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

[batto 17]

c/p bf/cod formula is useless, since arma is all about lare scale combat afterall. just make it more understandable and organized.

That's just BS. For nth time ArmA is all about how you like to play it (the choice you usually don't have with other titles). Like it or not you can play it like CoD too. Stop posting nonnense like "c/p bf/cod formula doesn't work" because there is no such thing and if there is no one cares except people who hate "c/p bf/cod" (you).

For better public gameplay ArmA needs also better voting interface. Map -> Server -> Vote Admin is hidden and it's not enough. There must be GUI to at least vote different mission (there is x[) or end current mission. See the vote box below, that's more newbie friendly:

http://www.xonotic.org/m/uploads/2010/12/xonotic000133.jpg

Given the great variety of ArmA games there is high possibility that group of newbies with same gaming interest on public server vote bad mission. This happened to me 2 days ago. I played wonderful gungame in small town arena on UNA PvP public server with 5-6 people and it was lot of fun. But after this game we accidentaly voted very boring race mission and most of people just disconnected because "batto would like to become admin" message is kinda hidden and doesn't imply mission change. Maybe main menu should be integrated as another "tab" in mission interface (map, units, ...) so server commands could be more discoverable.

Edited November 15, 2012 by batto

[cas 41]

MP with high command for both sides would be nice!

This mixed with group-re spawn would be great. I like the mix of human players and AI.

Never found such a mission in MP...

[KurtG85 10]

The core gameplay wouldn't have to be affected at all by adding in a CoD or Battlefield upgrade/achievement system with 50,000 little medals getting thrown at you every half second. It would add alot of fun and flair to it actually. Think of all the gameplay challenges that are solely unique to arma... alot of those acheivements or medals or whatever would only act as icing on the cake to an already one of a kind gameplay experience (along with a fun little bag of 'been there, done that' bragging rights for those that give a damn; apparantly the vast majority of gamers). It would work especially well to include the RPG element where upon perfecting the weapons of a certain class you gain access to more complex weaponry (although I like armas player made system of commanders purchasing upgrades with cash). This would prevent alot of the nonsense you see of people wasting high value vehicles due to total lack of experience.

I'm sure some people will spaz out over even the consideration of the implementaion of these kinds of features but the fact is all this would do is add a hell of a lot more organization, very badly needed flair/presentation, and a better sense of organization and progression to those who play the game.

I'd love to see teamwork badges/awards be a major feature. For example the ability to give credit to those who take new players under their wing or display a general positive team oriented attitude like those guys who do nothing but offer to give your armored vehicle a lift to the AO all day. Why not give props to encourage this behavior?

Of course the real issue is creating a PvP, and co-op gameply system that actually highlights and encourages organization and balanced gameplay implementing all of the games features. Despite ArmA being my favorite game of all time the truth is its pathetically bad at providing the gameplay framework for steering players into really experiencing the range of features it has to offer.

Again, even the co-op is pretty pathetic. Frankly theres not much presentation or creativity at all beyond the single player missions. I want to see dynamic randomly generated co-op, or pvp campaigns with missions which demand effective communication and teamwork among large groups of players while providing the tools to do so. For example a platoon communication system integrated into the game with heads up displays for platoon leaders to order their men around and provide formation cues, a chat system which only allows leaders to talk to higher command, going up to a small command group which monitors and coordinates the situation, allocates resources, etc. on the battlefield similar to the actual ARMA command organization.

Dropping some players and a couple bmps on a square mile of map doesn't come close to doing the games potential justice IMO and just highlights how badly the gameplay needs some structure.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Achievements/medals/unlocks etc aren't the main reasons why people play as a team and stick together. Imo the pvp mission tasks should be more challenging and the end of these missions more rewarding from the missions background. Lets see if BIS is going to make something like a small pvp campaign (3-5 missions) for A3 or just 2-4 run'n'gun type pvp missions.

[batto 17]

Achievements/medals/unlocks

No one asked for unlocks.

[KurtG85 10]

Achievements/medals/unlocks etc aren't the main reasons why people play as a team and stick together.

I wasn't thinking unlocks could be a reward gained from consistent teamplay but actually that might be the most effective way of keeping the younguns' CoD-buzzed half second attention spans focused on cooperating and actually learning to appreciate the game as it should be played rather than wandering off to see how many shots it takes to kill a goat.

Of course most achievements are nothing but pats on the back from the game but the little psychological boost of encouragement they provide is the root of why they are so strangely addictive to so many players. Every little bit helps in coaxing players to learning to play the game as it is meant to be played. As it is most players lose interest in teamplay or in the game entirely because its such a change in pace from most games. The game needs to provide more smaller rewards, however silly (BRTRTRING! YOU DID IT! GREEN JADE MONKEY PIN ADDED TO YOUR COMBAT VEST!), to motivate players towards learning to appreciate the team oriented gameplay. Of course teamwork is pretty pointless and that aspect of the gameplay is removed anyway when you have a bunch of servers where you can respawn, parachute into the middle of the action, and go rambo over and over for 15 second jaunts.

The games co-op mode is in need of tension, atmosphere, adrenaline and that needs to be supported and built around a 'we rely on each other to complete the mission' kind of gameplay where everyone is naturally on edge to spot threats and defend everyone else; at least as soon as the bullets start flying (I hope they have some powerful sound effects that scare the crud out of you). This atmosphere is the most important component of making infantry combat simulation *FUN* and the disorganized gameplay in arma 2 co-op totally flubs on this aspect.

Edited November 16, 2012 by KurtG85

[wormeaten 0]

I'm just first time reading this thread so didn't read all 56 pages but in ArmA world I'm playing only PvP. So I will say something in general about ArmA 3 and PvP.

ArmA 3 will finally have ragdoll what is important step for PvP. And there is lot expectation from non ArmA community especially from people who will like to play more realistic games.

In past they could moding games so you have several realism mods in Bf2 or CoD 4 and 5. Now BFBC2, BF3 or MoH and CoD 6 and above don't have possibility for moding.

Lot of people are very interested in ArmA3 especially after they play Dayz. Problem is PvP is something what they expecting from ArmA3 and if ArmA3 will don't have nothing to offer this new blood

they could leave ArmA3 community disappointed.

I don't understand why people are afraid from something new. PR in ArmA2 shows exactly opposite. Lot of players who buy ArmA just because of PR today playing COOP as well so most benefit from PR have COOP players because PR bring new blood to ArmA so ArmA3 with good PvP could doubled numbers of ArmA players and biggest benefit from that will have COOP community.

ArmA3 need some changes to be more friendly for PvP developing what doesn't means that will decrease realism in any aspect of gameplay PvP or COOP but will increase profit for BIS what in the end means more investment in developing and advancing with ArmA features and quality what in the end all of us who love this game will have benefit.

[mrbenis 10]

Having been a fairly serious BF2 player back 6 years ago, I have some insights to offer on what makes a durable multiplayer.

1. Provide smaller maps for up to 32/48 players. Call them flashpoints or whatever, they could be on 5x5km maps with fairly dense terrain features.

2. Provide very small maps for up to 24 players, make them in cities thus discouraging the use of tanks, and forbidding the use of aircraft. BF "IO" single-handedly resurrected BF2 when it started to get stale after the first couple of years, and remained one of the biggest played modes until the death of BF2 in ~2010. 5 years after launch.

3. Don't feel afraid of making a tier-ed unlock system, but consider making it a non-permanent thing ergo that unlocks are based on a per-match performance metric rather than some accrued long term player character development. ARMA2 certainly doesn't support long term player bio growth, and couldn't really function that way either unless it directly copied the class system from BF2.

4. Allow any introduced unlock system to be disabled. Serious long-term players don't care about unlocks and achievements and other skinner-box incentives, they play to have a high K:D ratio and to have close, brutal games.

5. Consider offering an official, global tournament at release. BF2 gained immense popularity at launch (some 1.1 million accounts) in my belief due to offering a $50,000 prize to the winning clan/team. 50 grand in the context of the games development is kinda small and more or less falls under marketting.

6. Always launch with mod tools. Your vision of the game doesn't suit everyone. There are people who want to play on your engine due to its unique qualities but don't like your interpretation. Don't be offended by it, just observe the trends. DayZ and ACE come to mind.

[Trebor 10]

Dragon01 - Try ArmA I if you don't have a good computer. It's less advanced, but mods are still plentiful.

I agree that BI shouldn't try too hard to appeal to mainstream market, but there are some things that even the vets are complaining about (in some cases, since OFP). Especially the non-gameplay stuff needs an overhaul, the process of customizing certain things is downright arcane. ArmA will, hopefully, never be for "everyone" (unless real military equipment advances to the point VBS will play much like the first Crysis, which isn't as impossible as seems), but it should be because of deep, tactical gameplay, not clunky user interface.

Never thought to do that actually but my PC is quite old and i don't think it would play ARMA I either too be honest.

I didn't mean "if people don't like the game as it is" as in any problems it has. I just meant that if they don't like how ARMA plays then it's their problem, not the devs. For example, as far as i know ARMA isn't the best game for close quarter battles because it's quite slow and clunky. Which is a big flaw in a military simulator. Those mechanics should be fixed because it's one of the most dangerous parts of battle and you need to be able to operate properly, not because people who play COD and/or other military shooters that may be little better at that will appeal more to them. That should be a bi-product of fixing those problems, not the sole reason. I want to see this game do well, ofcourse. I have to say i was really impressed with BIS for advertising job vacancies on this forum so qualified people who play ARMA can apply for those vacancies. What better way to improve the game. That in itself made me want to invest in ARMA a little more, not because i could apply, i'm not qualified in those fields. But because of the dedication it shows. Kudos to you BIS.

KurtG85 - The games co-op mode is in need of tension, atmosphere, adrenaline and that needs to be supported and built around a 'we rely on each other to complete the mission' kind of gameplay where everyone is naturally on edge to spot threats and defend everyone else; at least as soon as the bullets start flying (I hope they have some powerful sound effects that scare the crud out of you).

Yes, yes, yes. If i ask a team mate and/or his squad to cover me and/or my squad while we assault a compound etc. I want feel like if they mess up it can result in the end of my and/or my squads game. And we've got to wait until the end. Tension, atmosphere, adrenaline, disappointment in that squad. Which could result in them learning their importance in the game, and give them and me more enjoyment. That is something you learn in army, marine etc trainning. If you don't you get your butt kicked, and if you still haven't learned after that you're out of there, and rightly so.

[chortles 263]

the main problem I would say about some arma 3 games in terms of the mainstream players, is that it takes a long time to get into the action. so make the combat closer to the player spawns and cut the long car rides in MP. the unforgiving nature of arma combat is still awesome, so that should not be changed.

Myke said this as well (your stating it in a later page is welcome just fine too):

Myke;2244364']It's up to the Mission designer completely. If they decide to make the start point in the lower left corner of Chernarus and the action on the upper right without air transport...well' date=' not the mistake of Chernarus but of the Mission designer.[/quote']In fairness this is NOT a PVP thing, this is simply unfortunate mission design, BI is no more at fault for such placement than community mission makers who also place spawns so far away, and frankly all BI can do so far as official PVP here is make spawns closer to where the mission designers expect engagements to occur.

That's just BS. For nth time ArmA is all about how you like to play it (the choice you usually don't have with other titles). Like it or not you can play it like CoD too. Stop posting nonnense like "c/p bf/cod formula doesn't work" because there is no such thing and if there is no one cares except people who hate "c/p bf/cod" (you).

My favorite way to agree with you is to link to Road Rage and Shipment, and of course there's always DayZ to get the blood boiling. ;)

For example, as far as i know ARMA isn't the best game for close quarter battles because it's quite slow and clunky. Which is a big flaw in a military simulator. Those mechanics should be fixed because it's one of the most dangerous parts of battle and you need to be able to operate properly, not because people who play COD and/or other military shooters that may be little better at that will appeal more to them.

I've tended to assume that player feedback like n7snk's -- the idea that ARMA was about scale -- had to do with why the aforementioned "clunky" close quarters combat was never made more fluid until ARMA 3.

Truthbetold I'm not too fussed about what specific PVP missions are made by BI, I'm concerned with how ARMA 3 is structured to better (than ARMA 2) support putting together a session so that oh hey, people might want to play PVP more (you know, the ones who aren't hopelessly lost to the idea that ARMA is not about PVP)... although based on some of your comments, the answer may be more about "how do we improve the MP interface in general".

Edited November 17, 2012 by Chortles

[mrbenis 10]

I think in addition to the points mentioned earlier, the biggest thing BI could do to improve their game would be to include some of the mods in official patches and provide the modders with some sort of official support liason. The hundreds and hundreds of utility mods out there only exist because talented programmers acted on a need realised or perceived by the community. Their efforts should be officially recognised, and in many cases, incorporated into the base game. The AI improvements are of particular worth, and could probably be sourced for ARMA3.

[Rhamka 10]

All COD BF3 style gaming (I mean small maps, fast action) can be done even better in Arma (in a realistic and tactical way), another example is Red Orchestra OstFront (not RO2, I still play RO1) where gaming is realistic and faster than in Arma. But this is done by players creating such a missions. I do it fast with some friends, you have the Wizard to choose several options and objectives, where you don't need to play in the WHOLE map, just 1km². But in orther to do this you need some good friends to do it too, so every body respect respawn and there is no some one taking down ppl at the very moment of respawn.

I'm more concerned about the CQB , as it has allways been a problem in Arma, and I feel this why it's probably not so popular between PvPers, as most games offer a good option for CQB.

[chortles 263]

mrbenis, they already did that by hiring Smookie :p and the AI direction has nothing to do with PVP, but to answer that InstaGoat said that they're more focusing on AI not making baby mistakes than on expanding their possible actions.

Rhamka, your ideas are interesting, but:

#1: You discuss a mission idea, whereas I believe that an improvement in the MP interface would be more important to improving PVP (as well as co-op)

#2: I'd be wanting BI to officially be making "such a missions", not (just) players

(Note re: respawn - MOH: Warfighter had the idea of having a "fall back" spawn position that's supposed to be safe from spawn-killing, while MAG placed default spawns so that line of sight usually gave them some cover, considering that almost all of its modes were objective-based, usually with an attacker team and a defender team, while situational "forward" spawns like LALO parachuting would leave the players exposed until touchdown or with APCs/bunkers/helicopters be destructible and expose without cover a player who emerges from them, so I found spawn killing to be thankfully rare in MAG.)

As for mechanics related to CQB, tactical pace and the changes to mouselook/aim seem to have been the biggest positive changes by far -- ironic, considering that apparently the run and sprint speeds are actually slower than they were in Arma 2, whereas tactical pace is midway between walk (same as in Arma 2) and run, and we now have an "adjust stance" modifier (Left Ctrl+WSADQE) to adjust stances, so I can definitely see "CQB" -- if meaning indoors small arms combat -- working in Arma 3 more fluidly.

[ratszo 17]

Hard to think of pvp without a squad hud, shack-tak.

An ace style radio net.

In-game, a way to join/switch squads.

Also hope the fatigue system works.

[TheGreatBenji 1]

I see no problem with the PVP, they just need to improve some bugs/glitches.

[chortles 263]

Hard to think of pvp without a squad hud, shack-tak.

An ace style radio net.

In-game, a way to join/switch squads.

Also hope the fatigue system works.

Sorry, what do you mean by "the fatigue system works"? There's already one in Arma 3 that was explained by both a dev (in Gamescom videos) and InstaGoat, TL;DR: gear load affects sprint duration and accuracy (both aim and how quickly it recovers). I'd like a join/switch squads functionality though.

[clifdenhill 1]

I agree it should have what ratszo mentioned as well as better interface like chortles mentioned and it should be good and different.

[chortles 263]

"good and different" - that didn't help, clif... yeah, one of the changes needed for "improve PVP to attract new players" is an overhauled and improved MP interface, period... though frankly "getting the anti-PVP players who stick to co-op alone out of their cocoons" would help too. :p

Frankly, improving PVP doesn't require any specific match type (some of the ideas in this thread are cool, some I just look down my nose upon) but it does require an overhaul of thinking about how PVP "should" be done in Arma, especially since (I'm thinking of Rocket's words here) this is probably the first time in the series that the engine might be designed with PVP in mind. :lol:

[ratszo 17]

Sorry, what do you mean by "the fatigue system works"? There's already one in Arma 3 that was explained by both a dev (in Gamescom videos) and InstaGoat, TL;DR: gear load affects sprint duration and accuracy (both aim and how quickly it recovers). I'd like a join/switch squads functionality though.

Yeah, 'works', is vague, sry.

I call for a punishing, punitive fatigue system --carry heavy, no sprint, falls and exhaustion on inclines and long marches.

Push a soldier too much, combat ineffective.

Much like the ace system, perhaps tougher.

Why? Because in PvP, logistics matter. What you bring to a fight, and how you get it there shapes the gameplay.

For example, why load a squad into a APC when sprinting is faster and safer? Why bring an APC when most Opfor will be sprinting around heavy with launchers and extra rockets?

That's one reason why AVs are deathtraps in A2.

Arma3 will have "gear load affects sprint duration and accuracy." We have that now in A2, not that we notice.

Ofcourse, we are talking hard-mode where most PvP players prefer to play.

Arma has always been about options. An unforgiving fatigue system needs to be one of those options out-of-the-box.

Without it, basic PvP will require ace type addons from the get-go.

Arma PvP players like hard-mode.

[chortles 263]

Sorry, you don't speak for all Arma PVP players ;)

Funny thing is, if "Arma has always been about options" then the more consistent method would be to have what you desire (hint: it doesn't NEED to be out-of-the-box*) as "ace type addons" than out-of-the-box.

This is why I said that the main improvements would be to #1, improve the MP interface and underlying code for improved MP overall (hey, it helps out co-op too) and #2, change the population to not think that PVP is "about ruining the experience of others" :rolleyes: #3 would have been "make CQB and infantry less clunky", but that's been taken care of so far by adding the dynamic stance system, adding tactical pace** and by changing the mouse-look/aim to be more like a conventional shooter.

* Then again, the only out-of-the-box Arma 3 need is to actually work out-of-the-box without bugs :lol:

** According to a dev, the Arma 3 run and sprint are actually slower than in Arma 2, while tactical pace is between walk (about the same as in Arma 2) and Arma 3 run.

Edited November 25, 2012 by Chortles

[NielsS 10]

"getting the anti-PVP players who stick to co-op alone out of their cocoons" would help too. :p

What do you mean by that? I find PVP to be boring, restrictive and completely against what this game is about. Freedom.

You've got this entire island or world to play in and yet you choose to play on this tiny piece of it, that plays exactly the same everytime you play it, and kill eachother.

So i would like to stay in my cocoon and create and play missions that encompass half the island, that plays differently everytime you play it, and actually forces you to play tactical. Now i know what you're going to say: "My friends and i play team deathmatch tactical". Yes the first 2 or 3 times. After that it becomes a fragfest where everyone chooses a sniperrifle and find a place to camp from. I've seen it many times with several games. It's the reason i got bored with PVP.

[Smurf 12]

What do you mean by that? I find PVP to be boring, restrictive and completely against what this game is about. Freedom.

You've got this entire island or world to play in and yet you choose to play on this tiny piece of it, that plays exactly the same everytime you play it, and kill eachother.

So i would like to stay in my cocoon and create and play missions that encompass half the island, that plays differently everytime you play it, and actually forces you to play tactical. Now i know what you're going to say: "My friends and i play team deathmatch tactical". Yes the first 2 or 3 times. After that it becomes a fragfest where everyone chooses a sniperrifle and find a place to camp from. I've seen it many times with several games. It's the reason i got bored with PVP.

You never played any PvP in ArmA, right?

Complete nonsense.

[maddogx 13]

I get the feeling that some people here have a very narrow view of what constitutes "PvP".

Hint: it is entirely possible to have large scale, dynamic and objective based PvP missions.

[chortles 263]

Hey guys, seems like he just proved my point :lol:

Nevertheless reactions like that are why I'm "match type" agnostic about my "how to improve PVP" ideas -- too easy for anti-PvP complainers to nitpick on match type details using a (seemingly intentionally) narrow view of "PvP", especially when CTI is also PvP (albeit with AI on both sides as well) or to imagine things that aren't there by transplanting seemingly usual stereotypes about other shooters onto Arma.

When it comes to "how to improve PVP to attract new players" (instead of just for the existing PvP-oriented Arma 2 communities)... it's got to be looked at differently than simply "make the perfect match type", because by now someone should have pulled that off by now :p All Arma 3 could have added on that front would be under-the-hood improvements that'd allow such a hypothetically perfect vision to be more fully implemented, which to me suggests " no perfect match type"... hence my belief that "out-of-the-box PVP missions in the release build, premade by BI and ready to play without requiring mods" would be a more effective solution.

P.S. I wouldn't worry too much about the idea that "Team Deathmatch" could somehow infest Arma -- as a MAG player who started soon after that game's release, I remember that every one of its match types except for Suppression was objective-based, while Suppression (its TDM match type) was actually less popular than the objective-based ones. Food for thought there, hopefully, readers...

Edited November 28, 2012 by Chortles

[derdoe 10]

There are some communities out there fighting battles of 50 vs 50 or more with vital roles like resupplying of troops, ammo and fuel,engineers having to repair vehicles and so on, i dont understand how people could say there is a lack of PvP...