What ArmA Needs

[Rambo-16AAB 0]

Our AAS engine supports a Frontline mode as well, and I believe there is a Frontline style map on the server already.

[-Total- 0]

For those who never played Advance and Secure, but have COD4 -

Think Domination, but you have to take the flasg in a particular order. Randomness won't cut it. The coordination and teamwork it takes is probably the pinnacle of ArmA's potential.

just wish people woulda grown tired of AI earlier.....

[The_Captain 0]

I've long thought that conventional Arma PvP maps generally require at least a dozen soldiers/players to be fun. I think most players know this as well, and most people will not join a PvP server that has only 2 or 3 people on it: the game won't be fun.

I think Evo is popular simply because you can start a server by yourself, and other people will slowly filter in until you have a full game. You are guaranteed to be able to fight enemies even if you start the server by yourself, and it's likely other people will join you as you play.

(I'm not a personal fan of Evo because it feels too much like "work": One unit of effort, one unit of result. Repeat. Plus, the fact that you can't *lose* the mission removes all tension from it for me..)

Most PvP maps only shine when the map's density increases to acceptable levels: usually at the very least 2v2 for small PvP maps and upwards of 10v10 for the larger ones. But unless players can be attracted to such a server, those maps won't be played often. This is the wonderful chicken and egg problem that I think contributes to unplayed maps and empty servers: No one plays the maps since there aren't enough players who are willing to play them, which all but guarantees that there won't be players willing to play them in the future...

Here's what I think will make a PvP map successful on public servers:

1) Large kill counts. (Ffs, I'm tired of joining PvP maps and seeing the playtime at 1 hour and the most kills on the server hovering around '4'.). More killing and mayhem loosely translates into more fun-per-minute for the players.

2) Playability with a small number of players, with potential for more to join. No one wants to play a massive 200 player PvP CTI... by themselves. Make the map fun with a low number of players, and people will join and slowly increase the player count.

3) A quick resolution to the battle (in lieu of time limits): Small player matches are more fun when one team can press an advantage and win quickly, ending the map. Waiting around for time to expire or points to be scored as the main victory condition is deadening.

4) Dense combat areas: Proper density contributes to the fun in combat, while an empty battlefield leads to long range sniper duels between anxious players. Get a proper ratio of players-to-terrain and the battles will come alive. ~20 human players running willy nilly around the entire island is just too low of a density for there to be any fun.

5) A sense of progress or progression: It's enjoyable to play a map where you meet gameplay milestones and have memorable moments as you play. It's fun to push the enemy's respawn backwards with every location you capture, or to put certain vehicles permnently out of action. Super-equalized gameplay where every person you kill respawns nearly instantly until the end of the game, and the battle lacks a central focus aren't that much fun. How about maps where taking objectives unlocks new vehicles, or where there's a cap on how many times a team can respawn?

Coop maps tend to meet the above criteria, and I think that's one reason they're enjoyable: Fun with a small number of players, lots of enemies (high potential kill count), dense combat areas, a sense of progression (usually the number of enemies is fixed, so every kill means you're closer to victory), and usually a quick resolution (though often they have "hunt the last bastard" syndrome, which fails "quick resolution" criteria miserably).

I think some squad level PvP maps where two teams fight within a single town would do more to increase prevalence of PvP maps than massive, 200 player CTI's. Also, as much as people dislike the option, having AI players fill in for humans in PvP maps might allow small player numbers to enjoy the maps until more humans join. Even though AI can be pain, it's more fun to fight AI than no one at all.

I enjoyed a few games of AAS on the 16th AAB server a few weeks back. It's a good game mode that's open to some stellar map design possibilities. Where's the killer AAS map pack that has a dozen well balanced maps for 32 players each? I groan a bit when I see maps intended for one or two hundred players... I want to see something that's more likely to get played to its full potential.

I was a big fan of the 32 player C&H maps on the Stoner's House of Pancakes OFP server back in 2001-2. I want to see that sort of simple PvP mayhem return in some form.

Disclaimer: this was a rambly 2am post.

Edit: For Arma2 PvP to be successful, it needs competitive PvP playtested and well designed out of the box. Not CTI, not Evo-style Coop, and not a coop version of the campaign. At least a dozen medium scale, competitive PvP maps for 32-50 players that are roughly a kilometer square in size. BIS could do well to study games which are focused on multiplayer competition, such as World in Conflict, that were designed to work flawlessly out of the box. I think BIS focuses too much on the simulation aspect of their games, and not enough on the gameplay itself. While many of us buy the game for the simulation and simply to tinker, most gamers really want something that *plays* well... BIS should deliver this.

The alternative is having BIS modes that don't work upon release, and no user modes working upon release.. which means no out of the box competitive multiplayer for players to play, which means no competitive community.. erg..

[jtec 0]

If it hasnt been done already i would like to see a capture and hold map that allows only one base to be captured at one time. A example would be that you couldnt take the airfield until you have the supply depot and so on and so on (a bit like tug of war) this would make sure that both teams are fighting for the same part instead of having loads of people all over the place. You could have respawn points that move with the ground gained/lost and would bring a hell of a lot of fun to the game. You could even have the situation where weapon loadouts change for the area you are currently in, same goes for the vehicles, would be a right laugh!

[whisper 0]

If it hasnt been done already i would like to see a capture and hold map that allows only one base to be captured at one time. A example would be that you couldnt take the airfield until you have the supply depot and so on and so on (a bit like tug of war) this would make sure that both teams are fighting for the same part instead of having loads of people all over the place. You could have respawn points that move with the ground gained/lost and would bring a hell of a lot of fun to the game. You could even have the situation where weapon loadouts change for the area you are currently in, same goes for the vehicles, would be a right laugh!

A guy named KAL has done exactly that many months ago. You can find his excellent maps on my server (pingZero 2).

I think the AAS maps are of the same vein.

And I'm working for a year now ona similar concept but with more than only 1 possible path.

[jtec 0]

Thanks for that info Whisper, will go along to that server and have a look at the maps

[Rambo-16AAB 0]

Yes AAS maps are the same, the capture points have to be taken in sequence.

[jtec 0]

You may have another customer on your server soon then Rambo well when i get time away from modelling

[jtec 0]

Had a go on your maps Rambo last night, it was only a quickie due to the missus coming round but it was a very good map i played with one of your guys, will deffo come back to play those type of capture, hold and advance maps again!

[Rambo-16AAB 0]

Glad you liked them.

Unfortunated due to a Baby pending at any moment Im not available to play much the new few days or so.

[Nutty_101 0]

Glad you liked them.

Unfortunated due to a Baby pending at any moment Im not available to play much the new few days or so.

Congrats on the kiddo! Got two myself and boy do they eat all your spare time.

[whisper 0]

Glad you liked them.

Unfortunated due to a Baby pending at any moment Im not available to play much the new few days or so.

Congrats on the kiddo! Got two myself and boy do they eat all your spare time.

huhu, grats!

Same here, 1 elder 2 1/2 years old, + 2 newborn twins not even 2 months. Not much time for ourselves

[Rogueci5 0]

Glad you liked them.

Unfortunated due to a Baby pending at any moment Im not available to  play much the new few days or so.

Congrats on the kiddo! Got two myself and boy do they eat all your spare time.

huhu, grats!

Same here, 1 elder 2 1/2 years old, + 2 newborn twins not even 2 months. Not much time for ourselves

Congrats on the kids!!

Get used to the no time part, I just got my life back

21 and 18 yrs old mine are and both out of the house