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

[chortles 263]

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...

Isn't that Project Reality? I think their insularity (not to mention the sense I get that PR: Arma 2 very much plays second fiddle to PR: BF2) plays no small part in its lack of popularity or being noticed... :p

Your idea would be consistent with my idea so long as BI implemented it in an Arma game's release build, no mods required, and implemented it well instead of needing to be patched a bunch or simply counting on the community to just whip up their own variation...

Please note that I'm not "scale averse" -- I have after all noticed that sometimes the scale is what attracts newcomers, i.e. that time that Kotaku put up an article about ShackTac's "93 man attack" session... but this time around, Arma 3 had better be able to do large scale and small scale, and "small scale" seems to be get what the pitchforks and torches around here... :rolleyes:

Thankfully for fairness' sake, the rules seem to be remain consistent -- Arma 3 units would have the same properties whether you were playing SP, co-op or PVP with no mission-specific changes, the only difference being whether or not they were set as playable, and considering how PVP missions can be designed (again, CTI is PVP) I would dare say that general online-play improvements (netcode, security, user interfaces) and "ready to play just from buying Arma 3, no advance knowledge or mods required" are what's needed most to improve the experiences and attract players... no good sense in Arma having a "has a great concept unlike other shooters, but executes it badly unlike other shooters too" reputation...

Edited November 28, 2012 by Chortles

[derdoe 10]

Isn't that Project Reality? I think their insularity (not to mention the sense I get that PR: Arma 2 very much plays second fiddle to PR: BF2) plays no small part in its lack of popularity or being noticed... :p

Not talking about Project Reality. There are other ArmA communities out there playing PvP battles in that scale :)

[chortles 263]

And how many of those PvP battles were made directly by BI and came out-of-the-box with Arma 2?

[derdoe 10]

And how many of those PvP battles were made directly by BI and came out-of-the-box with Arma 2?

None but thats what the community is there for. And its what the community does best, use the vanilla game and make it fun for yourself the way you want.

[chortles 263]

None but thats what the community is there for.

Completely missing my point... I'd rather that the community be "customizing the experience further to fit their tastes" than "having to make up for where BI dropped the ball". Sounds like we just had different conversations just now.

[NoRailgunner 0]

How many people did play A2+OA default mp missions for how long? How much time passed until the first community made missions were played?? Imo BIS needs to make it more interesting + userfriendly to create/make missions instead of just serving people everything they want on a silver platter.....

[chortles 263]

How many people did play A2+OA default mp missions for how long? How much time passed until the first community made missions were played?? Imo BIS needs to make it more interesting + userfriendly to create/make missions instead of just serving people everything they want on a silver platter.....

More likely that #1 any default MP missions were badly implemented, or #2 the community had already slipped into a "I'll make what I want" mentality, which isn't what I was trying to address at all (see "attract new players" in the thread title).

[lightspeed_aust 681]

For me, not that I play PVP anymore, but I think the CQB and fluid movement through buildings is critical for Arma3. Easy enough to set up the 'maps' or playing area but if the movement feels cumbersome it will fail to draw in players.

[chortles 263]

For me, not that I play PVP anymore, but I think the CQB and fluid movement through buildings is critical for Arma3. Easy enough to set up the 'maps' or playing area but if the movement feels cumbersome it will fail to draw in players.

Not quite true, even though "the CQB and fluid movement through buildings" DOES look improved as of the Gamescom videos... not quite true in the sense that PVP has been around throughout ARMA's years so there's other factors that hinder PVP (a terrifically terrible example on the last page) or otherwise keep new players... my answer is "improve the MP experience, period".

But yes there's a PVP scene in Arma... don't forget, "our" own BI dev Smookie's famous SMK Animations mod? The stated intent over at its Armaholic page: "meant to be used in PvP matches", now some of its concepts ("combat jog" -> "tactical pace", the different crouches -> "adjust stance") are in unmodded Arma 3. :D

[NoRailgunner 0]

Maybe BIS just have to make an awesome A3 trailer that shows the big and combined battles including the need for great teamwork + teamplay through all branches of military sevices? Not just some awkward action flick where the player is portrayed as an SuperStrongSpecialForce-HiTechGeardo.

[rye1 22]

It's not really buildings that hinder PVP is it. Because ARMA is known to be pretty damn poor for CQBCQBCQBCQBCQBCQB, gamemodes seem to orientate the game around other such types of PVP. Of course you still come across buildings, fighting in streets every now and then but especially those on Chernarus involve field objectives and less really close engagements. And they do really good at it! Look at PR for example, there's hardly any pure CQB environments, objectives may focus around some towns but most fights occur out of them or going to and fro from around 100 meters plus out. Where simple fails occur is places like rocket ballistics. When a rocket can fly in a straight and narrow path then all armour becomes obsolete. I do rate CQB within the series as one of the other extensive fails and definitely a priority but not the only definitive factor. Those concepts of adjusting stance and tactical pace will work just as well in the field; working with cover and when advancing on contact. Everything they add from a developer basis tends to be very generalized in that fashion. There are hardly any "CQB only" features out there or being worked upon.

[chortles 263]

That's pretty much why I discounted CQB, Rye. I'm pleased with the changes made so far to change infantry small arms combat at close ranges/hopefully indoors, but historically Arma (and I guess the engine) have "favored" long-range, yet as others can tell Arma managed to have a PVP scene despite that and well before DayZ. Therefore, fail-until-now CQB isn't (by itself) the problem, hence why I look elsewhere for what improvements could and should be made.

[atony 1]

I think the only thing that needs to be improved is the CQB. I'm not paying for another CoD of BF3 rip off. I'm paying for Arma

[Ekko 1]

I think the only thing that needs to be improved is the CQB. I'm not paying for another CoD of BF3 rip off. I'm paying for Arma

Im paying for all.

[Volatile 1]

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 see this as a "kill room" challenge (from Armory) type mode, but without having to unlock things first, showing first hand various aspects of vehicles, team and tactical movement and play, and of course, being multi-player, not single-player. Obviously, it couldn't really incorporate jets and such, because 1/50th of the map would be damn small. So maybe a town, and highlight tacticals and common vehicles (cars/trucks/Ural/whatever), along wiith APC, maybe a tank, a couple HWMMV variants, or equivalent, for each side. This would also give players the chance to really see the dynamics of gun-play first hand, and in a CQB environment, which in ArmA2, CQB is already quite brutal. Death happens quickly when you act without thought. The projectile physics at range helps people learn more of the same elements that are in BF3, such as bullet drop and time to target.

So really, instead of 'kill room' maybe it's 'kill box' instead. Cordon off a 1 klik by 1 klik area around a small village, spawning at a F.O.B. on some random (but opposite side) area outside of town, on the edge of the kill box, and it runs till a. all opposing team members are killed or b. mission objectives are complete, or c. both, or d. all 'tickets' (to borrow a term from BF3) are depleted. No timer on the match, no points to be gained, simply complete the mission objectives and/or kill the enemy entirely. The game mode would still incorporate all the main features that makes the ArmA3 engine so fantastic and attractive to 'serious' (non-casual) players. To be clear, I'm speaking about casual in the sense that ArmA2 can be picked up and played casually, but you don't get very far, it takes a bit of dedication to really get into the meat of it. No offense to 'pick-up-and-play' gamers at all, I like those games too, but that's why I also own several C.O.D. titles and several Battlefield titles.

People would learn movement dynamics, and become familiar with the way the game operates in PvP in small environments which incorporate both mid-long range gun-play and still be able to get into those areas that require snappy, fluid movement and aiming dynamics in a CQB sense, and learn the difference between concealment, cover, and out in the open combat versus urban combat, etc. Also, how the vehicles come into play, what their vulnerabilities are and such. I can see this mode being immensely popular similar to BF3, if by design it was like a 3 segment sort of domination match as well. Finish one killbox, and open another adjoining area to move into and take, or fail at taking, whichever is the case. This would make it like a rush match, sort of, except it could easily be defined much differently with various objectives to complete, introducing the complexity of mission types, how to read your map, navigate a region, find the objective, etc. It could be a great mode.

But that said, the map has to be big enough to cater to all of the play styles. Those that like to sit at range, and pick people off (recon, sniper, marksman, rifleman) and those that are more comfortable with choke points and such. It would require teamwork from all, because each play style bolsters and assists the other.

[batto 17]

Another example of good and not-so-big PvP is Firearms 3.0 mod for Half-Life (didn't play Source version yet). It has a lot of missions ranging from something like UT Onslaught to multi-bomb-defusal. It's kinda realistic except damage and ballistics; you bleed, you can't really hit with full auto on longer range. Both sides have limited number reinforcements (lifes) starting with 100+. Game ends when one side runs out of them. Can't find good video on YT.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

@Volatile, killroom, great idea for both PVP and training settings. If the new movements work out and CQB becomes more fluid, then there'll be some extra big grins around here doing just this.

[carzilla 2]

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!!!

IF BI does this to ARMA 3 then it will be just another shooter game.

[NielsS 10]

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

Maybe my rant came off a little narrowminded but i did used the most mentioned suggestions in this thread as a base for my rant.

Now i have no problem with BIS improving the PVP side of Arma and if it atracts new players then all the better. I just took offence of your statement that anti-PVP players that only play co-op should come out of their cocoon. I stated my reason why i don't like PVP and it has nothing to do with how Arma implements it. Also CTI can be played coöperatively so saying CTI is PVP is false.

I also don't care for this "have everything given on a silver platter by BIS" attitude. The most fun i have in Arma is making missions in the editor and then play those missions with friends. I'm not saying that BIS should make very little PVP missions for Arma 3, but i suggest that you stay open to the possibility's of the editor. Would'nt it feel satisfying to have the PVP community playing your missions?

[acoustic 82]

Arma PvP is best played (imo) with a community of some sort with organized events. Arma is a game about realistic, military operations. So the usual multiplayer layout of jumping in and playing doesn't really apply.

[colossusking 1]

ArmA's PvP is attractive to many people. A lot of people are in Tactical Regiments and they have servers that recruit and run 24 hours. Players from all around the world can play on them. We are a community that enables new mods. We welcome new players and help them. COD and BF are for people who don't have a lot of skill and don't want to be a community that is helping. Lots of COD and BF players rage and get all mad when they die. We are better than that. ArmA's PvP is amazing and the Multiplayer is one of the best parts of it.

[Smurf 12]

Doesn't apply because it doesn't exist. Having to schedule a match everytime one wants to play is a huge letdown and a big barrier to make this game more popular.

Also the lack of a standard form to manage squads, MP options (viewdistance, grass, tags) and so on that are present in many missions in different ways also may be confusing to some. Would be nice if BIS create a template\module\whatever for those common functions.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

Doesn't apply because it doesn't exist. Having to schedule a match everytime one wants to play is a huge letdown and a big barrier to make this game more popular.

Also the lack of a standard form to manage squads, MP options (viewdistance, grass, tags) and so on that are present in many missions in different ways also may be confusing to some. Would be nice if BIS create a template\module\whatever for those common functions.

Quite right though the true danger is when BIS provide ONLY templates/modules as they have done previously. How many unwary jumped in and thought "What is this half baked shit?". Its just not a good first impression. Templates should be available, but clearly seperated from other missions.

@NieslsS, I don't see this as a 'wanting everthing on a silver platter' attitude, its about polish. Making sure there is little to no confusion about the product. And making sure first timers, have the best experience possible.

[Horus 83]

If Zaphod want to finish his work on Berzerk project :pc: we have good PvP map.

[telkwa 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!!!

Because PVP motivates programmers to make outrageous cheats and hacks that ruin games. I have personally quit many games because of this. They sell these cheat softwares on public websites in the face of everyone and huge companies like EA seem to have no legal recourse. I enjoy PVP like anyone, but it has become a joke in all the major titles.