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

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

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).

Staying in catch-22 and doing nothing is not an option. Since AI control is rather unique to OFP/ArmA, copy industry's standard for character mechanics and weapon usability, which had served the world well for over 15 years, and devise a separate AI command control interface, while at the same time revising the number of commands and their functions.

I hardly used anything besides 3-5, 7-2, Move To, Return to formation, Stop and 2 - Target list in hardcore online Warfare. Well, ok, "Scan horizon" was sometimes useful for an AI commander slot in a vehicle or a gunner pilot on an AH, but that's an exception.

Also, Scan horizon for AI infantry is broken, NWSE watch directions totally useless for dynamic combat, or even a simple patrol, number of formations can be reduced, there are other useless commands, which I can't recall, since it's been a year since I played ArmA. :)

Edited September 9, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin

[Montanaro 0]

why would someone rage quit because they can't switch weapons with number keys ala Counter Strike?

Not sure how you can say "OFP fanatics are just used to it" when the old number key gun switch predates OFP.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

why would someone rage quit because they can't switch weapons with number keys ala Counter Strike?

Online multiplayer makes or breaks the games, unless you're BioWare developing an established single-player Sci-fi, Fantasy franchise. Once upon a time, hitting "Connect", the player was presented with bullets flying out of nowhere, "Oh, dear", the player remarked, "Better deploy that wall of smoke", but little did the player know that he would once again mistap the F weapons cycle key and end up selecting Satchels, thus prompting another five or six taps to select the smoke grenade.

In the end, our player can't rationalise such a system and quits.

---------- Post added at 16:22 ---------- Previous post was at 16:04 ----------

Tell me that this system doesn't beg for dedicated weapons/equipment keys,

DG6P8AYg2c4

Edited September 9, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin
Fixed URL

[batto 17]

why would someone rage quit because they can't switch weapons with number keys ala Counter Strike?

Actually I did last time I played PR. The moment I was waiting for finally happened and enemy troops started conquering the objective. I had rifle in full-auto mode because I was in urban environment. Suddenly I saw back of several brits in distance so I wanted to change to maunal-fire and eliminate them but instead I switched to nades so I performed long nade-throw animation. I wanted to run back and try it again but since I tried to shoot the the rifle in first place I pressed the mouse button for very small amount of time so the nade landed just in front of me and killed me. I said "fuck this sh*t" and Alt-F4-ed it.

PR in fact has weapons on number keys but nades are still selectable only via F eg. mixed with fire mode switching.

Edited September 9, 2012 by batto

[Grey-Legolas 10]

Concerning Project reality, F-cicrle and generall switching weapons via current system in PvP - when PR has been just released previous september, there would certainly be at least one or two guys in a round who experienced the situation Batto has just described. People were so anxious about fighting vs real humans, not ai in the editor, that they systamaticaly missed the proper fire mode and either threw smoke grenades at the enemy or just has been killing there own squadmemebers by m67.

Of course, for switching from semi- to full automaticitc - its qute reasonable to have the same button, but to use it also for grenade throwing - it would be far too distressing for lots of people, especially new imo.

[chortles 263]

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

The old fanatics mean that to new players, but I think lately BI means that at the old fanatics. ;)

why would someone rage quit because they can't switch weapons with number keys ala Counter Strike?

Not sure how you can say "OFP fanatics are just used to it" when the old number key gun switch predates OFP.

Mondkalb was referring to "the very rough edges of the game" in general, but when you specify "OFP fanatics" I believe that they would have taken to the OFP/ARMA style instead of the old number key gun switches.

[VampyricTyrant 10]

The PvP Community of ArmA3 and how Bohemia should act

From my big expirience in ArmA series, playing and organizing tournaments i have to say a few stuff about how the PVP multiplayer must be in order to succeed

Many ppl Analise why ArmA fails to draw the PvP community. I believe the ArmA Arsenal is quite balanced. It doesn't need to be symmetrical, just both sides to have equivalent vehicles. I am pretty sure that very few people have played in tournaments (and NO two sided large battles don't count as tournaments). Trying your luck in unorganized public fights might be fun, but it has nothing to do with what PvP is. There have been huge talks in ArmA1 and ArmA2 threads about what the weapons should be on both sides etc. the real problem which is the lack of official maps and specific gaming modes. And that people here on the forums think that mods can be used in PvP. I personally don't want mod and I don't remember any game using third party software that managed to stay alive more than one year. The only game that managed to achieve it was CoD4 with "Promod", which is how they still play it. Like all games and sports you play both sides. The balance is playing two rounds with the assets of each side. It's up to the mission maker to balance the game. But BIS didn't bother to give us maps or gamemodes, that's the main problem the PvP community had to face since OFP. So the PvP communities entrenched themselves, and played on their own, without the rest of the ArmA players knowing about them or the opposite. Now the newcomers buy the damn game and have nothing to play, so they drop it, burn it or even feel deceived. Finally the PvP communities never get tired with the game content they keep playing the game because the become better with each match and this keeps them going.

1) The number of players is also a thing that has to be noted. In most games the competitive modes are never played with above 5 Counter-Strike, MOBA games, CoD, WoW.

2) Another thing is the type of PvP, the game mode they will and how it should be. To have a competitive league, tournament etc you have to own a fast-paced style in which teams will use strategy and skills, yeah ArmA does not revolve about skills since its way to easy to aim in contrast to Counter-Strike, Quake or CoD but on the other hand it offers a wide variety of tactics that can be used in each map. ArmA has the ability to offer many gaming-modes.

4) Have the same maps for competitive PvP and casual-public gaming. With no number restriction, in CS the same map can be played with 36 people or 10.

5) Anti-Cheat tools, you see what happened they day DayZ became mainstream

6) Replay tools! To create fan-base you have to provide them media and something to watch. Competition always has to do with spectators, look at MOBA games, Starcraft and Counter-Strike we live in the times of live-stream!

Game-Mods that could work:

Sector Control: as BIS mentions it (typical C&H in BF, Domination in World of Warcraft &Unreal Tournament (with no timer- reaching specific points ends the game), C&H in Tribes etc, the best implement in the ArmAverse is the re-spawn vehicles or mobile HQ or whatever, instead of instantly spawning in the objective like BF.

Attack/Defend: of games like Enemy Territory, or Team Fortress 1/2, WoW

King of the Hill: Delta Force, Team Fortess 1/2

Escort: Escort an object to a specific area Like in WoW or Team Fortress 1/2

VS Escort: both teams have to escort the same object to the same location whoever manages to grab it first wins

Some objective race: Both teams struggle to complete different objectives in the same area like WoW

Destory the enemy base: Not like CTI, like in C&C Renegade.

MOBA: its a trend, we haven't really seen any real moba style game in an FPS environment. It could work in ArmA if you mix it with some CTI elements (bases placed from the begging, follow specific routs)

Grifball: in Halo Reach is great, even it might be irrelevant to the ArmA sim attitude but still, it could be camouflaged.

Multi-round fast paced objective games with 2 minute rounds tops:

Objective: Plant/disarm bombs, Escort/Murder the VIP, Save the hostages

Bomb: like in Counter-Strike

Modes that would fail:

CTF: it's kinda hard to have CTF when the game is not that fast like the Quake clones or the coordination of WoW. Most CTF games end up with half the team guarding the flag.

TDM: kinda obvious. Spawning in random locations with the slower than quake clones arma style wont work.

CTI: it's fun it's great, planning an attack and driving for 20 minutes won't work.

Massive Battles in p resistant world: PlanetSide or like world war 2 online, i know its fun but its not competitive after some time people will drop it because it wont have any point.

NOTE: I do NOT say in any way that the system that the game has now has to change! NO WAY! KEEP CTI, Coop or Editor, just pay attention to the above.

I believe it's up to Bohemia to decide what they want, which gaming mode to promote and keep. They are a very creative company with a unique sale proposal, a game that has NO other to compete because it's very different on many aspects.

PS: I am pretty sure that random people will come here and spam irrelevant stuff like:

How real combat is,

Or how realism works,

Or how the PvP community has to develop it's own mods,

Or how PvP has to be like other corridorial games,

Or that the view distance must be limited,

Or that only totally symmetrical chess like maps must be used,

Or that ArmA is not made to be played that way,

Or that we should go play BF,

Or how a strategy must be performed an that I can take hours to fight a fight,

Or that a side with faster vehicles will win,

Or that we can open the editor add 10 playable airplanes and play in a tournament (because that's what they would do, or did with their friends and was fun).

We have heard all this a lot of times about PvP, because in fact they don't care about PvP and PvPers they won't even bother to play PvP or form a clan to join a tournament, they don't have any experience in it. So please, if you are not going to play ArmA3 in a competitive basis or have nothing constructive to add, do not bother to post anything, its pointless and you sure don't help. COOPers, DayZers and Milsims you have the best game possible, let us have ours.

PS2: There is no sarcasm in any of the above and no offense. I love the ArmA series and worked as hard as I could for the PvP communities with my pitiful knowledge of editing-scripting etc. would like to see the game have a good correspondence form more people.

[[frl]myke 14]

And that people here on the forums think that mods can be used in PvP. I personally don't want mod and I don't remember any game using third party software that managed to stay alive more than one year.

Counterstrike, most popular MP game ever (no matter if you like it or not): Usermade Mod for Half Life.

DoTa (Defense of the Ancients): also Usermade Gamemode.

But even in the Armaverse, the most played maps are made by Users: Evolution, Domination, Warfare (evolved from CTI) and recently DayZ.

Now, would you be so kind and explain me why it is so vital to have "official BI maps"?

[naizarak 4]

because we need something standardized that everyone can play by default without managing 50 separate mods. not everyone has the time and energy to join a dedicated community with its own custom mods/maps just to play pvp.

[batto 17]

Multi-round fast paced objective games with 2 minute rounds tops:

Objective: Plant/disarm bombs, Escort/Murder the VIP, Save the hostages

Bomb: like in Counter-Strike

2 mins is too short for bomb defusal. 3-5 minutes is ideal in CS. It may be a bit more in ArmA.

Modes that would fail:

CTF: it's kinda hard to have CTF when the game is not that fast like the Quake clones or the coordination of WoW. Most CTF games end up with half the team guarding the flag.

TDM: kinda obvious. Spawning in random locations with the slower than quake clones arma style wont work.

CTF does work in ArmA2. Only spawn system and win conditions are dumb. I think TDM could work great in ArmA. There are some public DM games already. If DM can work, then TDM can too. Both these mode would be better with equipment pickups on map though (eg. everybody starts with pistol). TDM in fast shooters is all about controlling the items on map.

Now somebody make it for me please :bounce3:.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Myke;2221526']Counterstrike' date=' most popular MP game ever (no matter if you like it or not): Usermade Mod for Half Life.[/quote']

That's a standalone. :)

But even in the Armaverse, the most played maps are made by Users: Evolution, Domination, Warfare (evolved from CTI) and recently DayZ.

Because BIS doesn't provide anything of worth in vanilla. The equivalents of Warfare BE are either lacking in features or proper team (asset) balance.

Now, would you be so kind and explain me why it is so vital to have "official BI maps"?

In order to standardise what the (new) player can expect of ArmA. Most quit, prior to discovering the missions which you have mentioned, the rest, finding them, give high praise to ArmA and its potential, but the train has left, and so have most of the people, who would be still played, had there been user-friendly interface and standardised gamemodes.

Might as well recruit Benny/Xeno to be BI Devs. :D

[[frl]myke 14]

because we need something standardized that everyone can play by default without managing 50 separate mods. not everyone has the time and energy to join a dedicated community with its own custom mods/maps just to play pvp.

Erm...you do know that missions are downloaded while joining a server if not already present on your PC? Mods aren't necesserly required.

[celery 8]

Thanks VT for taking the time to write such a big yet fairly clear collection of your thoughts.

Modes that would fail:

CTF: it's kinda hard to have CTF when the game is not that fast like the Quake clones or the coordination of WoW. Most CTF games end up with half the team guarding the flag.

TDM: kinda obvious. Spawning in random locations with the slower than quake clones arma style wont work.

CTF and TDM are simply rulesets and don't in themselves require Quake-like controls. Operation Flashpoint had at least 3 major CTF leagues, and the games were very intense with a shared importance on individual skill and team effort. TDM I sort of agree that it's not very exciting, because there are no objectives beyond doing what you already do in all other team-based pvp missions as a means to achieve some other goal. It's also much harder to make a good TDM mission because any cheap tactics and exploitation of whatever there is to exploit will directly contribute toward a team's victory.

Myke;2221526']But even in the Armaverse' date=' the most played maps are made by Users: Evolution, Domination, Warfare (evolved from CTI) and recently DayZ.

Now, would you be so kind and explain me why it is so vital to have "official BI maps"?[/quote']

A lot of people simply host a listen server, go through the official missions and never touch MP again. Players generally expect the most worthwhile content to ship with the game because that's almost always the case.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Celery has the right ideas.

To anyone mentioning the success of DayZ and/or modding,

http://i47.tinypic.com/10wu108.png (221 kB)

It speaks volumes of balance and gameplay cohesion, when there are more hackers in a Zombie apocalypse modification of the game, than there are players in the original/milsim online community.

[chortles 263]

Myke;2221576']Erm...you do know that missions are downloaded while joining a server if not already present on your PC? Mods aren't necesserly required.

The problem then is if those missions themselves require mods. ARMA 2: Free was an interesting step in that one HAD to make missions that were "vanilla" (no mods required).

because we need something standardized that everyone can play by default without managing 50 separate mods. not everyone has the time and energy to join a dedicated community with its own custom mods/maps just to play pvp.

Give this person a prize' date=' they get it... it's similar to why Apple, "consolization" and "app stores" are so prevalent in recent years. Putting up barriers to entry does NOT result in the self-selected "devoted" being somehow more elite, "tactical" or "teamwork" oriented. :rolleyes:

In order to standardise what the (new) player can expect of ArmA. Most quit, prior to discovering the missions which you have mentioned, the rest, finding them, give high praise to ArmA and its potential, but the train has left, and so have most of the people, who would be still played, had there been user-friendly interface and standardised gamemodes.

The idea of ARMA 3 as "milsim" already limits how much ARMA 3 will ever sell unless we have another "DayZ moment", by which I mean a "buy this game just for this mod" moment... which pretty much implies that milsim is explicitly not what the players are interested in and thus highlights how unpopular milsim (as opposed to the idea of milsim) really is, and "having a new DayZ moment" seems to come down to sheer luck; all this talk about why it catches on like wildfire is an "in hindsight" thing.

For what it's worth, interviews that RiE gave around the time of E3 suggested that a high-priority development goal was to address concerns that newcomers would have, possibly higher-priority than the wishes of long-time fans... especially when the long-time fans seem to have forgotten what it's like to NOT be in love with ARMA. :rolleyes: And then there's the time where I was on a TeamSpeak channel where at one point the conversation turned to how the players were playing ARMA 2: CO because ARMA 2 was such a terrible game... which sounds pretty much the opposite of what BI wants to have as the reputation of ARMA 3...

Considering how niche milsim is already, there's no need sales-wise that BI should limit its appeal even further.

Celery has the right ideas.

This applies to so much about ARMA 3 besides PVP, it's no coincidence that the most time I recently enjoyed ARMA 2: CO was playing deathmatch missions credited to Celery. :)

It speaks volumes of balance and gameplay cohesion, when there are more hackers in a Zombie apocalypse modification of the game, than there are players in the original/milsim online community.

One possible interpretation: "The original/milsim community and their game of choice, played the way they want to play it, are small and irrelevant in the scheme of things... but its engine powers something way more important than them."

As for the importance of a standardized "out of the box" experience... I have to imagine that Rocket's decision not to allow other mods, not even popular ones, to run alongside the DayZ mod was actually a net positive for DayZ by meaning one less step needed to setup and run DayZ, especially when it's so notorious as-is (though in fairness I imagine that that's partially due to how Steam treats Combined Operations and the OA beta patches) that he'll publicly joke about it or be on the receiving end of such a joke at PAX; this step is indeed consistent with the aforementioned 'standardized "out of the box" experience'.

[cychou 11]

Hello, I'm a dedicated PVP player on Arma 2, and I tested Everything since OFP : CTF, Warfare, TDM, AAS, C&H...etc

from my PvP experience the most accomplished PvP Missions for Arma 2 are the C&H Valhalla missions. why ?

- No AI

- Blufor vs Opfor

- Simple Capture and Hold rules (intuitive)

- various missions sizes : Small to XL battle area size.

- allow to use all the Arma 2 arsenal (tools, rifles, launchers, wheeled, tracked, choppers, planes...etc)

- Kill/Capture Money reward and buy menu system.

- Objective and MHQ Respawn, Base spawn protection...

These missions was originaly made by Winse and Roman Val (ArmaRU), and continued by Kochleffel (DAO).

https://dev-heaven.net/projects/vh/files (latest version in 1.04)

for me it's the best PvP system.

I personally brought modifications to some of these missions to be playable with ACE 2 Mod :

http://www.2shared.com/file/3jwP1M4S/CH_Valhalla_ACE_HC_1031.html

Edited September 10, 2012 by cychou

[chortles 263]

Hello, I'm a dedicated PVP player on Arma 2, and I tested Everything since OFP, CTF, Warefare, AAS, C&H...etc and from my PvP experience

the most accomplished PvP Missions for Arma 2 are the C&H Valhalla missions. why ?

- allow to use all the arsenal of Arma 2

- Simple Capture and Hold rules

- Money reward and price buying System

- Scripted system (Respawn, Spawn Protection..etc)

These missions was originaly made by Winse and Roman Val (ArmaRU), and continued by Kochleffel (DAO).

I did not found better PvP system than this one.

Not sure if C&H Valhalla really is as good as you say, BUT the four "bullet points" are all things that, whether or not I would agree with them, I would think are NOT "barriers to entry", so good stuff there!

Then again, I wouldn't mind seeing a "connect to multiplayer" interface that derives elements from other shooters... for example, matchmaking, since that's possible in games (such as BF3) with dedicated servers too. :icon_twisted:

But it is nice to see the player versus player aspect receive attention from the ARMA 3 devs, even if the main improvement that's visible so far has been enhancing the user interface and "sense of fluidity" when it comes to character control, which is an INDIRECT improvement to PVP.

[VampyricTyrant 10]

Myke;2221526']Counterstrike' date=' most popular MP game ever (no matter if you like it or not): Usermade Mod for Half Life.

DoTa (Defense of the Ancients): also Usermade Gamemode.

But even in the Armaverse, the most played maps are made by Users: Evolution, Domination, Warfare (evolved from CTI) and recently DayZ.

Now, would you be so kind and explain me why it is so vital to have "official BI maps"?[/quote']

I belive you are wrong with this comparison. This are not gamemodes but game mods ;) And BTW they had a huge fanbase, ArmA doesnt have even a small PvP fanbase, it has to build that, thats tha main problem. Even though, ArmA has specific official maps for it's tournaments as Dota has only one map, havent read stuff about Dota2, I am more of a LoL player myself :)))) These maps have been made by the company, they were tested and were made sure of how they sould be played. It's vital to have "official BI maps" so that a newcomer can play with the rest, practice in the same settings with the others etc. In fact I agree 10000% with naizarak

And the question here should be why the game doesn't have official BI maps? You pay for the package to ensure the fun. I don't know how to make maps and I don't care to learn how, thats how most people act.

2 mins is too short for bomb defusal. 3-5 minutes is ideal in CS. It may be a bit more in ArmA.

The timer in CS 1.6 games was 1 Minute and 45 seconds, as its in WCG. But now with CS:GO having smaller maps it might be reduced. 3 mins it too long waiting time for a "dead player", a spectator.

CTF does work in ArmA2. Only spawn system and win conditions are dumb. I think TDM could work great in ArmA. There are some public DM games already. If DM can work, then TDM can too. Both these mode would be better with equipment pickups on map though (eg. everybody starts with pistol). TDM in fast shooters is all about controlling the items on map.

Now somebody make it for me please :bounce3:.

As I said above in games like Quake and UT you can grab the flag and with skill and cover by your team, you can acutally score, in ArmA every tournament with CTF ends up with half the team guarding the flag, having a boring and static game. In the Quake, UT verse they play only duels, there is no team-mode that ever worked its way in any serious tournament. Either way TD is a joke, its pointless to have fast shooters in a game in which speed dosent matter since ArmA doesn't revolve around skill, it would fail, plus it's not fun and wouldn't work as an e-sport.

Myke;2221576']Erm...you do know that missions are downloaded while joining a server if not already present on your PC? Mods aren't necesserly required.

Still this doesn't make the official, might work for COOP but not for PvP.

Chortles

You don't know what PvP is, you never played, no worth to answer you. Apart for an automatch, if it would find you another clan with ranking. But we know this is not going to happen.

[batto 17]

The timer in CS 1.6 games was 1 Minute and 45 seconds, as its in WCG. But now with CS:GO having smaller maps it might be reduced. 3 mins it too long waiting time for a "dead player", a spectator.

I'm not sure but I think that most of the CS 1.6 games I've played had timer set to 3-4 minutes. 1:45 is rush or fail without unexpected turnarounds. Dead players are... dead. They can hope for round success and therefore more money.

As I said above in games like Quake and UT you can grab the flag and with skill and cover by your team, you can acutally score, in ArmA every tournament with CTF ends up with half the team guarding the flag, having a boring and static game.

See Celery's post above. Also increasing respawn delays in overtime can solve such porc.

In the Quake, UT verse they play only duels, there is no team-mode that ever worked its way in any serious tournament. Either way TD is a joke, its pointless to have fast shooters in a game in which speed dosent matter since ArmA doesn't revolve around skill, it would fail, plus it's not fun and wouldn't work as an e-sport.

Well, you certainly don't play Quake (or Xonotic) too much because TDM/CTF is actually pretty active (I'm talking about cups). Also aim and movement skill alone will not win you duel/TDM/CTF game in Quake. TDM games are more about teamplay and map (items/quad) control. This could be same in ArmA TDM where you'd spawn with pistol and items would be smgs, rifles, nades, ... Quad could be helicopter for one minute ala CoD:MW. But I'm also not sure if it would work. It will definitely not work with current playerbase. And it's not even as interesting as bomb defusal for example.

Edited September 10, 2012 by batto

[celery 8]

As I said above in games like Quake and UT you can grab the flag and with skill and cover by your team, you can acutally score, in ArmA every tournament with CTF ends up with half the team guarding the flag, having a boring and static game.

The CTF matches I've played in Flashpoint leagues and tournaments were anything but static, and I've played in all notable CTF competitions from 2003 to 2006. Dedicating half of your team to defense is just asking for trouble when the opponent can pretty much dominate the middle field with little opposition and then proceed to sweep the obvious camping spots of the flag area.

Either way TD is a joke, its pointless to have fast shooters in a game in which speed dosent matter since ArmA doesn't revolve around skill, it would fail, plus it's not fun and wouldn't work as an e-sport.

What else than skill is it when you maneuver yourself more favorably and aim faster and more accurately to defeat your enemy in Arma?

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

One possible interpretation: "The original/milsim community and their game of choice, played the way they want to play it, are small and irrelevant in the scheme of things... but its engine powers something way more important than them."

No, the point is, in vanilla ArmA, which is an FPS, you have to fight, and fight you do with crap controls and whatnot, but in a mod like DayZ, people who have never played any of the originals feel comfortable, because it can be played like an RPG, and suddenly the crap scroll lists don't exert such a heavy toll on the player, when you can disengage at will most of the time.

It's a case of "Why play ArmA, when there's Battlefield 3 with the same concept, but on a lesser scale and with proper gamemodes, balance and controls?".

---------- Post added at 13:42 ---------- Previous post was at 13:29 ----------

BIS could work on CTI-Warfare, some standardised Co-op CTI ala Evo/Demo, TvT C&H ala Ber[z]erk, which would total only two very popular general Gamemodes/Missions (Warfare & Evo/Domi equivalents) and the rest is various TvT.

PvP CTI, Co-Op CTI, and TvT are equally important, but TvT presents more room for scenarios: hostage situations, CTF, bomb/defuse, DM and many more. Copy other games in this regard if need be, because no matter how hard you do it, ArmA will stay OFP, which is great.

Talk of professional 5v5 official matches on some obscure patch of land is out the question, because without proper public gameplay, you won't evolve the playerbase to reach that level.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin

[VampyricTyrant 10]

I'm not sure but I think that most of the CS 1.6 games I've played had timer set to 3-4 minutes. 1:45 is rush or fail without unexpected turnarounds. Dead players are... dead. They can hope for round success and therefore more money.

Like it or not it's the standard WCG,CPL,ESL system.

The CTF matches I've played in Flashpoint leagues and tournaments were anything but static, and I've played in all notable CTF competitions from 2003 to 2006. Dedicating half of your team to defense is just asking for trouble when the opponent can pretty much dominate the middle field with little opposition and then proceed to sweep the obvious camping spots of the flag area.

What else than skill is it when you maneuver yourself more favorably and aim faster and more accurately to defeat your enemy in Arma?

You sound right, to be honest I don't have much expirience in CTF in ArmA, maybe with a good design it could work.

[NoRailgunner 0]

BIS just need to lure new players into A3 with proper training sp + mp missions so they do have to experience most or all of the important stuff on their own and with friends. Of course those missions need to hit the sweet spot between "too harsh" and "too gamey". Maybe Celery will "volunteer" as A3 pvp drill sergeant on public servers? ;)

[old_painless 182]

From when my son and his friends play PvP in Modern Warfare 3 on the Xbox, I can see one thing missing from Arma to provide the same experience: Small maps awash with objects, enough stuff to immerse you in the environment. For instance, one map in MW3 is an airport which has been under a attack of some kind - there are turned over baggage carts and suitcases in the hallways, there is - naturally - a Boeing passenger jet that you can enter and fight in, the electrical wiring is hanging down in the place where the bomb went off, the tax free shops with some shelves turned over are also part of the environment and so on and so on. For a lack of a better word, it's graphically more convinsing. Perhaps not resolutionwise, but then again the gamestyle is fast paced anyway so you don't stand around for too long. But the maps just provide so much detail. There is another map, an Asian jungle village with dirt paths, a muddy jungle river, canoos, primitive huts, lianas - all the jungle decor needed for conveying the sense that you are there.

If Arma could have small maps with plenty of detail, I am pretty sure that could provide some of the PvP experience that the competition has to offer. And some fast paced fun for all of us to quickly jump in and play around in, when time does not allow for longer scenarios

-OP

Edited September 11, 2012 by Old_Painless

[jumpartist 0]

Well im sure alot of us know how PR:ARMA really made PvP popular. And it was with a damn near stock game. Their mission was tight thanks to Dr. Eyeball. If they hired him to make the PvP end of ARMA 3 Id play the crap out of it. It had an awesome squad setup, squadleaders had tools, and if BIS added in the commander (like they were going to before they self distructed) then I think you have a really great recipe for large scale, packed servers that have "Advanced" gameplay that rises above the simplicity of the consolized BF3, Cod gameplay.