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

[Dingo8 1]

Thats incorrect, in MP difficulty settings of the server apply to everyone in the game.

Ah, so it's always enforced? Thanks for the info.

[djfluffwug 10]

To clarify, I was just saying that PvP is not fun with a large map with only 5 or so people. I am NOT saying to make ArmA have smaller PvP maps. I was merely stating that the map size is a limitation in terms of PvP action in small groups.

Please do not jump to the conclusion that I wish for ArmA to mirror ShooterXYZ.

[armatech 8]

To clarify, I was just saying that PvP is not fun with a large map with only 5 or so people. I am NOT saying to make ArmA have smaller PvP maps. I was merely stating that the map size is a limitation in terms of PvP action in small groups.

Please do not jump to the conclusion that I wish for ArmA to mirror ShooterXYZ.

the simple answer is make your own map/missions that is why arma is so good you have freedom to make your own content with very little hassle that give your countless hours/months/YEARS of enjoyment

Edited June 5, 2012 by armatech

[Yeti1 1]

Huge battles in Arma's amazing world is probably the only PvP mode in my view that seems acceptable to Arma3 for many reasons, the distance and spectrum of most of the weapons and vehicles are not entirely set for close combat, although it still can be achieved, you lose a lot of play in each instance. This is the mode I would personally prefer to see implemented than anything else, so I may be biased but I do feel that this amazing war sim would benefit from such modes.

It is a hard one with Arma because it is so realistic, trying to get the right PvP mode for the game is hard enough, then there is also the players, and what they would find fun or acceptable.

One thing I would say though, too many close combat PvP modes forcing the game backwards would only harm the community, the more mainstream it gets, the more idiots and hackers we would have coming in a ruining our play. (yeah I know they are everywhere, but keeping that to a minimum is a must)

Just my thoughts.

[Madeon 6]

most of the weapons and vehicles are not entirely set for close combat

Don't you watch war footage? Assault rifles, light machine guns, heavy machine guns, sniper rifles, shoulder-launched rockets, hand grenades, tanks and APC's are the most common weapons used for close quarters combat. PvP is the ideal mode for CQB in arma3 because humans players are far more adept at fighting at close quarters then the AI.

[dragon01 902]

I'd like to see an alternative system where players manually plot enemy positions on the map (but not just by laying down normal markers - instead something AI on your side will respond to as well).

Something like "tagging" enemies in Crysis 1, except more limited and more realistic. When you spot an enemy, you could report it and have the AI be "aware" of the fact there's an enemy unit somewhere in that position. They'd also update the location on their own if they think they spotted the same unit.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

This topic is kinda outdated, here's a recent discussion: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?136343-Multiplayer-Balancing-Will-Arma3-s-MP-be-balanced/page45

If all of the systems stay the same, including TAB+Click, then opfor/blufor assets need balancing.

[batto 17]

This topic is kinda outdated, here's a recent discussion: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?136343-Multiplayer-Balancing-Will-Arma3-s-MP-be-balanced/page45

If all of the systems stay the same, including TAB+Click, then opfor/blufor assets need balancing.

This thread (my favourite one) is general flamy discussion about lack of PvP in ArmA. The second thread is mainly about balancing assets. General PvP discussion should go here.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Then... Dedicated weapon keys - yes! Dedicated weapon keys to facilitate more fluid gameplay in both CQB and other circumstances. The awkward weapon/equipment controls are a heavy barrier to entry in PVP, and the scroll list(s) can't be mastered, unlike an intuitive KB layout.

[ratszo 17]

Don't you watch war footage? Assault rifles, light machine guns, heavy machine guns, sniper rifles, shoulder-launched rockets, hand grenades, tanks and APC's are the most common weapons used for close quarters combat. PvP is the ideal mode for CQB in arma3 because humans players are far more adept at fighting at close quarters then the AI.

Amen. Between ace and pr, there's many play tested pvp features bis can incorporate.

A squad hud and squad select are two obvious must have features.

[Wolfstriked 11]

Recently I have been finally playing with the editor and loving it.I set around 10 enemy AI in an area of the map,place myself close and try and try to kill them all.Its a blast trying different weapons in Arma2 to see what I am efficient with in taking on 10 AI.It got me thinking this would be great online.I think very very small maps with lots of fighting spaces,ability to gain points and then be able to get better weapons and just ease of entering this game by one clicking would benefit A3 greatly.

[Robster 11]

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.

Agree and disagree...

Agree, ArmA certainly is about teamwork and tactics...

However, many of us get quickly bored to death doing COOPs since AI isn't that much real... I mean, you see them from far distance, you shoot that little bot... it turns 360 degrees around, then it crouches, then stands up again, running a bit, then loop: it turns 360 degrees around... I am always wondering why guys do not get boring chasing some unbelievable enemies... on the other hand, I've seen bots doing headshots with AK and one single shot at 500+ meters from distance... unbelievable also...

IMO nothing compares to real human instant response... then I really feel I'm simulating a firefight, planning combat tactics, warfare, you know...

So, I disagree with you when AI becomes the core of simulation... for me it's just an optional module, which is fine and, of course, is ok for single player fun... but, again, I can't see much teamwork over there... I mean it sound weird... AI teamwork gameplay... (?)

I expect a real warfare simulation with hordes of troops... real human troops... in the meantime, I'll keep helping out PVP and teamwork oriented and like minded guys regarding this matter...

Saludetes!

[down8 30]

Im only have played Arma for 6 months, and quit playin BF3 and specially COD (MW3 is pure shit), and I dont miss them. So a friend of mine who usually play arcade games.

Arma 2 has blowed our mind, and i think there are some things to improve (animations, controls...), but I wouldn't like to change the nature of the game for opening to wider audiences. In only one month I upped the difficulty, deleting map enemy markers, HUD extentions, because I enjoy the experience of be really aware of my surroundings, have to orient myself in big maps,etc. Those factors give this game a great inmersion that is really fun!

My conclussion is that is no necessary to make this game very accesible. Many COD and BF3 player tired of their poor gameplay, will like this new (for them) hardcore perspective if they have the chance to play, or know about the game. Is so simple.

Its also true that improve netcode, making some good PVP gamemodes that fits with the philosophy of the game is positive, and make the game rich. But if the game is too accesible, it loses its charm.

Sorry for my english, hopes that the perspective of a noob helps.

[iratus 71]

It is a hard one with Arma because it is so realistic, trying to get the right PvP mode for the game is hard enough, then there is also the players, and what they would find fun or acceptable.

That's probably a major factor of the ArmA-PvP-Problem. PvP players expect or like different scales/setup of scenarios, but (as I understand it) PvPers also need standard scenarios supplied with vanilla ArmA. A couple of days ago here on the forums, someone suggested small, fast paced 5v5 matches as optional for PvP. But in such small scenarios you will never find tanks, choppers and planes, because there simply is no space for them. I imagine a lot of PvPers may object to this kind of scenario because for them all the vehicles are an integral part of what ArmA makes ArmA. Larger scenarios where helos and tanks are viable on the other hand may easily take hours to play trough and require way more players to play - wich leads to them being less suited for league play. I'm not saying one or the other is wrong, on the contrary in my eyes both of them are good setups for those people who like to play them.

Now, BIS could just include scenarios of both styles, right? That may be an option, but it may split the (already small) PvP community more or less in two camps. And of course only half of the scenarios delivered with vanilla Arma would suit a certain playstyle. If we take a look at games that focus on PvP gameplay, most of them focus more or less on a certain Scale. Some of them are scaleable to some degree, but never to the degree ArmA is. And it makes sense because that way players get a more homogeneous experience. When looking at BF3 and its CQC expansion we can already see signs of splitting the community: Some players like the expansion and prefer CQC maps, while others avoid it alltogether. With a PvP scene as big as BF3's this may not be a problem, but for a smaller community it may be verry difficult.

One of the strenghts of ArmA is that it can do all the things^TM, but I have a feeling that this is a disatvantage in the highly standartisized world of competitive PvP.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Arma 2 has blowed our mind, and i think there are some things to improve (animations, controls...), but I wouldn't like to change the nature of the game for opening to wider audiences. In only one month I upped the difficulty, deleting map enemy markers, HUD extentions, because I enjoy the experience of be really aware of my surroundings, have to orient myself in big maps,etc. Those factors give this game a great inmersion that is really fun!

My conclussion is that is no necessary to make this game very accesible. Many COD and BF3 player tired of their poor gameplay, will like this new (for them) hardcore perspective if they have the chance to play, or know about the game. Is so simple.

Well, by improving the controls, you'd be making the game accessible to a wider audience by default, because clunkyness is unneeded on top of genuine simulation complexity, which already taxes the brain of the average Joe. I'm glad at least people agree on that part.

---------- Post added at 11:12 ---------- Previous post was at 11:06 ----------

That's probably a major factor of the ArmA-PvP-Problem. PvP players expect or like different scales/setup of scenarios, but (as I understand it) PvPers also need standard scenarios supplied with vanilla ArmA. A couple of days ago here on the forums, someone suggested small, fast paced 5v5 matches as optional for PvP. But in such small scenarios you will never find tanks, choppers and planes, because there simply is no space for them.

TvT of 40+ players is the standard model for quick PVP in ArmA, which can and does have vehicles. CTI (Warfare) is a variation on that - the most popular in fact.

http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Basic_Guide_to_Berzerk!

TvT Capture & Hold example: fast-paced, VERY competitive, victory often was subject to the last seconds of the match.

fnX8gweY8VM

Berzerk deteriorated, when the original modder had abandoned its support,

EkqGpCZnBvE

ArmA is tailored to large terrains. What we mean by CQB is not point blank combat, but engagements starting out from 500 m (scenario/objective dependent) all the way into the urban areas, but when people enter those close spaces, they are fvcked by unintuitive, unresponsive controls.

Edited September 8, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin

[down8 30]

Well, by improving the controls, you'd be making the game accessible to a wider audience by default, because clunkyness is unneeded on top of genuine simulation complexity, which already taxes the brain of the average Joe. I'm glad at least people agree on that part.

Yeah, and I think improve the controls doesn't change the spirit of the game. The game doesn't have to be gratuitous hard to aproach, like having bad designed controls.

But I also think is a bad concept make all design decissions to make the game easy for all the audience. That drives to games without personality like almost all the shooters in the market today.

That extends to PvP on multiplayer; ARMA 3 must have its own type of PvP experience, because if it offers the same than the mainstream shooters, people tend in the best case to play it a short time, and in the worst to go for the easy and more famous option (it extends to music, cinema...). If you want wider audience you have to perfect your product and make it known, this way your audience will last long time.

Thank God there are still developers like Bohemia making the games they like, and now is giving them profits with Dayz, with is helping to publish ARMA series.

[rye1 21]

I think you're underestimating good controls, they do change a heck of a lot with the game. Try play Assassin's Creed for the first time, it's like trying to control a brick who does random moves in random places where you underestimate or overestimate jumps, grip heights and so forth. Controls is one way to attract new players, the easier or more common sense to play, the better for them to get used to it and be willing to give PVP a go. The thing is you have to attract them off their first PVP game. A lot play it once or twice then never again, especially when they join a "tactical" clan. The "friends list" idea a while back was a great one that would keep people connected and promote more PVP.

[chortles 263]

Yeah, and I think improve the controls doesn't change the spirit of the game. The game doesn't have to be gratuitous hard to aproach, like having bad designed controls.

But I also think is a bad concept make all design decissions to make the game easy for all the audience. That drives to games without personality like almost all the shooters in the market today.

If only you'd limited yourself to the first half of this, you'd have had a quality post, especially when you don't define what kind of "make the game easy for all the audience" means.

That extends to PvP on multiplayer; ARMA 3 must have its own type of PvP experience, because if it offers the same than the mainstream shooters, people tend in the best case to play it a short time, and in the worst to go for the easy and more famous option (it extends to music, cinema...).

... so how does anything about making ARMA "easier to get into" mean that ARMA 3 cannot have its own type of PvP experience, especially when it comes with the series-defining Editor?

If you want wider audience you have to perfect your product and make it known, this way your audience will last long time.

This is so vague as to be meaningless, especially when the concept of "hard sim" is so niche as-is.

Thank God there are still developers like Bohemia making the games they like, and now is giving them profits with Dayz, with is helping to publish ARMA series.

More like "thank gosh they have a seemingly-clear vision (or so the devs' posts lead me to believe) of what ARMA 3 is supposed to be."

[down8 30]

Well, first thing, english is not my first language, so I can't be perfectly eloquent.

Second, I'm relatively new to the game, so sure I have less to contribute than old players and know less about the game. Maybe I'm too much sensitive, but I don't understand the tone of your post.

I wrote the post, because I expected that my thoughts show how a new player who has never played before a game like this, feel about ARMA 2 & 3, the tiredness of clonic mainstream shooters and their PVP experiences, and how much like the game, despite some issues and limitations that make the game hard to approach.

And if I understand you I seem candid for be happy with Bohemia and the look of ARMA 3. Well, maybe I'm wrong, but everyday in the last months I read the forums about the development, features,etc and I feel that is going to be great, I'm not just a fan boy. If I didn't give importance to the details, I would keep playing COD.

I'm sure the community care about the oppinion of new players. You?

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

I think you're underestimating good controls, they do change a heck of a lot with the game. Try play Assassin's Creed for the first time, it's like trying to control a brick who does random moves in random places where you underestimate or overestimate jumps, grip heights and so forth. Controls is one way to attract new players, the easier or more common sense to play, the better for them to get used to it and be willing to give PVP a go. The thing is you have to attract them off their first PVP game. A lot play it once or twice then never again, especially when they join a "tactical" clan. The "friends list" idea a while back was a great one that would keep people connected and promote more PVP.

Precisely. There's a small window of opportunity, which can generate a PVP scene one player at a time, but if the controls barrier is irrationally complex, in addition to the game itself, then the first five minutes in Basic Training Camp will end up in ALT+F4 and Uninstall.

Natural selection, one might say? Not quite, unless the current ArmA playerbase wants to be the ultra enthusiasts that we are, embracing complex simulation systems of the game and disregarding the awful controls to enjoy the former.

TL;DR: Weapons/equipment selection should be mapped to number row keys, AI command interface must be derivative and should be reworked ONLY once Basic Gameplay is in order.

[chortles 263]

I'm sure the community care about the oppinion of new players. You?

I don't mind if English is not your first language, but I should explain that if you are more specific with your words, then we have more to properly talk about. Honestly, I view new players' opinion of ARMA more than that of the longer-time players. I do not necessarily agree with you about what ARMA is, but I do like that you at least have a good intention regarding controls.

Precisely. There's a small window of opportunity, which can generate a PVP scene one player at a time, but if the controls barrier is irrationally complex, in addition to the game itself, then the first five minutes in Basic Training Camp will end up in ALT+F4 and Uninstall.

Natural selection, one might say? Not quite, unless the current ArmA playerbase wants to be the ultra enthusiasts that we are, embracing complex simulation systems of the game and disregarding the awful controls to enjoy the former.

I think they do... and Mondkalb had something to say about that:

I believe that old fanatics got somehow blind and/or just used to the very rough edges of the game that are in most cases result of a 11 year old legacy, and they simply don't notice it anymore. For example where an OFP Veteran would say: "Well, that's the engine, it has been doing that always.", and then carries on. A person unfamiliar to the game would say: "Why on earth can't I select my weapon with the number keys above the letters? This is so annoying!", and then probably ragequits.

**

For what it's worth, I believe that the Total War series is an example (particularly with SHOGUN 2) that a clear, immediately responsive and simple enough controls interface will help (if not being on its own) to help new players be immersed in a game even if it has complex underlying mechanics, so long as the complexity remains "under the hood".

You do realize that CoD and BF are popular in MP simply because anyone can play it at random servers

I'm still saddened months later to see you consider "anyone can play it at random servers" a BAD thing.

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.

And months later I'm also still ashamed that someone could get this wrong... ARMA is not "about teamwork and tactics", ARMA is whatever the mission maker wants it to be; batto also put it back then that:

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).

**

When looking at BF3 and its CQC expansion we can already see signs of splitting the community: Some players like the expansion and prefer CQC maps, while others avoid it alltogether. With a PvP scene as big as BF3's this may not be a problem, but for a smaller community it may be verry difficult.

Note that in the case of the CQ expansion, the big problem for some was that it was intentionally "not traditional Battlefield" like most of BF3 was (supposed to be)... I also remember a DICE dev citing the popularity of "Metro" as a reason for the CQ pack, which would have been a HILARIOUS misreading of the community if he meant that... Metro, especially the notorious Metro 64 Conquest, wasn't for "serious Battlefield", it was for grinding unlocks. :rolleyes: (Then again I found the rationale that "you old-school guys got your Back to Karkand, now let the CoD immigrants have their own DLC" insulting.)

The thing is that right now, we may be too far out time-wise from when the "standard PVP modes" should be worked on in most detail, especially when the Community Alpha has yet to playtest among non-devs whether certain features and functions even work as intended... so I'd like BI to improve ARMA 3 PVP, but when there's so many things that that could mean AND the quality of the underlying engine is not yet seen-for-ourselves-on-our-own-computers... the latter is more important, got to set a good stage on which SP/co-op/PVP can all be done.

Even if the game only ships with "default" Limnos and Stratis instead of terrains built specifically for PVP/TvT or "map balance", I have no problem with there being PVP missions set on specific portions of either island but walled in (hey you can already do that with the Editor).

Edited September 9, 2012 by Chortles

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Mondkalb had something to say about that:**

I believe that old fanatics got somehow blind and/or just used to the very rough edges of the game that are in most cases result of a 11 year old legacy, and they simply don't notice it anymore. For example where an OFP Veteran would say: "Well, that's the engine, it has been doing that always.", and then carries on. A person unfamiliar to the game would say: "Why on earth can't I select my weapon with the number keys above the letters? This is so annoying!", and then probably ragequits.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?p=2197608#post2197608

OMG, thank you for finding this quote. If that's the general mindset at BI studios, then they can clearly see the Light.

Everyone else: ADAPT, bitchez.

[BobcatBob 10]

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?p=2197608#post2197608

OMG, thank you for finding this quote. If that's the general mindset at BI studios, then they can clearly see the Light.

Everyone else: ADAPT, bitchez. http://blizzforums.com/images/smilies/new/face.gif

SURVIVE/ADAPT/WIN that is the slogan, no? ;)

[CarlGustaffa 4]

If that's the general mindset at BI studios, then they can clearly see the Light.

Seeing the light is one thing. Being able to do something about it may prove overwhelmingly difficult. When most people bring in "solutions" from other games, they completely neglect how the feature set of those games are way lower (like no AI control).

[BuddLight 1]

I even think it's better with AI, cause the AI is freakin powerful and holding the lines for hours which a normal player couldn't resist. A BF3 player rushes to the front, gets some kills, dies, spawns back in rushes back to the front. Arma is tactical, you don't wanna die fast, you move slowly forward with the team. I think it's good as it is right now.