while moving about 1 mph at max altitude, and then go and do other stupid non realistic shit? The armored combat is as unrealistic and an utter joke as the fight model. Vehicle combat is just one of many many ignorant examples that game is capable of. Why would anyone want to style a game or take features from it?

Edited May 25, 2012 by graill

[Defunkt 431]

Vehicle combat is just one of many many ignorant examples that game is capable of. Why would anyone want to style a game or take features from it?

I feel you must not have played a lot of ArmA. I mean the game where a single RPG-7 can hit and cause to blow-up a Warrior IFV situated half a kilometre away. Such a thing would never happen in BF3.

There's no downside to incorporating the many things BF3 does better than ArmA.

[batto 17]

@graill: Your 2nd paragraph is completely invalid. Every point there has been already discussed in this thread. 3rd paragraph describes how You play ArmA, not we.

[crazyjake56 10]

This thread isnt as bad as some might think. A couple of "holier than thous" repeatadly taking out of context snippits to suit their own soapbox but other wise some interesting feedback. The devs have also twice had to push this back on track as it hit some fast curves and almost derailed.

Arma will always be more complicated than the arcade shooters, a turnoff to a good portion of people. To "compete" Arma would need to actually dumb down alot of details and make gameplay more simplistic or provide a setup area in which everyone was given the time they need to equip, setup an opord, loadouts etc, things a good majority simply would not do nor wait for, they simply want the deathmatch style rush and get into play. Several concerns are the "clunky" feel and lack of fluid movement as opossed to the arcade shooters. i suppose,d epending on the amount of info removed from the game in general (excluding the current engine) Arma could go on a diet and get to where the arcade shooters are, but then what is the point?

Though i do occasionally dream about DCS and BIS getting together.......sigh.

---------- Post added at 05:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:09 PM ----------

Personally I don't think Arma should compete but should prepare for competitors. This game will always be a bit niche seeing as how tactical shooters and even arena shooters have been replaced by, as the cynical brit put it, TactiLolz games. What Arma should be doing is refining the aspects of this game, of this sim, that we cherish. Personally I have only played ARMA 2 free but that was some of the most fun I've had. Even with boring waiting periods and some the requirement of patience, I think some of the people in this discussion have become just a bit too cynical and should give a bit more credit to people. It isn't necessary to criticize people for their choice of entertainment. And honestly, I doubt that being able to change to an m136 without going through several animations that involve getting up and exposing yourself for about 10 seconds wouldn't mean I would be able to rocket jump and dolphin dive.

[Minoza 11]

@Minoza, are you supporting BF3 as superior? Correct me if i am wrong in that assumption.

You are talking about the game that allows people to get of of jets, fire an rpg into a person and then get in their jet, all while vertical, all while moving about 1 mph at max altitude, and then go and do other stupid non realistic shit? The armored combat is as unrealistic and an utter joke as the fight model. Vehicle combat is just one of many many ignorant examples that game is capable of. Why would anyone want to style a game or take features from it?

Not at all LOL. You misunderstood me. That game is balanced out to be fun to play for causal gamers, no one is denying that. There are few core features which are great though.

Regarding flight model... it's shit, yeah, but not much worse than Arma 2 to be honest. Armored combat, it's core is certainly better than Arma's, notice I'm talking about how it's core works, not how it is balanced out.

Edited May 25, 2012 by Minoza

[dmarkwick 261]

@Minoza, are you supporting BF3 as superior? Correct me if i am wrong in that assumption.

You are talking about the game that allows people to get of of jets, fire an rpg into a person and then get in their jet, all while vertical, all while moving about 1 mph at max altitude, and then go and do other stupid non realistic shit? The armored combat is as unrealistic and an utter joke as the fight model. Vehicle combat is just one of many many ignorant examples that game is capable of. Why would anyone want to style a game or take features from it?

Pointing out some good features of other games is not the same as saying that ALL features are good. It's very easy to point out some poor features then dismiss the entire game as completely useless, but IMO using the argument that X game has the feature therefore the feature is poor is, well, poor :)

[Shatter3D_S0uL 1]

Why have such a beautiful game compete with CoD and BF? Cod is a plain run-and-shoot game,or most likely camp-and-shoot,and BF is heading towards that way with the upcoming DLC for BF3,Close Quarters. They are not even the same genre,let alone Arma series are better than these two.I have only tried and played Arma II: Free,but despite the lack of "HD" graphics,the game is great,more than great I have to say.

Edited May 25, 2012 by Shatter3D_S0uL

[zoog 18]

To "compete" Arma would need to actually dumb down alot of details and make gameplay more simplistic or provide a setup area in which everyone was given the time they need to equip, setup an opord, loadouts etc, things a good majority simply would not do nor wait for, they simply want the deathmatch style rush and get into play. Several concerns are the "clunky" feel and lack of fluid movement as opossed to the arcade shooters. i suppose,d epending on the amount of info removed from the game in general (excluding the current engine) Arma could go on a diet and get to where the arcade shooters are, but then what is the point?

Why is it so hard to understand that it could be possible to implement an official PvP gamemode which is better accessible and a more fluid experience compared to the current PvP that is offered at launch? We're not talking about changing your co-op or SP experience, or your experience when playing Project Reality or some other modification. We're not talking about changing or dumbing down Arma gameplay across the board, we're just talking about ways to improve the PvP side of things. And btw, it would be time that they fixed the clunkyness issues that have been in the Arma series for the past decade ;)

Arma could go on a diet and get to where the arcade shooters are, but then what is the point?

That's really not the point of this thread. The point is how the PvP aspect of Arma could be improved to make it more fluid and accessible and thus "compete" with those game as a valid alternative for people who love PvP. We're not talking about dumbing down anything that makes this military game so special. Take for example Project Reality. It's based on the Arma 2 framework and everything that makes it an tactical military shooter AND it's PvP. So we are, or at least I am, talking about stuff that can support the PvP scene right at launch. For example offering accessible and heavily tested official PvP gamemodes at launch, maybe an easy system to track down your friends, maybe official USA/EU etc. servers at launch which have PvP maps 24/7, etc. etc.

We play arma for the deep game, not the insta grats nor the quick fix that some want. Arma does not need to compete, it owns the ground combat sim arena.

Arma doesn't own shit in the PvP arena.

I would rather have what we in the military call hours of boredom with moments of nail biting hell. Arma does that for me. I feel alot of the compete mentality are the newer folks that like the depth but want that arcade feel. I would pass on that. Other things are already out there.

I believe you're missing the whole point, nobody is talking about implementing arcade gameplay or changing the current gameplay. We're discussing ways to improve the PvP aspect of the Arma series, not about changing the gameplay to be the same as BF3.

And for the love of god, please let someone change the thread title to "How to improve Arma's PVP MP to attract more players" as dragon suggested because people really seem to be missing the whole point...

Edited May 25, 2012 by zoog

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Why is it so hard to understand that it could be possible to implement an official PvP gamemode which is better accessible and a more fluid experience compared to the current PvP that is offered at launch? We're not talking about changing your co-op or SP experience, or your experience when playing Project Reality or some other modification. We're not talking about changing or dumbing down Arma gameplay across the board, we're just talking about ways to improve the PvP side of things. And btw, it would be time that they fixed the clunkyness issues that have been in the Arma series for the past decade ;)

This guy wins this thread.

Pretty much this, and I do have an example of an official PVP mission that actually SAVED a lot of people from looking for fun in what the competitors provided at that time, that mission was (since Armed Assault 1) and still is - Warfare: servers are/were always full, every single unit in the game is included, every single patch of land and sea is used, all resources put to use - we love it.

[katipo66 94]

Thread title still the same!? Can't a mod just change it to one suggested earlier as the OP doesn't seem interested, or just let the thread repeat itself every page for a thousand odd pages like the some other painful thread bout some other game with a river.

[zoog 18]

A few days ago I actually sent a PM to the OP about this, and he agreed in changing the thread title to help the thread along. He posted a few pages ago that he was going to change the title (but users don't have the rights) so a moderator asked for a direct PM (see: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?134126-Will-Bohemia-let-ARMA-finally-compete-with-Call-of-Duty-and-Battlefield&p=2154385&viewfull=1#post2154385). But I guess that never happened :) What he actually did, and I did this before, is changing the title of the first post of this thread. Look back at post #1, the post title is changed to "How to improve Arma's PVP MP to attract more players!!". Always misleading, the edit title function which doesn't edit the threads title :P

So maybe a moderator can be so kind to change it to "How to improve Arma's PVP MP to attract more players!!" as per the new #1 post title by OP. :)

Edited May 25, 2012 by zoog

[metalcraze 290]

How about we will talk about COOP and SP too?

There's not a single good official COOP mission in ArmA series at all.

How about improving SP to attract OFP players back? Those dudes who bought 2 mln of OFP copies you know and who were disappointed in ArmA1.

Why there's always so much whining about PvP somehow being not present in ArmA?

Edited May 25, 2012 by metalcraze