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

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Yep If we keep like its now you have to scroll throu all modes to open that toilet and as a bonus the swap to side arm and shoulder main weapon and what ever command is put in your action menu.

AHA! I know exactly how you feel with regards to the scroll lists, but if you followed the Controls & Interface thread, you'd know that we have found a solution to unload the action scroll menu of weapon selection and other misc stuff. A single action key could be used for climbing ladders/opening doors, seeing as there's no further need in the scroll menu in the proposed schemes.

[chortles 263]

Some FPS on the other hand go a bit too far with that fluid thing, especially in regards to mounting vehicles. In some of them a player is able to mount a tank driving by at high speed simply by pressing [E] at the right time as if he was

. This may be okay for certain FPS, but IMO would not fit into ArmA (not only because of immersion but also because of gameplay reasons).

... ahahahahaha, here you are believing that ARMA is any "better":

Alternately:

Which I'm sure you've mentioned in nearly every thread already.

It's long worn out its welcome and veered into the territory of "broken record" :rolleyes:

I will say to rufor, as of the Gamescom build infantry looked MUCH more fluid than previous ARMA games,

Also you CAN mount a tank moving at 50kmH in ArmA with abit of scroll menu skill ;)

And this is honestly the best part. ;)

[ric 1]

That is because Battlefield is a fun teamplay game not a simulator. I meant the movement of the soldier is beyond anything imaginable in the ArmA engine simply because it actually feels human and not artificial like ArmA. Also you CAN mount a tank moving at 50kmH in ArmA with abit of scroll menu skill ;)

Teamplay? 6 drunk guys on TS3 camping choke points is not exactly what i call team work ;) but i do agree i would like to see server side options that would allow a server tobe a mindless run n gun fest like DukeNukemfield 3 is now and I say that because I come the flight community where we had what we called Air-quAke servers that were on "easy" setting meaning there was external views,padlock no over overheat...etc and what happened was people would play that mode and get bored and seek more difficult setting's till they arrived and the full-switch level which was as difficult AND REALISTIC as it could get...you were in the cockpit with a map and nothing else..you had to employ REAL life tactics in dog fighting in order to survive and navigate.

Now if the game had ONLY full-swItch settings i Don't thing it would have grown to be as popular as it is..(the game is IL2 sturmovick BTW) The biggest problem for alot of people in BF3 is they have done the exact opposite...they will not let you play it any way but the way they want you play it...no server side options for realism or difficulty...you cant even control the number of kits per side that each team gets so you wind up with half a team of snipers and the rest are just cannon fodder for the opposing teams snipers and then there is the constant "balancing" of the weapons and if forces you to wonder why they even bothered with modeling real life weapons to begin with if they are not going to make them as realistic as possible....in the end BF3 is just HALO type game with a different face :(

Sorry if this has already been covered but i did not real ALL 48 pages :)

[chortles 263]

Teamplay? 6 drunk guys on TS3 camping choke points is not exactly what i call team work ;) but i do agree i would like to see server side options that would allow a server tobe a mindless run n gun fest

It's what happens whenever I try to play ARMA though :p And "server side options that would allow a server to be a mindless run n gun fest" is already in ARMA, it's called "Deathmatch mission with quick respawn"* :D

And you're incorrect, there are server side 'difficulty' options over in BF3 besides Hardcore mode, such as turning off the infamous "Doritos" 3D spotting; the problem is just that for the most part a lot of the basic rules aren't included in those options, but I suppose that that was because DICE never intended for some of them to be altered (i.e. "only so many kits per team") and explicitly did indeed think "only play it the way WE allow", which of course is not quite how BI thinks of ARMA 3... which is more "only play it the way THE MISSION MAKER allows... and maybe some ways that he or she didn't think of countering". :p

* MAG for PS3 used a rolling team-wide 20 second respawn timer that was semi-independent of when your character bled out or was shot "dead", so while the infantry gameplay and tactics were arcade-y, there was an (unrealistic) element of team strategy decision-making if you were only incapacitated -- wait for and hope for a revive, or choose to instanteously bleed out with hopefully time left so that you'd load in (to the respawn screen) without missing the respawn wave that'd occur after the respawn timer countdown.

[rufor 1]

Hey, rufor, there are no vehicle seats in Battlefield 3, though, correct? You can operate a tank with WASD and the turret with the mouse from a single position AFAIK.

In ArmA III, BIS could do in-vehicle interaction and changing of positions via the 0-9 number row keys, tap Key 1 for Driver's seat; Key 2 for Gunner's seat; Key 3 for Commander's seat; Key 4 to "Get out", etc. :) Full layout and info here, http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?139228-Controls-Scheme-amp-User-Interface-Feedback&p=2216817&viewfull=1#post2216817

To factor in realism, a several seconds transition delay with a black screen could be added between the above actions - Very relevant to PvP: balance would be kept, as well as authenticity. :)

Inspired by Crysis 1, though it does have instant swap between seats.

That would be nice because honestly AI's are horrible gunners and tanks don't even have proper FCS stabilization systems.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

That would be nice because honestly AI's are horrible gunners and tanks don't even have proper FCS stabilization systems.

Ya, no more scrolling in combat, or looking for that Eject action in an emergency. :) You can already insta-swap with the scroll list between positions, so this other system would be even more authentic, provided they have a transition delay.

Or trying to disembark in an LZ situation, where 16 grown men are looking for that "Get out" action on the cursed scroll list with a "HURR-DURR" expressions on their faces. : D

[pathetic_berserker 4]

Ya, no more scrolling in combat, or looking for that Eject action in an emergency. :) You can already insta-swap with the scroll list between positions, so this other system would be even more authentic, provided they have a transition delay.

Or trying to disembark in an LZ situation, where 16 grown men are looking for that "Get out" action on the cursed scroll list with a "HURR-DURR" expressions on their faces. : D

Umm, shouldn't need to remind you 'eject' also has a hot key. 'C' and I mapped 'C' double tap to get out, all fixed

Edited October 17, 2012 by Pathetic_Berserker

[chortles 263]

That post is like three weeks old, we have yet to see what the community alpha's button mapping will look like.

Although of course I imagine that improved netcode will help with the MP PVP experience, one of the more fundamental challenges facing ARMA PVP is be attitudes like this as "what BI might hear from fans":

PvP is entirely about ruining the experience for others. Often your own team because the kind of people that enjoy PvP are often the kind of people that just don't care about the game they are playing or who they are playing it with. This is why EVERY PvP mission requires crap like anti-teamkill and base defense and spawn camping prevention measures. CTI is just PvP with AI recruitment that turns things into single player cat herding instead of teamwork with psychopaths trying to ruin the game for you at every turn. Never have understood why people would prefer to play that instead of something nice like Hello Kitty Online Island Adventure or a good co-op mission.

So, SO much excuse-making in one post for not improving ARMA PVP... in light of such, I'm actually grateful that BI has Celery to voice some sensibility in ARMA 3's development.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Public isn't that great mainly because of the players themselve and their exploiting, cheating and their "CoD/BF/CS style" of playing Arma. Oversimplified balancing is imo short-sighted and supports mostly players who don't like or don't care about an authentic or realistic gameplay and assets. Maybe BIS will find a solution so players can enjoy one day a more casual gameplay and another a more realistic gameplay - for example via option/selection menu or button....

[chortles 263]

It's called "realism mods" like ACE... emphasis on "mods". :D

Your idea is literally that only a select chosen one "know how to play ARMA" and that they if somehow dropped into a COD/BF/CS match they would somehow magically have a "teamwork" advantage and clean up house... that's just not true, especially when you then go up against a "premade" team that already existed in said game. Your idea of how to "improve" PVP is to flee from the public into isolated private servers that shrink the ARMA scene, so instead of growing the ARMA scene by sharing the ARMA concept with the world... you're hoarding it, and then you throw excuses like claiming that people who want to try out ARMA (i.e. "I'm bored of DayZ") are exploiters or cheaters or arcadey. :D

Turns out that all you have to do to have a "CoD/BF/CS style" of playing Arma... is to decide to carry that out. You know, like what I posted in that thread (co-op popularity over CTI) about how no game can actually force teamwork...

Now for actual solutions time!

On the other hand, I do believe that BI can indeed make improvements for ARMA 3 public PVP -- if not outright making islands designed for PVP matches, then make pre-made PVP missions (not just the pre-made co-op stuff) on Limnos or Stratis ranging from the stereotypical deathmatch (prob. going to have to wall off a town for this purpose) to combined arms battles... for the purposes of the latter, I'm thinking of how BF2 had scaled map sizes depending on player count, but in this case with vehicles placed according to the mission's player count.

Have BI-made "ready to play" PVP/TvT missions set on Limnos or Stratis in the release build of the game to throw onto a server, no addons or "looking outside the game" required, and you've already got a good stage set for PVP... which is already better than what previously came out.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Chortles

[NoRailgunner 0]

My idea is to have some options for players so they can choose or select how they want to play A3. So if they feel to play A3 in a authentic/realistic way they just select it and have fun - the same way for balanced fun. Guess a complete "mod/addon free A3" isn't the focus for developing A3 so people will still appreciate and play with community-made content no matter if its "SP only", "Coop only" or "PvP only". People do try + play with new/community-made stuff as long as it makes sense for them.... ;)

[chortles 263]

Your idea is already done by mods like the inevitable ACE3 and therefore redundant.

My idea is to have complete, "mod/addon free A3" PVP missions (not just Editor templates) included with the game, ready to throw onto a server and play. ;)

[-Coulum- 35]

Your idea is already done by mods like the inevitable ACE3 and therefore redundant.

My idea is to have complete, "mod/addon free A3" PVP missions (not just Editor templates) included with the game, ready to throw onto a server and play.

Both "ideas" can/have been achieved by the community no?

i am not sure, but i hypothesize that the quick PVP that I believe is being suggested contradicts the arma gameplay. In its current state, the game simply can't be played like other typical shooters. Ie. If BIS were to make a small, pvp death match mission I think everyone would eventually just camp because it would be the most efficient way to survive due to the slow paced and unforginving nature. Then you would get people bored who then resort to team killing. Try and fix it by increasing movement speed or decreasing damage - well then you upset fans of "realistic" gameplay (including me).

Now maybe the missions could be a bit more complex, for example, a bomb game or capture the flag etc.,in order to encourage less camping and more action. But as the complexity of the game type increases the time required to play it also increases. So you go from a quick 5 minute deathmatch to a 45 minute capture the flag game. This is once again because of the style of the gameplay, caution and coordination often trumps running in guns blazing - and kind of defeats the original intent which was to have a quick easy to play PVP game. Longer games discourages "public" PVP and encouraging organized clan PVP - which we already have right now.

No doubt PVP can be fun but I believe that the design of the game makes it so that "quick and public" PVP is not possible to achieve in a enjoyable manner, and also depends very much on who you play with. I don't believe it is possible to just drop arma 3 mechanics into a BF3 mission and map - but maybe I am totally missing something. Thoughts?

[pathetic_berserker 4]

Both "ideas" can/have been achieved by the community no?

i am not sure, but i hypothesize that the quick PVP that I believe is being suggested contradicts the arma gameplay. In its current state, the game simply can't be played like other typical shooters. Ie. If BIS were to make a small, .......Thoughts?

I think the point Chortles is making, as I and others have, here and in other similar themed threads is that PvP for Arma is possible but is hamstrung from the get go by general accessibility issues that often rely on the community to fix. But the community has accessibilty issues of its own.

So yes the community can and has achieved both 'ideas', but it would be nice if we could get an iteration of ArmA that does this out of the box better than it has done previously.

I have seen a lot of PvP in ArmA1 and 2 over the years and it has been very enjoyable, in fact it has been much more exciting pitting skill and wits against oponents in quick kill Arma than it has ever been in 'I'll hit you 7 times to your 5 every other shooter'. But its one of those areas where moss realy does grow on the idle stone. If the stone is rolling as soon as you have installed the game, pvp should have a better chance of success. No?

[NoRailgunner 0]

Possible solution could be that A3 players can simply select a gameplay mode or preset eg "casual", "default", "sim", "all balanced", "die hard", "customised setup" and join a matching server. Of course some awesome missions have to be made by BIS so people can have fun with A3 from the get go. Btw there is no guarantee that all or certain addons/mods will be back in A3 - priorities can and do change during life, work and spare time.

[batto 17]

Both "ideas" can/have been achieved by the community no?

i am not sure, but i hypothesize that the quick PVP that I believe is being suggested contradicts the arma gameplay. In its current state, the game simply can't be played like other typical shooters. Ie. If BIS were to make a small, pvp death match mission I think everyone would eventually just camp because it would be the most efficient way to survive due to the slow paced and unforginving nature. Then you would get people bored who then resort to team killing. Try and fix it by increasing movement speed or decreasing damage - well then you upset fans of "realistic" gameplay (including me).

I suppose you talk about DM. What makes DM/TDM dynamic in other games are items on map (weapons, shields, other stuff, ...). So you start with poor equipment (9mm pistol) and pickup stuff that you loose during fights. In ArmA it could be ammo/morphine/... It can be a bit unrealistic but there is absolutely no need for super-human speeds or dmg decrease. Only reason why DM players in other games run fast is because they can. They're not running around just because it's DM but because they'll make more frags in shorter time. And I absolutely hate those DM mission in ArmA2 that'll remove your weapon if you don't run around like idiot (I think it's just some server setting). There's nothing wrong with camping in DM. But plain DM is not good PvP material for ArmA IMO.

Now maybe the missions could be a bit more complex, for example, a bomb game or capture the flag etc.,in order to encourage less camping and more action. But as the complexity of the game type increases the time required to play it also increases. So you go from a quick 5 minute deathmatch to a 45 minute capture the flag game. This is once again because of the style of the gameplay, caution and coordination often trumps running in guns blazing - and kind of defeats the original intent which was to have a quick easy to play PVP game. Longer games discourages "public" PVP and encouraging organized clan PVP - which we already have right now.

5 minute for deatmatch is too short even in fast shooters. And AFAIK complexity of bomb defusal in CS didn't discourage public PvP. Quite opposite I'd say.

[chortles 263]

Possible solution could be that A3 players can simply select a gameplay mode or preset eg "casual", "default", "sim", "all balanced", "die hard", "customised setup" and join a matching server.

You just missed both my response AND Pathetic_Berserker's response and repeated yourself, adding nothing to the conversation by repeating yourself.

Of course some awesome missions have to be made by BIS so people can have fun with A3 from the get go.

This is what's historically has not happened and this is what I'm calling on BI to do -- "fun with A3 from the get go".

I think the point Chortles is making, as I and others have, here and in other similar themed threads is that PvP for Arma is possible but is hamstrung from the get go by general accessibility issues that often rely on the community to fix. But the community has accessibilty issues of its own.

Based on the comments about co-op vs. PVP, I'd say that there isn't even a singular ARMA community, but rather a fractured player base of multiple communities, a situation which I find to be fundamentally not growth-oriented, if you get my drift... even -Coulum- voices some of these comments that somehow "hardcore" gameplay and public PVP are fundamentally incompatible, and you'll see my response to -Coulum- below.

So yes the community can and has achieved both 'ideas', but it would be nice if we could get an iteration of ArmA that does this out of the box better than it has done previously.

Hasn't ARMA 3 seemed to be about "BI putting out a WORKING ARMA 3 out of the box instead of relying on the community to just mod it into something that they like"? I still remember what InstaGoat said about how bad the initial ARMA 2 release tarnished the brand, so my point/idea is intended for "how can we get an out-of-the-box, part-of-the-release-build, ready-to-hop-in-and-play PVP experience to newcomers who're giving ARMA 3 a chance?" Emphasis on "giving ARMA 3 a chance", see the remarks about ARMA 2's brand and the wider publicity that DayZ has given to ARMA 2 and the Real Virtuality engine, though that's also implicitly boosted ARMA 3's visibility and thus the importance of a much cleaner release this time around.

Both "ideas" can/have been achieved by the community no?

i am not sure, but i hypothesize that the quick PVP that I believe is being suggested contradicts the arma gameplay. In its current state, the game simply can't be played like other typical shooters. Ie. If BIS were to make a small, pvp death match mission I think everyone would eventually just camp because it would be the most efficient way to survive due to the slow paced and unforginving nature. Then you would get people bored who then resort to team killing. Try and fix it by increasing movement speed or decreasing damage - well then you upset fans of "realistic" gameplay (including me).

Now maybe the missions could be a bit more complex, for example, a bomb game or capture the flag etc.,in order to encourage less camping and more action. But as the complexity of the game type increases the time required to play it also increases. So you go from a quick 5 minute deathmatch to a 45 minute capture the flag game. This is once again because of the style of the gameplay, caution and coordination often trumps running in guns blazing - and kind of defeats the original intent which was to have a quick easy to play PVP game. Longer games discourages "public" PVP and encouraging organized clan PVP - which we already have right now.

No doubt PVP can be fun but I believe that the design of the game makes it so that "quick and public" PVP is not possible to achieve in a enjoyable manner, and also depends very much on who you play with. I don't believe it is possible to just drop arma 3 mechanics into a BF3 mission and map - but maybe I am totally missing something. Thoughts?

Here's my response:

Bringing up deathmatch as "everyone will get bored" is missing the point... the ARMA 2: OA demo already advertises a TDM Editor template. :D

MULTIPLAYER: It’s possible to play a multiplayer battle or customize some of the available mission templates. To start the template-based multiplayer' date=' select New - Wizard and select the available Team Death Match template. Note that the template is customizable, and you may prepare many variations of existing setups.[/quote']Statement of Intent time: I'd like "Editor template" missions besides CTI and Warfare to already exist in "complete and ready to play with no adjustment required" form as part of the release build of ARMA 3 and future ARMA games.

When BF3 comparisons are made, I would actually compare ARMA 3 against BF3's Hardcore setting. When a BF3 server is on Hardcore mode, that's not just reduced Health and friendly fire enabled, but also aspects like no regenerating health by default, no red triangle above the head of a spotted target or on their position in the minimap, no crosshairs, a reduced HUD, to my knowledge no killcam... and no third-person view when in vehicles. Oh hey, sounds pretty close to ARMA! :lol: There's apparently a "Hardcore w/ no minimap" setting, though I couldn't find that in Battlelog, but also an Infantry Only setting which removes certain "combat" vehicles such MBTs so that the matches only have 'transports' such as the GAZ-3937 "Vodnik".

(Re: spotting -- in BF3's Normal setting, pressing Q while aiming at an opposing soldier will place a red triangle over that soldier's head that lasts for a while, hence "3D spotting", along with the triangle appearing over that soldier's position on the minimap and on the pause menu; in BF3's Hardcore setting the triangle only appears in the pause menu.)

The idea of "just drop arma 3 mechanics into a BF3 mission and map" is also not true... what do you even mean by a BF3 mission"? While the idea of recreating a BF3 "map" as an ARMA 3 terrain is an interesting idea, through this I've been assuming vanilla ARMA 3 mechanics and the vanilla ARMA 3 islands -- so my proposal would be for these BI-made PVP missions to be set on Limnos and/or Stratis.

As for the talk about TK due to boredom... that argument doesn't hold water because "get bored then TK" already happens in ARMA in both PVP and co-op... even if the TKer gets kicked/banned, the damage is still done. :p But then again, playing on a server where certain people insist on holding an overly long or overly micromanaged briefing or who are essentially playing to order around others (where's that guy with the "address me by my rank" banner?) will drive that boredom up, in my experience... a community issue.

Keep in mind that I'm not calling for movement speeds or weapons damage to be decreased when you're playing a PVP mission as opposed to a co-op mission, that's just not true. The way I see it, tactical pace already increases movement speed in regular ARMA 3 compared to ARMA 2... thankfully. ;) And as has been proven, the sheer lethality of weapons and "hardcoreness" won't necessarily drive people away from ARMA -- hey, it was part of the draw of DayZ! -- and thus I wouldn't worry about that; my idea assumes that standard, vanilla ARMA 3 settings apply.

The suggestions of a "bomb game" or "capture the flag" are in fact interesting ideas for "BI made" TvT missions, but the idea that complexity necessarily drags out the time to play is also just not true. Clear but concise rules, sound underlying gameplay mechanics (ARMA 3's looking good on this front) with "playable area" design (i.e. placement of objects by the mission maker/BI for that mission) that facilitates a competitive TvT mission, and you've got the tools with which to limit player frustration and justifiably giving up on ARMA.

I must respond to this though:

i am not sure, but i hypothesize that the quick PVP that I believe is being suggested contradicts the arma gameplay.

Longer games discourages "public" PVP and encouraging organized clan PVP - which we already have right now.

but I believe that the design of the game makes it so that "quick and public" PVP is not possible to achieve in a enjoyable manner, and also depends very much on who you play with.

If "enjoyable quick and public" PVP was fundamentally incompatible with ARMA, then I'd actually consider these to be points against ARMA, not for ARMA.

---------- Post added at 07:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:01 AM ----------

I suppose you talk about DM. What makes DM/TDM dynamic in other games are items on map (weapons, shields, other stuff, ...). So you start with poor equipment (9mm pistol) and pickup stuff that you loose during fights. In ArmA it could be ammo/morphine/...

Having actually played COD and BF and thus able to comment on this... that's just not true as a rule about other shooters besides ARMA in general, "items on map" does not make the DM/TDM dynamic -- it's as simple as "get the requisite number of kills (first to threshold) or more kills than the opposition by the time expiration". I'll note after all that Hardcore TDM does exist in both of the above two series, seeing as they're the most commonly denigrated in this subforum...

It can be a bit unrealistic but there is absolutely no need for super-human speeds or dmg decrease.

As I said to -Coulum- the idea is to use regular ARMA 3 movement speeds (which already feel faster than ARMA 2 to my liking) and weapons damage.

5 minute for deatmatch is too short even in fast shooters. And AFAIK complexity of bomb defusal in CS didn't discourage public PvP. Quite opposite I'd say.

Isn't CS bomb defusal actually the most popular and readily understood CS match type?

I'm going to add here that CS also does not have regenerating health, has no 3D spotting (see what I said about BF3 spotting) and in both COD and CS bomb defusal respawning is disabled, yet it was the "modding phenomenon" before DayZ.

As for the bit about "5 minute for deatmatch", in COD deathmatch by default there is no time limit -- it's "first to the requisite number of kills", which in MW3 "DM" (Free-for-All) is 30 kills, TDM is 75 kills (100 kills under Ground War rules); why should a hypothetical ARMA 3 TDM be held to a time limit? Also, COD rules on bomb defusal are that the defuse or the detonation decides the round, best of seven wins the match. If building a bomb defusal TvT mission for ARMA, for simplicity's sake I imagine that the "round" may be the mission.

[batto 17]

Having actually played COD and BF and thus able to comment on this... that's just not true as a rule about other shooters besides ARMA in general, "items on map" does not make the DM/TDM dynamic -- it's as simple as "get the requisite number of kills (first to threshold) or more kills than the opposition by the time expiration". I'll note after all that Hardcore TDM does exist in both of the above two series, seeing as they're the most commonly denigrated in this subforum...

No, it's very true. Items are what actually make DM dynamic. And TDM is all about items! Teamplay in TDM basically revolves only around controlling items (incl. power ups) on map. Try to win DM in Quake only with machine gun leaving armors, weapons and quad damage to others.

I'm talking about Quake, Unreal, Half-Life, Xonotic and similar fast shooters but this concept is general and could work very well in ArmA too (30 seconds heli instead of quad dmg for example). CoD and BF3 is new idiotic DM degeneration necessary for "classes" or other dumb f*cked unlock systems to work and I wouldn't take it as example of good PvP.

Controlling items means remembering pickup time (by you or enemy) so you can arrive prepared in time to get item when it respawns. It's usually done only for "big" items (like quad dmg or big armors). In ArmA there should be option to destroy item to prevent enemy from picking it up (ammo, weapon) because you can't carry much.

Credit system a la CS is also good but for round-based games or big games (like warfare). For small DM/TDM/CTF pickups are better I think.

---------- Post added at 02:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:02 PM ----------

As for the bit about "5 minute for deatmatch", in COD deathmatch by default there is no time limit -- it's "first to the requisite number of kills", which in MW3 "DM" (Free-for-All) is 30 kills, TDM is 75 kills (100 kills under Ground War rules); why should a hypothetical ARMA 3 TDM be held to a time limit? Also, COD rules on bomb defusal are that the defuse or the detonation decides the round, best of seven wins the match. If building a bomb defusal TvT mission for ARMA, for simplicity's sake I imagine that the "round" may be the mission.

For DM there must be some limit (10 minutes) so the game isn't inifnite. Of course there must be also frag limit. TDM is time based. Alwas was. CoD just screwed modes from other games. Bomb defusal with credit system in CS is correct bomb defusal. CoD just introduced stupid classes and magic label that pops up in your screen telling you where the bomb was planted.

Edited October 18, 2012 by batto

[pathetic_berserker 4]

When BF3 comparisons are made, I would actually compare ARMA 3 against BF3's Hardcore setting. .

Though I do wonder if its not worth exploring the idea of predefined pvp style difficulty settings, I know that server admins are quite capable of setting this stuff up but if it comes out of the box with specific pvp difficulty settings it takes some pressure off admins to be looking over shoulders all the time and players can pick the setting, knowing what they are going to get. I imagine that 3rd person would be off for all and markers for noob settings, but if BIS could add a friendly fire option to the mix I think a lot of people would give a sigh of relief. I think this is also moving towards what norailgunner was alluding to, without any effect on ArmAs core game play.

The idea of "just drop arma 3 mechanics into a BF3 mission and map" is also not true…………………………..- so my proposal would be for these BI-made PVP missions to be set on Limnos and/or Stratis. .

Well there is really no doubt they will be and I’m sure they are thinking about mission possibilities when they make the islands but I wouldn’t complain if they released a couple of smaller arena style maps specifically for pvp. Actually if BIS can maintain the level of value for money as seen in previous DLC’s I’d happily pay for a few extra maps, specifically if they brought something new to the table in terms of buildings and environment.

The suggestions of a "bomb game" or "capture the flag" are in fact interesting ideas for "BI made" TvT missions, .

CTF templates exist, but we already know the problem of suppling only templates.

As for the bit about "5 minute for deatmatch", in COD deathmatch by default there is no time limit -- it's "first to the requisite number of kills", which in MW3 "DM" (Free-for-All) is 30 kills, TDM is 75 kills (100 kills under Ground War rules); why should a hypothetical ARMA 3 TDM be held to a time limit? Also, COD rules on bomb defusal are that the defuse or the detonation decides the round, best of seven wins the match. If building a bomb defusal TvT mission for ARMA, for simplicity's sake I imagine that the "round" may be the mission.

Time limits can work in DM/TDM as well as score limits. Sometimes when sitting down for an evening of pvp it’s good if it keeps flowing so time limts can be beneficial. But these are often definable parameters so what we’re talking about would only be defaults?

Final thought re the mention of object based missions , I’d like to see a capture the fuel as a means of limiting the usefulness of vehicles fo rthose slightly longer PvP.

[-Coulum- 35]

Some good points. On second thought, with some insights from you guys, I do see how PVP could work. I temporarily forgot that I was talking about Arma PVPers, not just some random kid who wants to shoot shit up, who all probably have much more patience. So I am wrong in saying that "The gameplay in arma disallows enjoyable PVP" due to "complexity and/or length of game". In fact with friends I have had some really awesome PVP matches. But, I still don't see it working with "everyone" to smoothely. By this I mean in a public PVP match there is likely to be one bad apple that ruins it for everyone else, I beleieve because of the slower or difficult pace of the game. And with longer missions this could lead to alot of frustration even amongst those with patience. This is why I think that clan or in my case local PVP is a much tastier alternative.

As for the talk about TK due to boredom... that argument doesn't hold water because "get bored then TK" already happens in ARMA in both PVP and co-op... even if the TKer gets kicked/banned, the damage is still done. But then again, playing on a server where certain people insist on holding an overly long or overly micromanaged briefing or who are essentially playing to order around others (where's that guy with the "address me by my rank" banner?) will drive that boredom up, in my experience... a community issue.

Exactly. If team killing is a community issue it is virtually impossible to control in a public setting. This is why I believe any arma public multiplayer will be not so great - no doubt you can get lucky and play with a good set of guys but from what I hear, its usually not the case. Often there is some guy who is just bored (and I tend to believe it is because of the slow gameplay rather than guys who think they are really in the army) decides to be an idiot and ruin it for everyone else rather than play the game. The only reason Dayz is able to survive it is because team killing is generally accepted as part of the game.

So although BIS can work on making the game more PVP oriented, without changing the game mechanics, I just don't see how the public experience can be something you can enter and be sure you will be satisfied with due to who you might end up playing with and how they react to the game's mechanics. Then again maybe some good missions would change this, and some of you have already put out some good ideas on that front.

But, whether my opinion has any validity to it does not really matter concerning your "statement of intent" (had a laugh at that). Grudgingly, I do think that expanding the PVP part of the game is important, and will bring in many new players. The start of this would be making some well rounded missions on some well rounded maps and of course making it as easy as possible for players to set a multiplayer game - no "templates. A good question would be what mission types would suit arma well in PVP?

And I will give my usual disclaimer - these are my shaky opinions only. And if you guys don't know, I don't really have a huge amount of experience with "public" multiplayer so feel free to point out what I am missing. These are just my thoughts on the matter to try and raise discussion.

[Vladplaya 10]

Good discussion and some good points here. I just wanna kinda summarize biggest points that repels most people from playing PvP:

1) Accessibility, and lack of decent/engaging tutorials - it takes sometime to get acclimated to the game and learn to be effective, but most people don't want to do boring tutorials, so they jump in into the multiplayer without knowing how to do anything and just irate rest of the players. I don't think the game should be easier to more accessible, but I think tutorials should be more exciting and engaging, with cut scenes, voice acting, humor or what not, so people feel like they are playing and enjoying the game and not going through school online.

2) I always thought ArmA has un intuitive default control set up, and poor UI, and most people are rather quit the game, than try to fix those by spending bunch of time in options twiking stuff. I believe making at least Most common controls similar to the "standards" of the genre would help a lot. For example, Ctl to crouch, Space to get up, E to enter exit vehicles. Simple things that will make people feel like they know at least something.

3) No clear objectives in the huge game world. Its cool to have insane amount of landmass for your potential use, its not cool when really only 20% of less of it gets used to complete a mission or objective. ArmA needs set large maps (just like "normal" games), that players can learn and then get use to, with clear borders for the map and clear characteristics to differentiate those maps. With clear and game defined objectives, so no one can fk around with those and confuse people. Commanders and squad leaders can give side mission or objectives, but everyone should know simple goal of current game, like clear THAT village, or HOLD that factory, etc. Right now people jump in into the game, and then have 0 clue of wth is going on, because unless you are on teamspeak of the clan who owns the server, you are usually out of the loop.

I think those three were the biggest barrier for me and my friends when attempting any PvPing efforts in ArmA. Those things need to be improved to attract people to the game, and show them that they can enjoy it.

People are afraid that COD, BF crowed might start playing the game. Well its not a problem, let them at least try the game and perhaps convert to it by trail and error, better than nothing, better than people not even giving it a chance because they heard that its so out there in the nitch section.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Vladplaya

[batto 17]

Exactly. If team killing is a community issue it is virtually impossible to control in a public setting. This is why I believe any arma public multiplayer will be not so great - no doubt you can get lucky and play with a good set of guys but from what I hear, its usually not the case. Often there is some guy who is just bored (and I tend to believe it is because of the slow gameplay rather than guys who think they are really in the army) decides to be an idiot and ruin it for everyone else rather than play the game. The only reason Dayz is able to survive it is because team killing is generally accepted as part of the game.

So although BIS can work on making the game more PVP oriented, without changing the game mechanics, I just don't see how the public experience can be something you can enter and be sure you will be satisfied with due to who you might end up playing with and how they react to the game's mechanics. Then again maybe some good missions would change this, and some of you have already put out some good ideas on that front.

Friendly fire in CS in rare but I've played on some servers with FF enabled and it included some script to deal with such kids ruining game. If someone made TK for first time the victim was offered with menu with "1) Kill him" and "9) Leave him" entries. If someone made TK twice in short time "3) Kick him" was added to the menu. If someone made TK more times in short time "4) Ban him for 30 minutes" appeared.

[rasdenfasden 12]

I think all Arma 3 needs to take off in PvP is a good movement system (which looks very promising) and good enough netcode (let's hope for the best).

If they fill these 2 criteria we've got ourselves a very solid base for all kinds of community PvP missions.

[-=Borz=- 10]

The Mission editor in ArmA games allows for any sort of equilibrium desired.

This game would be "nothing" without the possibility to play assymetric warfare, like often happens in real wars.

In my opinion, the possibility to play as OPFOR guerrilla faction is what makes this game funny. Studying the enemy capabilities, equipment, joining forces with other half a dozen men strong factions for an assault on powerful objectives. Striking with powerful IEDs against a formidably armored vehicle column and hidding in a forest afterwards, or scaping from the expected overwhelming "hunt", running, by bike, or motorbike, and re-gathering in a safe place. In the meantime they look for you with helicopters equiped with night vision tech, that can see your white silhouete from miles away.

Being able to defeat them despite their technological advantage, that is what brings the satisfaction in ArmA.

The feeling of fear hidden under a bush with the hope of not being seen by a closeby enemy tank, but hearing it very close to you, almost over you, like in the old operation flashpoint days.

This is realism. That is why i think ArmA needs to continue being a flexible game, so the mission designer can choose whatever they like. You can create a mission and choose the number of units, vehible, etc. Perhaps a possibility to choose weapons easily might help to make PvP or TvT more appealing to some players, but their commnader might need to check that they are adequate for the mission :)

Edited October 20, 2012 by -=Borz=-
grammar

[saetheer 9]

This is a standard CoD fanboy statement. Unknowing nad unexperienced in what Arma really stands for... Sorry for calling you a Cod Fanboy but when you say "compete with those titles", you're wrong since there are no games like the Arma Series.