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

[ratszo 17]

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.

Agreed.

The hope is arma3 will have solid out-of-the-box, ready to play PvP.

Arma:PR shows public PvP can be done well, with simple ui features and game modes on standard maps.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

On CTI:

We had awesomely populated and competitive public PvP with full servers across the board courtesy of Benny and his Warfare, and the ACE 2 developers: ACE 2 was necessary to fix the Tunguska issue along with many other disbalances, Benny provided a Warfare ACE 2 version for every island at that time: Cherno, Utes, Isla Duala, Quesh Kibrul, Everon even!

Servers were full 24/7, then came Operation Arrowhead and split the community. From ArmA II original release, the most important issue was the lack of aircraft flares in vanilla, so by installing Op Arrowhead, people didn't see further need in ACE 2, and so vanilla Benny Edition Taki Warfare, which had units from ArmA II USMC, Russian Federation, Taki opfor, Nato forces, became the gamemode of choice. Without Ben, Taki would've been dead due to disbalance.

I mean, does anyone even remember what Quesh Kibrul is? Awesome island, so many intense hold-the-line & flanking and counter-flanking (in boats, helicopters, on foot) games on it.

Edited September 11, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin

[kotov12345 10]

On CTI:

We had awesomely populated and competitive public PvP with full servers across the board courtesy of Benny and his Warfare, and the ACE 2 developers: ACE 2 was necessary to fix the Tunguska issue along with many other disbalances, Benny provided a Warfare ACE 2 version for every island at that time: Cherno, Utes, Isla Duala, Quesh Kibrul, Everon even!

Servers were full 24/7, then came Operation Arrowhead and split the community.

as far as I remember problems started when ace started makes updates every week.HS told they not gonna follow updates as well as map makers told they not gonna change maps with every update.ACE told we dont care as well. We will continue do everyweek updates and doesnt matter if anyone will play ace or not.

my opinion ''Checked'' islands need to be included in official patch.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

as far as I remember problems started when ace started makes updates every week.HS told they not gonna follow updates as well as map makers told they not gonna change maps with every update.ACE told we dont care as well. We will continue do everyweek updates and doesnt matter if anyone will play ace or not.

my opinion ''Checked'' islands need to be included in official patch.

Yeah, it was a mix of problems, Benny had had it with ACE 2 scripts bugging the mission and decision went out to stick to vanilla Taki with units from the expansion and the original game. In Warfare's case, Benny later modded the M6 Linebacker with Tunguska's missiles, and then nobody had aircraft, but we played on. xD

[total 1]

I hope it becomes an out-of-the-box 100% PvP mode. Think it had become incredibly popular to have had a mode that takes place all over the island, where clans / players can cooperate to fight against other clans / players and not just against NPC's.

Eg. Each team owns half the island (starting with random cities), it's also about taking over city after city with a ticket-system. As in the Battlefield games. Or something more creative.

Had been cool if it was possible with clan matches in Arma 3.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

I hope it becomes an out-of-the-box 100% PvP mode. Think it had become incredibly popular to have had a mode that takes place all over the island, where clans / players can cooperate to fight against other clans / players and not just against NPC's.

Eg. Each team owns half the island (starting with random cities), it's also about taking over city after city with a ticket-system. As in the Battlefield games. Or something more creative.

Had been cool if it was possible with clan matches in Arma 3.

You're talking about Capture The Island in ArmA, which works on a similar basis, though instead of having to reduce the other team's "tickets", victory conditions in Warfare are either to destroy the enemy base or capture all towns. Gameplay spans across the whole island, with each team starting out with a HQ vehicle to construct the base with, limited supplies and arsenal, then as they acquire more resources/towns, upgrades can be done and new factories can be built to buy (spawn) anything from a simple Humvee M2 at the Light Vehicle Factory to M1 tanks and artillery from Heavy Vehicle factory, to transport and attack helicopters at Air Factory. Usually it has been 32-40 players per server, 16v16, or 20v20, but each player can purchase on average 10 AI infantry, or AI crews for all types of vehicles, so that makes it 32 x 10 = 320 units from players alone, not counting the 3rd insurgent force in the uncaptured towns.

Uncaptured towns at the start of the game are occupied by a 3rd force, which is AI, though later most of the action is PvP between Opfor and Blufor and their armies of AI. There are a lot of settings for this particular mission, and AI for both teams can be disabled or reduced to 3 per player, for an example.

P.S. A human commander on each team can tend to the crucial stuff, like building the base, setting up base defenses and upgrading technology, so everyone else can focus on fighting 99% of the time. Link to Warfare BE download, http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?138805-Warfare-BE

It used to be played 24/7 with full servers, not sure about the current multiplayer climate, but you can try it out alone vs AI to get the hang of its features and sides, which are very competitively balanced in terms of equipment, BTW.

Edited September 11, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin

[Opticalsnare 12]

Tbh the controls are the biggest problem. Its the way everything works in terms of movement and how weapons are aimmed. Theres always been a massive clunkyness feel to the game the way a soldier moves about the map, not so bad in a open area but once your in a Town or Village its just awful. Its like your trying to control a puppet with rubber bands. I tried to get some of my friends into the game and although they loved being able to pound the hell outta eachother with Tanks and Aircraft, Artillery. But after awhile they all pretty much came to same opinion that being a soldier was shit because it acted clumsy & robotic.

You have to remember most of has been playing like this for a good few years and have got quite used to it. But to other people and especially someone who hasnt played the game before its horrible and can be a real putoff.

[-Coulum- 35]

Tbh the controls are the biggest problem. Its the way everything works in terms of movement and how weapons are aimmed. Theres always been a massive clunkyness feel to the game the way a soldier moves about the map, not so bad in a open area but once your in a Town or Village its just awful. Its like your trying to control a puppet with rubber bands. I tried to get some of my friends into the game and although they loved being able to pound the hell outta eachother with Tanks and Aircraft, Artillery. But after awhile they all pretty much came to same opinion that being a soldier was shit because it acted clumsy & robotic.

You have to remember most of has been playing like this for a good few years and have got quite used to it. But to other people and especially someone who hasnt played the game before its horrible and can be a real putoff.

I can agree with that. I believe the clunkiness due to the weird mouse acceleration is one of the biggest contributors to this, and makes is very unenjoyable to play arma "just for the fun of it". You have to really like the game to ignore the clunkiness. Luckily I believe that this is being fixed (mouse acceleration that is) so A3 control is more like that of a regular FPS. Quick to learn and easy to perform.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

I can agree with that. I believe the clunkiness due to the weird mouse acceleration is one of the biggest contributors to this, and makes is very unenjoyable to play arma "just for the fun of it". You have to really like the game to ignore the clunkiness. Luckily I believe that this is being fixed (mouse acceleration that is) so A3 control is more like that of a regular FPS. Quick to learn and easy to perform.

Speaking of competitive (weapons) controls, I've answered a few questions on what and why can or can not be done in the examples that you've provided, http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?139228-Controls-Scheme-amp-User-Interface-Feedback&p=2221842&viewfull=1#post2221842

[JCDBionicman 1]

Having a pvp game mode that competes or even copies the two big brands is only a matter of a mission maker scripting those mechanics into a mission and adding appropriate assets to the sides. The problem I see currently is that a very big portion of the would-be pvp crowd has no interest in the editing aspect of the game, and those who might be able to do it are discouraged by the low number of pvp players active in the community, meaning that their hard work would hardly be put to use. I made lots of traditional style pvp missions for the CWR² mod but the game tracker hasn't shown them to be played all that much.

I would be interested in playing this. Could someone give me a link?

[mmaruda 20]

As for the clunkiness in the controls and mouse acceleration, I believe it was made to simulate weapon weight and how generally the body reacts to rapid movement, however in RL we have better and more intuitive control and feel about what we do. Anyway, I find moving and aiming weapons easier in RL than in Arma. ;)

[-Coulum- 35]

As for the clunkiness in the controls and mouse acceleration, I believe it was made to simulate weapon weight and how generally the body reacts to rapid movement, however in RL we have better and more intuitive control and feel about what we do. Anyway, I find moving and aiming weapons easier in RL than in Arma.

I wouldn't say easier, but rather more natural. Especially at long range, there are something I cannot do with equal precision and speed as in arma

. But then there are some things I can do with much more speed and precision.

. I think the new weapon control and sway in A3 will make the control more realistic overall.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

As for the clunkiness in the controls and mouse acceleration, I believe it was made to simulate weapon weight and how generally the body reacts to rapid movement, however in RL we have better and more intuitive control and feel about what we do. Anyway, I find moving and aiming weapons easier in RL than in Arma. ;)

Also in real life it effects each individual differently. I think it was one of those things that was a nice idea but when combining weapon sway, head bob and mouse acceleration it goes a step too far, and the mouse acceleration is the most frustrating of the 3 because there is a sensory disconection between your mouse movement and screen movement where in real life you feel the weight and muscle strain and tiredness that inhibits the co-ordination. Its a big concept to try and convey and that level of frustration takes a toll on the entertainment factor wich is kind of critical for any game, even a sim.

I think a litlle head bob and weapon sway work because they are more visual and we read them instantly. These in the right amount is enough.

PS. perfect comparison there -Coulum-

Edited September 14, 2012 by Pathetic_Berserker

[chortles 263]

ACE told we dont care as well. We will continue do everyweek updates and doesnt matter if anyone will play ace or not.

And this is why ACE3 is a deviation from the ARMA 3 baseline and not the baseline for unmodded vanilla ARMA 3 gameplay. :p

The hope is arma3 will have solid out-of-the-box, ready to play PvP.

Pretty much the best that can be hoped for, and you've voiced the best development priority for ARMA 3 ANYTHING. We'll have won if this is newcomers' impression of ARMA 3: "solid out-of-the-box, ready to play".

You have to remember most of has been playing like this for a good few years and have got quite used to it. But to other people and especially someone who hasnt played the game before its horrible and can be a real putoff.

And unlike what the old hardcores may think, the fresh blood are the real key to selling ARMA 3 now that "word of mouth" is out there so much thanks to DayZ -- I like to think of it as "less echo chamber" to warp BI's understanding of player feedback. :icon_twisted:

I can agree with that. I believe the clunkiness due to the weird mouse acceleration is one of the biggest contributors to this, and makes is very unenjoyable to play arma "just for the fun of it". You have to really like the game to ignore the clunkiness.

And if someone really likes the game enough to ignore the clunkiness, then they're the wrong person to talk to about how a newcomer would take it. ;)

Luckily I believe that this is being fixed (mouse acceleration that is) so A3 control is more like that of a regular FPS. Quick to learn and easy to perform.

A dev previously weighed in that "Mouse smoothing and acceleration is FPS standard" :) It also reminds me of how it was said that aiming deadzone is still in but just disabled when RiE was controlling the E3 build or when BI, journalists and players were controlling the Gamescom build -- "quick to learn and easy to perform" for media and players just getting their first experience with ARMA 3!!

Also in real life it effects each individual differently.

This sounds like one of the things that was fundamentally wrong with the suppression thread, that those demanding suppression as a game mechanic simply did not seem to accept "it effects each individual differently" as a physiological reality, but I'm glad that you're saying this about weapon weight. I personally found ARMA 2's on-the-move weapon sway to be excessive and I couldn't fix mouse acceleration even after maxing out mouse axis sensitivity, but I would at least turn off head bob and aiming dead zone and the weapon handling still didn't feel right, so I'm glad that the devs have reportedly changed mouse acceleration to "FPS standard" as well for ARMA 3.

[Yeti1 1]

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.

Shoulder launched rockets, war footage from BF3 ?

The fact is correct though, that Arma works better with scale, without scale you lose a lot of the quirks which make this game so dam good.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

The fact is correct though, that Arma works better with scale, without scale you lose a lot of the quirks which make this game so dam good.

We could even say that game falls apart the second you step into a building... ArmA III fixes that with new animations, weapon handling, stances & the improved physics simulation, and maybe even controls - dedicated weapon/equipment selection keys, anyone?

---------- Post added at 16:38 ---------- Previous post was at 16:30 ----------

OTDDwKQncEY

Starved for info, so we're left with this footage. I'm confident that if they continue in this direction, we could see an overall revive of PvP.

The key to newbie PvP is infantry: when a new player gets ArmA III, he expect the same controls as are in other FPS titles; vehicle and aircraft controls are already up-to standard and it is expected that they would differ from other games, but the single unit - the character of the player is sacred and must be refined to a point, where the player doesn't have to battle the controls in order to even access the main features of the game.

Everyone would appreciate dedicated equipment keys and the removal of vital weaponry from the F key, which should be a fire selector only.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin

[maturin 12]

Why are PvP players so allergic to the controls? Probably because it's not actually about controls (minus the CoD kiddies that give up in five minutes) but about community and mission infrastructure. ShackTac seems to have no problem with PvP using ACE and ArmA controls.

And why should the controls be like other FPS? Everything else about the game needs to be learned, because it's a series from an earlier time where players were expected to actually RTFM and grow at the game. The controls are already essentially similar to FPS titles just...

BETTER.

Minus the animation and mouse control issues, the controls are flat out superior and not a single ounce of functionality should be sacrificed.

This sounds like one of the things that was fundamentally wrong with the suppression thread, that those demanding suppression as a game mechanic simply did not seem to accept "it effects each individual differently" as a physiological reality, but I'm glad that you're saying this about weapon weight.

This was always an inane argument, since it was being used to suggest that the bizarre reaction of 'nothing at all/does not care about bullets' should be standardized for all units, rather than going with the generalized reaction that characterizes war and creates better gameplay. You aren't playing yourself, you're playing a soldier, and you don't get to choose that your avatar is wholly without fear and stress responses. It's like arguing that everyone reacts the gunshot injury differently (true) and therefore we shouldn't have to suffer from pain effects.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Why are PvP players so allergic to the controls? Probably because it's not actually about controls (minus the CoD kiddies that give up in five minutes) but about community and mission infrastructure.

The same 2000 people, who have been playing for 10 years have adapted and they of course will not see a problem with controls. CQB in ArmA? Nah, we're not "cod", "bf", "rainbow six", "swat 4" etc, etc.

Do you know why people avoid CQB in ArmA? Because of crap controls, there are so many situations where you have to use the frag grenade, but you know it's stuck on that crap F-cycle list and you might mistap and instead of selecting Frag, you go to Smoke (red), and then all the way back to Single fire rate mode, through Smoke (red) -> Smoke (green) -> Satchel -> Mines -> Single -> Burst/Full. And this is but one example.

And even if you do end up selecting the grenade in the F menu, you get to wait a long animation, which arrests all movement and often bugs you to the point of this grenade being a waste of time. You might as well run behind that wall and kill the enemy point blank.

And why should the controls be like other FPS? Everything else about the game needs to be learned, because it's a series from an earlier time where players were expected to actually RTFM and grow at the game. The controls are already essentially similar to FPS titles just...

BETTER.

Keep telling yourself that ONE-DIMENSIONAL Action scroll list and the ONE-DIMENSIONAL F-cycle key is "BETTER" in an FPS game, which ArmA is.

The average muzzle velocity of ammunition is probably 800 m/s in this game - if that's not twitchy, I don't know what is. Don't kid yourself.

RZEMJpn4ACU

First we didn't need animations, then we didn't need proper physics, and now redundant scroll lists for an FPS game are fine, and "compliment the complexity" of the game, allegedly.

I rest my case.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin

[[frl]myke 14]

And even if you do end up selecting the grenade in the F menu, you get to wait a long animation, which arrests all movement and often bugs you to the point of this grenade being a waste of time. You might as well run behind that wall and kill the enemy point blank.

Ever thrown a Grenade in real life, in a combat-like situation? I guess not. And before you ask: yes, i did, training rounds for that matter. Same explosive charge minus the splittering parts. And that's why ArmA 2 feels authentic (not realistic) to me.

The average muzzle velocity of ammunition is probably 800 m/s in this game - if that's not twitchy, I don't know what is. Don't kid yourself.

The average muzzle velocity is indeed ~800m/s, so what else should it be then ingame? Faster? Slower?

[maturin 12]

The same 2000 people, who have been playing for 10 years have adapted and they of course will not see a problem with controls. CQB in ArmA? Nah, we're not "cod", "bf", "rainbow six", "swat 4" etc, etc.

Everyone is aware of the issues with the controls. I just can't tell why PvP is so special. The clans seem to do just fine.

Do you know why people avoid CQB in ArmA? Because of crap controls, there are so many situations where you have to use the frag grenade, but you know it's stuck on that crap F-cycle list and you might mistap and instead of selecting Frag, you go to Smoke (red), and then all the way back to Single fire rate mode, through Smoke (red) -> Smoke (green) -> Satchel -> Mines -> Single -> Burst/Full. And this is but one example.

That's a UI/weapon management system, whereas I (and you) was talking about character/movement and aiming.

And even if you do end up selecting the grenade in the F menu, you get to wait a long animation, which arrests all movement and often bugs you to the point of this grenade being a waste of time. You might as well run behind that wall and kill the enemy point blank.

So, more like how grenades are supposed to be used in real life? Minus the movement-arresting stance, grenades in ArmA are just like old-school FPS pre-Halo and CoD, where you had to actually take out the grenade and make the difficult decision to expose yourself, rather than just lolspamming every doorway as you sprint through it.

The average muzzle velocity of ammunition is probably 800 m/s in this game - if that's not twitchy, I don't know what is. Don't kid yourself.

What the flying fuck are you talking about?

First we didn't need animations, then we didn't need proper physics, and now redundant scroll lists for an FPS game are fine, and "compliment the complexity" of the game, allegedly.

I rest my case.

You rest an inexplicable strawman tangent. I'm lost.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Myke;2225047']Ever thrown a Grenade in real life' date=' in a combat-like situation? I guess not. And before you ask: yes, i did, training rounds for that matter. Same explosive charge minus the splittering parts. And that's why ArmA 2 feels authentic (not realistic) to me.[/quote']

Mistaping the selection of the M203 under barrel grenade launcher on the F key must also be authentic, does it simulate greasy fingers or lack of coordination?

Regarding grenades: Rifle is suspended on a sling, your grenades are not in your mag pouch, nor will they be in the backpack, or the trousers, they're on a tactical vest in a small velcro pouch for a damn reason. Place grenades on dedicated weapon key, make the animations as long as you want, but make it fluid and don't arrest the character in place.

Vl6kTrFznWU

The average muzzle velocity is indeed ~800m/s, so what else should it be then ingame? Faster? Slower?

Non-retard animations for starters, see the Arma 3 GameStar.de 7/7 infantry combat video above.

---------- Post added at 17:32 ---------- Previous post was at 17:29 ----------

Everyone is aware of the issues with the controls. I just can't tell why PvP is so special. The clans seem to do just fine.

Then, I guess the rest of the nabs will have to adapt to antiquated scrolls lists. They haven't with ArmA II - gee, I wonder why. Oops.

That's a UI/weapon management system, whereas I (and you) was talking about character/movement and aiming.

You're not listening. Read the controls & interface thread from cover to cover if you're that interested and knowledgeable.

What the flying fuck are you talking about?

Nothing, enjoy your RTS experience. Or is it turn-by-turn?

[maturin 12]

Mistaping the selection of the M203 under barrel grenade launcher on the F key must also be authentic, does it simulate greasy fingers or lack of coordination?

NO ONE IS DEFENDING the awful action menu and F selection. Stop blathering like you're defeating arguments that don't exist.

You're not listening. Read the controls & interface thread from cover to cover if you're that interested and knowledgeable.

Read an entire excruciating thread because you can't seem to formulate a coherent post?

Nothing, enjoy your RTS experience. Or is it turn-by-turn?

You know, most RTS tend to have hitscan, so the muzzle velocity is technically the speed of light. Stop trolling.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

NO ONE IS DEFENDING the awful action menu and F selection. Stop blathering like you're defeating arguments that don't exist.

Read an entire excruciating thread because you can't seem to formulate a coherent post?

You're the clown here, it's obvious CONTROLS imply weapon controls, as in dedicated weapon keys, not "Space bar to jump".

Like I said, enjoy your one-dimensional scroll and F-cycle lists.

[dmarkwick 261]

NO ONE IS DEFENDING the awful action menu and F selection. Stop blathering like you're defeating arguments that don't exist.

Read an entire excruciating thread because you can't seem to formulate a coherent post?

This is a common occurrence :) everyone must be discussing whatever it is Iriquios is currently thinking about. If not, everyone else needs to catch up.

RE grenade actions: I don't believe that the greneade selection is actually the problem, (although it is, just a smaller one), it's more the practicalities of using the grenades effectively. Currently, there is only one way to use them, open space, of ranges between the guesstimated minimum and maximum. Slopes compound the issue. Grenade throws cannot be cancelled so if you throb on the range you've lost a grenade for not much reason.

Edited September 16, 2012 by DMarkwick

[chortles 263]

Take it to the controls and interface thread guys!

Maturin, regarding the suppression thread, I didn't actually argue for NO suppression in that bit you quoted, it was more an argument with the idea of any specific reaction being standardized across all units, since even in the game universe individuals would react differently to "being suppressed", and the idea of suppression was itself up for debate about its definition in that thread. There's the idea of "some affected more than others", but then that'd just devolve into arguments over which units get what degree of effects, to say nothing of what specific effects a "suppression state" in game mechanics would mean, so I didn't mention that in what you quoted.

Myke;2225047']The average muzzle velocity is indeed ~800m/s' date=' so what else should it be then ingame? Faster? Slower?[/quote']That's in ARMA 2, right? Incidentally, I took a look at purported muzzle velocities for the 6.5 mm Grendel (the nearest real-life counterpart to the "6.5mm" in ARMA 3's E3/GC builds) and while tracking down primary-source numbers is hard to come by, the loads given on its Wikipedia page range from 750 m/s to 880 m/s! Although, this is partially a function of barrel length (and partially the load)... and we do NOT know if ARMA 3 actually simulates barrel length for ballistics purposes as opposed to just accounting for caliber and distance-to-target.