How Strong Will The PVP Scene Be?

[zoog 18]

There has always been some desire for PVP, but it will never been a large enough event to where you will see many tournaments. There are a few sites that do, but no more than 10-15 teams, and usually small teams at that. While I do see there being more PvP in A3, I don't think it will really go main stream, simply because theres not enough balance and focus from BIS to make it worth it, with out relying on mods, which at times will split the community making it harder.

IE, Project Reality will get 1/3, ACE will get a good chunk, and the rest will be vanilla, and each will stick with their preferred method, thus making PVP even more minor and hard to get into.

I think you do not take into consideration new blood who might buy the game just for PvP. I mean, the general origin of this community has always leaned more to a co-op kind of game, these roots can be found at Operation Flashpoint. It's not so strange PvP never really flourished or could be on par with co-op availability. But if there is a good vanilla system available people might even buy arma 3 for PvP instead of mostly buying it for SP/co-op. This is a circle with more PvP players enhancing the PvP scene, while a more intuitive and better accesible PvP experience (no mods, continuity etc) attracts more players which in turn enhances the PvP scene, rinse and repeat.

[EDcase 87]

Yeah, I think PvP will be stronger than in ARMA2.

1) BIS have enhanced animations and controls (still WIP of course)

2) Quite a lot of new players who are looking specifically for PvP.

[zimms 22]

Well, the thing is Arma really shines in large scale scenarios. And it gets really difficult to manage 100-200 people to be able to play PvP on such an awesome scale, let alone technical difficulties.

So often COOP is the only possibility.

Of course you could play 5v5 on 300mx300m, but you might as well play CS then.

[EDcase 87]

Don't forget that ARMA can mix real players with AI so you don't need 100-200 people to have big battles.

[zimms 22]

Which would be COOP, as I said.

[Binkowski 26]

Wasteland, nuff said.

No. Go away.

[comc 1]

Tried PvP for the first time in any game of the series (save for a few instances, even multiplayer). Got cornered and forced into a CQB environment and battled it out alive. Probably my best experience so far! I say that PVP will be far superior to co-op in these scenarios, merely because of the AI's lack of ability in tight spaces.

[muna 1]

Which would be COOP, as I said.

Blend AI units within pvp like in warfare, where players on each side can recruit and command their squads.

There you can have large scale P+AI Vs. P+AI fights with handfull of people.

[silvertip83 1]

Considering how BI completely overhauled both the inventory system and the general flow of movement and combat (which is amazing!) I think that PVP will definitely be more prevalent.

I myself have an idea for setting up month long campaigns using a server and some heavy scenario editing. It would be hella fun and I'm sure there are so many others out there willing to host servers that will provide unique options for you to experience. With just the alpha being as good as it is, the beta and subsequent release is only going to get much better. That being said, my vote then is a definitive YES to there being ample PVP action for you!

[zoog 18]

Well, the thing is Arma really shines in large scale scenarios.

First of, that is just an opinion and depends on how you prefer to use the arma platform. Secondly, it doesn't mean smaller scale scenarios can't be fun as well. Heck, even with coop most communities or clans probably don't have more than 20 players at the same time (excluding bigger more established arma communities or clans). Arma is a very broad platform for different types of missions and gamemodes, and it does not necessarily mean small scale scenarios cannot be fun (what about all the small scale special forces mission that are available for example? Should we just ignore every mission with 50 players or less?).

Of course you could play 5v5 on 300mx300m, but you might as well play CS then.

There is something called game mechanics, shooting mechanics, movement mechanics etc. which all influence the gameplay of a specific game. Difference between games is not only about size of the map. Comparing small scale arma pvp scenarios with CS is just complete nonsense to be honest. Actually, I think 5v5 on 300mx300m can be very fun. It just depends on what you prefer.

[chortles 263]

zoog, it's simple enough to say that 5v5 on 300 sq m isn't a bad idea if you're "just" trying to put together a skirmish; I've seen a single-capture point Sector Control mission (single-capture point = King of the Hill correct?) that was seemingly meant for low player counts but was intriguing because it was set at night but set up so that no one had weapon optics -- only the basic assault rifles with iron sights, weapon lights a single 40 mm flare round for each player (green for BLUFOR, red for OPFOR) -- and with each team's spawn having pickup trucks and a MH-9 for transportation.

Apparently even with only 2v2, "no IR and no NVGs, iron sights-only nighttime infantry combat" makes for quite the intriguing combination.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Wasteland is crap and is not PVP under any definition, because there's no pressure of imminent defeat/death - combat can be easily avoided, engagements taken on casually at player's own discretion etc, etc.

We have to wait till more official assets like MBTs, statics, jets & APCs find their way into Alpha/Beta, before seeing Berzerk TvT AAS/C&H type games & Benny's Warfare.

Altho, if Benny doesn't pick this up, then it's GAME OVER MAN, GAME OVER!

[zimms 22]

I didn't say the smaller scenarios aren't fun. Because they are. What I wanted to say is that what's most special about Arma are those larger missions, since this is something NO other game has to offer.

And of course the CS comment was exaggerated. But I think one can get my point.

[PFC Magician 10]

I think there are many who never played on large scenarios, with tanks and choppers, planes! i love drive my bradley by 10min to OA and survive at the end.

In arma2 remember once we agreed and formed a convoy, then pass an enemy plane and massacred us all LOL

Edited March 30, 2013 by PFC Magician

[TheGamingBluejay 1]

Arma? Competitive scrims? How do you even play an Arma game competitively? :confused:

It's hard to get all MLG in a simulator...

[halisray 1]

PVP would be cool.

On Statis, with teams of 15-20 people on either side gunning for mutual objectives all over the map; would be a lot of fun, and very competitive.

Sort of like Battlefield's "Conquest" game type.

[simjedi 10]

PVP would be cool.

On Statis, with teams of 15-20 people on either side gunning for mutual objectives all over the map; would be a lot of fun, and very competitive.

Sort of like Battlefield's "Conquest" game type.

Blend AI units within pvp like in warfare, where players on each side can recruit and command their squads.

There you can have large scale P+AI Vs. P+AI fights with handful of people.

CTI (Capture the Island) does this and is my second favorite mode next to AAS. The old AAS that is. Blitz is good but I still prefer the old style.

[mob2k5 1]

Really hoping for more populated PVP servers to be up in the future! Arma 3 provides a better opportunity for good PvP servers. But, as of now all of the popular servers that I see are just wasteland/co-op servers. :(

I've only put in 100+ hours playing domination in Arma 2, but I'm pretty burnt out on co-op now. So yeah, I'm praying for a more "active" PVP scene in the future.

[Sanguinius 1]

Considering the PvP in Arma 2 was enjoyable for a lot of people (Life, playing Independent on Wasteland) is there a clarification on what type of PvP do you mean? Actual Team v Team combat, like you rarely get on good wasteland servers. (I'll never forgot the day I played Wasteland as BLUFOR and we set up the badass fort on top of Olsha. Dozen choppers, dozens of ground vehicles, and a butt-ton of weapons. Ah...)