detailed CQB sized maps - a discussion

[-kelet0r 0]

well said

it is merely an observation that having cqc on infantry/urban maps will help appeal to a wider demographic of gamer - which will hopefully benefit everyone

[esti_the_big 0]

Heavily urbanized maps may be good for multiplayer, but if they add it in they should also enhance AI so it can act well in urban areas, they had problems with narrow streets, cqb etc. It'd be quite an enhancement to the AI if they'd act more relaistic there. Apart from that, ofps controls should become more accurate for realistic control in urban areas, you'd need new functions like leaning for it to be realistic.

[GBee 0]

Apart from that, ofps controls should become more accurate for realistic control in urban areas, you'd need new functions like leaning for it to be realistic.

Leaning is already in OFP:E, so expect it to be there in Arma

[-kelet0r 0]

I thought that the VBS AI was very adept in urban combat - they would stay under cover and spread out well

[benreeper 0]

CQB maps or whatever. This game will NEVER appeal to the that crowd. If it did they would be playing this game now. Like it has been said in this thread, the size of the map does not make a difference to the game and you will NOT see small 500x500m maps like because we don't see those types of maps now. This is not that type of game. The community makes makes maps for the type of game it is, and the type game we like to play. Most ofp players play this game in the manner of being in real combined arms types of battles. BF2, with 8 vehicle, 8 troops in a 1 square playing area does not feel like that. BF2 is terribly unbalanced and unrealistic with its vehicles. Urban maps, in that game, being so popular now is a testament to that fact.

What is the point of making this game "cosmetically" look like another game? You want to trick people into playing it?

--Ben

[funnyguy1 0]

Dude, listen...

If arma can`t handle as detailed urbanized areas (on it`s big maps) as we are talking about, separate map, for cqb style of gameplay would really be a feature, no matter if it`s gonna attract bf2 players or morrowind fans....

I`m gona play with it, and a couple of others will...

Just like desert island in ofp.

AI also must be improoved for cqb, that`s obvious.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

CQB maps or whatever.  This game will NEVER appeal to the that crowd.  If it did they would be playing this game now.  Like it has been said in this thread, the size of the map does not make a difference to the game and you will NOT see small 500x500m maps like because we don't see those types of maps now.  This is not that type of game.  The community makes makes maps for the type of game it is, and the type game we like to play. Most ofp players play this game in the manner of being in real combined arms types of battles.  BF2, with 8 vehicle, 8 troops in a 1 square playing area does not feel like that.  BF2 is terribly unbalanced and unrealistic with its vehicles.  Urban maps, in that game, being so popular now is a testament to that fact.

What is the point of making this game "cosmetically" look like another game?  You want to trick people into playing it?

--Ben

Ah Ben, you stole the words right from my mouth.    That's exactly the point I was trying to make.

[-kelet0r 0]

pfft elitism in the opflash community?

a game developer should try to appeal to the widest possible demographic when selling his product and this is one way of going about it

and particularly as the most intense battles in history are fought over and in cities it would be ridiculous not to include them

If Arma arrives and i'm fighting constantly in the countryside or pseudo-villages as there were in Opflash then I will feel that I got a half finished product and I will not be alone

[NeMeSiS 11]

a game developer should try to appeal to the widest possible demographic when selling his product and this is one way of going about it

But this game is NOT a closed-invincible-wall-map-shooter, and why should it try to be one? if BIS wanted to make such a game they didnt need to make huge maps. Or make the enige like they did it now.

EDIT: I hope we get cities as in VBS1 TP3 though

[benreeper 0]

Ahh Kyle. I was thinking about your comments when I wrote mine.

As said before, Making smaller, maps will not improve performance of the game or the AI. It will just be a confined OFP: for what reason? You'll get the exact same effect by confining an area in a large map.

This game will not attract players that don't like this style of play. It is what it is and making a small map will only make it play like OFP in a small map, not a CQB game because this not that kind o game. It's like using the MS Flight Simulater emgine to make Doom3, or vice versa. You'll just end up with a game that stinks.

It's not elitism, it is what it is.

--Ben

[twisted 128]

EDIT: I hope we get cities as in VBS1 TP3 though

that looks amazing.

[Frantic 0]

lol u guys r funny

the most important thing will be: how many players will be able to play it without lag!

so if u can have a 30vs30 map...then it wont be a CQB map.

But if u can have only a 10vs10 map without lag, then there will be for sure many CQB maps!

i only play CQB maps, cause i like to have much action during the match...the normal player number is now from 5vs5 till 8vs8...so why should we play a huge map where u r mainly trying to find an enemy to shoot at?

im really looking for some nice actions with 30vs30 players with vehicles fighting for a C&H map!

and about the thing to have CQB maps too...there will be enough CQB maps cause i will be there to make enough nice CQB maps, cause i love them!

[Kode 0]

It's quite simple: Most of the CTF's, DM,TDM in the original OFP are using a limited area. If you reach the border or get out, you get killed or warned.It's completely useless to get out. For example you have 2 flags in a CTF, I don't imagine people going far of them, that would be completely stupid. People stay with the objectives, and don't get in the next city to get a drink...(as far as I know of)

Now with the streaming technology, you don't have to load the entire island, which allows more objects(almost as much as you can please on a normal map like BF or DoD). Now why would you make an extra small map, while you can just use a small part of the map. You can create the borders where you want, it can be in a city(for a CQB), or the entire vicinity of a city, 2 city's, 2 villages, and much more...

[Randy 0]

I think the boxing in of an area of the larger maps is a reasonalble compromise, if the detail of the cities is up to stratch, which I believe it is.

The main issue with Operation Flashpoint is, or at least was (cant find any servers in Australia last time I checked) that the multiplayer wasn't streamlined enough in terms of interface and ease of use. Don't get me wrong, I love the thoughtful pace of the multiplayer and the mad scrambling through shrubs for my life aspect, but I think it just needed a little more optimisation in terms of fun. A few of the missions were good, like the desert ambush, maybe some more game types would be cool too, like a co-op type mode where players keep respawning in enemy held territory and have to reach a sequence of supply drop points as special forces and ultimately escape.

[shinRaiden 0]

Part of the very large problem with 'CQB' BF2 etc n00bers is that they get the half-baked idea that they can just joyride up and down alleys in a T-72, and if, allah forbid, they get waxed, another tank is just a respawn away.

Those kind of scenarios would be very interesting to sit in the Instructor Interface and watch a BF2 run-and-gun group - as insurgents of course - playing against an experienced OFP group. Odds are the BF2 Flanker wouldn't have enough altitude to catch an AC-130 on loiter.

The real kick in the pants though... B-1B stand-to CAS. 'Nuf said. Just try it in BF2. It's actually theoretically reasonable on the OFP platform.

[aus_twisted 0]

Australian server which is in Melbourne on OGN - http://forums.ogn.com.au/forumdi....p?f=166

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]a game developer should try to appeal to the widest possible demographic when selling his product and this is one way of going about it

Pls no. OFP was already specified up to some point. That´s what made it special. Still it sold and still sells pretty well.

If I want to have mainstream, I play COD2, play it twice and then put it in the shelve to forget it. That´s what mainstream games are mostly, fire and forget software.

[funnyguy1 0]

I don`t want to change the gameplay, rules or realism level....

That`s what mainly attracts or not in ofp...

One cqb map isn`t a big effort, and certainly someone would be happy about it.

The point is I don`t know if ArmA will be able to handle cqb areas I`m talking about. If not, then the extra map idea is reasonable....

"It's quite simple: Most of the CTF's, DM,TDM in the original OFP are using a limited area"

So what`s the problem now to have a smaller cqb map? I really don`t understand.

[-kelet0r 0]

I think many of you are missing the point here

cqc does not mean smaller maps - it means more points of contact, fewer open spaces like those in a city

no cities are what armies seek to capture so it would be madness not to include them in Arma

just because operation Flashpoint didnt have any real urban combat does not mean that the purists should have their way and keep it the same because ArmA is a brand new game whatever way you want to look at it

Now urban areas are what everyone is familiar with, its where the majority of us live, recent wars in Iraq etc. were seen on the evening news in dusty cities like Basra, Fallujah and Baghdad - it is the environment we are most familiar with so why should it not be included

Quote[/b] ]If I want to have mainstream, I play COD2, play it twice and then put it in the shelve to forget it. That´s what mainstream games are mostly, fire and forget software.

most ridiculous comment ever - armed assault will gain nothing and the gamer by extension will gain nothing if BIS cater to the opf snobs only

[GBee 0]

armed assault will gain nothing and the gamer by extension will gain nothing if BIS cater to the opf snobs only

No you are missing the point. Even within games like BF2, CoD2, CS:Source and the rest, the vast majority of players favour a very limited number of maps. These players like repetition, they play the same scenarios over and over for hours on end.

Even if you manage to attract those players to Armed Assault with one or two CQB maps, that is all they will ever play. There will be dozens of 'l33t' servers running the same CQB maps in tight rotation. Those players won't ever add anything to the Armed Assault community, in fact quite the opposite.

OFP attracted much more mature, intelligent and sophisticated players. That really shows in the community, the modders and even these forums. If to keep the same high quality we have to bear being called snobs, then so be it!

[Kode 0]

"It's quite simple: Most of the CTF's, DM,TDM in the original OFP are using a limited area"

So what`s the problem now to have a smaller cqb map? I really don`t understand.

There is no problem, it's just useless as you can use the big map for it, and just put a limit on it, so you create a small cqb map only on the big island. The map stays the same as a CQB map, as it's only a small part. Why would you make a new CQB map, when you already have 1000 possible CQB maps?

[GBee 0]

Might just add, that we would all love to see realistic towns and cities in Arma. What I don't think necessary is special small urban maps.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]most ridiculous comment ever - armed assault will gain nothing and the gamer by extension will gain nothing if BIS cater to the opf snobs only

You call me a snob ? Thx for that. I guess after almost 5 years of OFP online gaming I can feel honored for that title.

Why do you think OFP is still played online ? Do you think it still would be played if it only had DM and CTF maps ?

Infact noone would play it online anymore if there wouldn´t be more than DM and CTF maps in cramped areas.

Armed Assault will have streaming terrain. That means cities can be indefinately complex and big. There is no need for extra CQC terrain. I bet it will already be there.

You better cool down your temper and get your facts straight before you give names to others.

If you want to play in small cramped areas play Pacman.

[Batukhan 0]

I have to agree with Balschoiw on this one. It does not matter, not one bit, if there's a 100kmË› area around the small CQB place or not.

You can still have CQB missions there, it doesn't matter if you're not stopped by an invisible wall when trying to escape

[colligpip 0]

i dont understand why people think noobs running around a la counterstrike is not realistic

have you seen any of the footage of the conflict in liberia

they just spray and pray

i love to play a game of armed assualt with a load of noobs against ofp vets the more noobs the merrier

and if they dont know how to aim but just want to run around and be shot its up to them

i reckon they should have a level of detail so that if you have tanks you have to get in and turn a switch to start it up and then know all the switches and dials to actually fire. I would love to see some noobs play in this environment.

it would kinda be like what happens in iraq so i guess the noobs would start making suicide bombs and running at the ofp vets what fun this would be.

so yes i hope armed assualt attracts the noobs form bf2