Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
CyDoN

P V P

Recommended Posts

Hello there ,

I can only second what paragraphic and TheJay say and call that a very short sighted idea.

Besides the few CTF and DM fanatics who are content with the Status quo of playing max. 12 vs 12 mission on tiny areas , I figure the rest of us who liked OFP wants to play bigger and better warfare scenarios with each new release.

My dream scenario for example is to command a battalion of mechanized infantry which has orders to cross a small river and take some objectives on the other side with ingame radio-comms , artillery and CAS support , logistics(Resupply & Repair) , civilians to consider and so on.

Of course you could hope doing all that with human players , but I call that hardly realistic or desirable.

With AI(which hopefully in ArmA2 at least learns to operate as a team on a squad level) I can can play 1vs1 with a friend,one battalion vs another,both commanding only AI. Human players still can drop in at any time spawning into AI slots and take over and leave again.

There is also the question of fun. While I know there are many people enjoying doing the exact same thing a million times over in perfected robotic fashion(CTF and DM people again) , this isn't exactly the case for me and I guess many other people that enjoyed OFP for its choices and freedom of action. While driving a truck from A to B and back,shifting troops, of course can be fun,its also something you probably want AI to do most of the time. Same applies to artillery gunners,AC-130 gunners,other kinds of drivers and probably to the regular grunt as well if that AI has its fire directed(read:human assigns fire sector or target) by a human.

So,the general point is: AI increases both the numbers and gives humans more interesting jobs in what BIS claims to be a "tactical war sim"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody will ever be happy on how the AI react. This has been stated over and over again as to how it would be impossible to obtain.

Other games that have AI that are more reactive than those in ArmA have MUCH fewer AI. Generally, a few hundred fewer. The AI in ArmA are not reactive as you come to them. They are reactive across the entire mission area. Think to Evolution. Until you take out the radio tower, reinforcements come in from the other cities. That's not proximity-triggered AI.

Now, try to calculate the processing power it would take to make 500 AI act with human strategic approach and reaction simultaneously.

The result - it would require a super computer that doesn't exist yet.

You talk of alienation - how about those people who really would like to have PvP-centric action. Why should we be alienated?

If ArmA2 were released as an MMOFPS, it would be the only one of it's kind since Planetside. Yes, I would pay to play that. Many others would too. It not only would mean a constantly evolving battlefield, but also would mean BI would be getting monthly income justifying constant updates.

They've pretty much pushed the CoOp FPS/RTS as far as it can go. The only thing left is prettier graphics, which will take up more processing power meaning something (aka the AI behavior) will have to be compromised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem here is , if BIS abandons the idea of humans and AI fighting alongside,AI taking as I said jobs that are temporary(inactive sectors of the battlefield) or permanently(Repair Truck driver) less interesting and fun to play than more active and exciting roles, the game basically becomes Battlefield, a game that already exists and which has a larger financial backing than BIS.

Then one could argue that if one isn't interested in simulating large-scale combat anyways,why keep the silly big undetailed maps. Okay,if we get rid of those and focus on making the infantry and some vehicle sims very extremely detailed and make very detailed maps, the game basically becomes Americas Army, a game that also already exists and which has a larger financial backing than BIS.

So let's stay with the idea of a combined arms tactical warfare simulator for a while.

The first thing you seem to ignore is that while without AI me and silly likeminded people like me who just simply won't accept that all games have to feature the same bland modifications of CTF,C&H and DM just with shinier,bloomier and blurrier graphics have no combat simulator to play anymore , while with AI you and your buddies and myself and my buddies still can play human only missions. It's scalability, that's what having AI gives you.

You can create small human-only DMs , but sad people like me can be armchair-generals and make big missions where each human controls a group of AI.

The second point where I disagree with you is that one shouldn't even bother to develop AI because it can't be perfect anyways. Of course it won't be , especially if you want to have little human-like AIs running around who act like humans too , which for me wouldn't even be a goal to work towards since that usually for most people just means making the AI scream a lot or suffer in a very gory and brutal way. Some people may get pleasure out of that, I don't . I even see little immersion value in soldiers screaming: "Let's waste the f***ers" for the 100th time like it seems to be planned in ArmA2 , but hey-ho.

What you very much can do tho is to make AI that shoots at the enemy,survives and works with its co-AIs in an effective fashion. BIS pretty much achieved the first,even too good because the AI doesn't waste too much bullets biggrin_o.gif . The second seems to be getting improved in ArmA2 and the third perhaps we will also get at one point.

In my opinion BIS AI is already very good,it just was never taught what to actually do on a battlefield.

Sending one soldier after another into his death and then retreating as a squad leader is one example, making a kamikazi close-attack charge into a shilka nest as a attack-helicopter is another.

What I agree with you is that it will be very hard to make the AI able to do some creative thinking,i.e planning. Now some wargames I play do that fine,but they are usually in 2D.

But as I described in my battalion vs battalion scenario(Which is PVP , not coop by the way) you put humans in the roles where the creative decisions have to be taken.

I hope you would agree that one human could control 2-4 AI in a fireteam given the command interface allows for him to direct the fire for the AI wherever he wants. I am pretty sure given the circumstances that team could achieve roughly the same effectiveness as a 4 humans.

And since finding targets and directing fire is something the BIS AI does great(besides suppressive fire) you could easily leave the fireteam-leaders job to AI as well. And just have humans be squad-leaders who with a proper command interface quickly can direct 2-5 fireteams,subgroups. This in most cases still is going to get you acceptable results.

Furthermore all that squads do mostly is execute battle-drills usually which in some shape or form could be taught to AI. Hence all you need is a platoon commander that directs those squads. This should do for sectors of the battlefield where AI squads fight AI squads.

So,the point is that if you just accept a little loss of efficiency, you can easily achieve way bigger battles with the same amount of humans which in my opinion are far more interesting since there are a lot more options how the battle can turn out.

And one should not forget, if there are enough humans,they can easily switch into the AI , so that you have a purely human vs human fight in one sector of the map amidst a far larger dynamic battlefield , which is something you describe as something you would like to play. Those humans can also switch into AI that needs to do a difficult task

The short version: AI is fun and challenging,as long as there are humans controlling them smile_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You rerefenced driving a repair truck...

Funny, I seem to remember playing nothing but a support role in a pub one night for about 4 hours.

Was it as much fun as shooting something? Nope.

At the same time, it turned the tide of the battle. We went from getting rolled to actually pushing the line back into their territory.

AI CAN be fun, but it's also one of the most debated topics in the game. Personally, I think they did an outstanding job on the AI considering the processing power it takes. There's not much else they can do. Improve their pathfinding? The AI follows the map. Humans have creative thought to venture outside the roadways, trails, and sidewalks.

Imagine an ArmA MMOFPS where making rank is not nearly as easy as it is in COD4. You start off as a Private. You are issued only an M16. You have to make 1000 points to reach PFC. The distance between PFC and Corporal is 2500 points. Each rank widens the gap farther and farther out making it a process of MONTHS to make officer. Each up in rank gives you more priveleges (kinda like Evolution).

Require training for vehicles and weapons.

You are engaged in a battle one evening. Gets late, you go to bed. The following evening, you log on. Either your side won or lost the battle or it's still going on, but the game is not over by a long shot. The battelfield evolves as the players do.

Think outside of the existing community. How could BIS make that community GROW in the face of the current marketable games? A growing community = more cash inflow. Any dev studio that says they would not like that is lying LOL!

Another Coop AI-based game building up the player base? Doubtful.

I talked 15 people into buying ArmA. They all quit playing after 2 months due to the full PvP potential not being used. They got bored directing AI. HOnestly, I did too. That's 15 people who bought the game who probably will not buy ArmA2 if it's ArmA with better graphics.

BIS could run the MMOFPS servers. People pay to play to maintain the servers and provide cash for updates.

Now, this is not saying that a Coop mode could not be made as well for people who wanna run a dedicated server and play the conventional OFP/ArmA-style play. Actually, alot of people might just play both and enjoy ALL aspects of the game.

It just depends on if BIS and those with the greater influence can look past what they are comfortabley used to and carry it a step beyond.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We need official PVP maps with player classes and a better respawn system.

In Berzerk maps there is fun but everyone can carry anything, like M249 an a Stinger. so there must be classes mostly cause everyone has a m136 (getting in a shilka or m113 is a suicide).

Also the game should be made this way that groups have to matter and leaders of groups have also to play a big role.

My idea in general is a game like BF 2 in the pholosophy but with the differance in that ArmA is realistic.

Also not so all the times the vehicles to respawn and not in all places.

Using a bunch of weapons at once would ruin this game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

berzerk v2.0 almost finnished ....

heavy weapon limitations to fit the needs above still done:

Sniper ratio 1/8 (as in v1.23)

AA ratio 1/4 (new)

AT ratio 1/2 (new)

Snipers/Machinegunners and Grenadelaunchers are not allowed to carry a launcher anymore (MG only in v1.23)

the amount of heavy tanks is also limited now ... instead of 2 or 3 there will be only one in bases from now ... therefore more jeeps/bmps/brdms/strykers added.

... lets see how it feels to play with these ratios and limitations....

Regards,

zap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this way the game will be super better and there will also be no Tank camping at 3 Km shooting at spawns smile_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can't carry both a launcher and an MG at the same time :P

oh yes you can

what i am saying is that BIS must not have the community do this job. Its up to them to give us a pack of many multiplayer maps.

I don't think you can mate.

SHow me a picture and I'll eat my words. smile_o.gif

http://www.imageshack.gr/view.php?file=dbs77w2c0w3o7alz8g1x.jpg

eat your words! :P no addons on clear arma on berzerk map

wow. wow_o.gif

You can. I was sure you can't. sad_o.gif

Maybe, as others have said this is only possible in this MP mission? Or only with the AR rather than with MGs?

Either way i'll check it out tonight and report back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wow. wow_o.gif

You can. I was sure you can't. sad_o.gif

Maybe, as others have said this is only possible in this MP mission? Or only with the AR rather than with MGs?

Either way i'll check it out tonight and report back.

Probably because the weapons are added by scripting. In normal gameplay you can't do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can't carry both a launcher and an MG at the same time :P

oh yes you can

what i am saying is that BIS must not have the community do this job. Its up to them to give us a pack of many multiplayer maps.

I don't think you can mate.

SHow me a picture and I'll eat my words. smile_o.gif

http://www.imageshack.gr/view.php?file=dbs77w2c0w3o7alz8g1x.jpg

eat your words! :P no addons on clear arma on berzerk map

wow. wow_o.gif

You can. I was sure you can't. sad_o.gif

Maybe, as others have said this is only possible in this MP mission? Or only with the AR rather than with MGs?

Either way i'll check it out tonight and report back.

yeps u can with an MG too. U can also get many clips and stuff with the dragunov. and things like that. i think zaphod will fix em if he can smile_o.gif i am really looking forword of his new map pack. If u ask me berzerk maps are the only that still hold the gaming community to have half tha game by itself has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The short version: AI is fun and challenging,as long as there are humans controlling them smile_o.gif

Quoted for truth.

IMHO what makes the AI 'dumb' is their squad level intelligence. AI is quite good on an individual and tactical level, engaging targets and returning fire. In terms of movement, deployment, and strategic intelligence? Not too bright, as these behavirs need to be dictated by AI scripts or mission waypoints. However, with a human in command, a squad of infantry becomes a very dangerous enemy...

That's the PvP I want. Squad on Squad battles with humans in the important positions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The short version: AI is fun and challenging,as long as there are humans controlling them  smile_o.gif

Quoted for truth.

IMHO what makes the AI 'dumb' is their squad level intelligence. AI is quite good on an individual and tactical level, engaging targets and returning fire. In terms of movement, deployment, and strategic intelligence? Not too bright, as these behavirs need to be dictated by AI scripts or mission waypoints. However, with a human in command, a squad of infantry becomes a very dangerous enemy...

That's the PvP I want. Squad on Squad battles with humans in the  important positions.

i agree that player controlled AI can be a very good thing in PvP scenarios.

and that's also the reason why i think that custom missions like RTS4 or some types of CTI are the best you can get in balancing action, realism and high level strategy.

however, currently the biggest problem in such scenarios is the micromanagement of AI due to buggy pathfinding (crossing bridges, moving in and around buildings etc.) once that is solved a huge leap forward will be made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it would be better if u play world in conflict, why play armed assaut , a game made for tactical combat with infantry squads nener.gif

For having a competitive fully pvp game there must be support from BIS (like maps etc) and not the community, sure the community can do great things but for example look at cs, the game has so many maps but the offical maps that are played on tournamets and things like that are only a bunch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it would be better if u play world in conflict, why play armed assaut , a game made for tactical combat with infantry squads nener.gif

Why don't you go play CS and COD icon_rolleyes.gif

RTS in ArmA isn't the same as World in Conflict. A whole bunch of people are not going to avoid a gametype just because you don't like it. How is RTS not tactical combat? whistle.gif

Quote[/b] ]MULTIPLAYER NO COOP PLZ!

So you want BIS to disable coop in ArmA? Not gonna happen, forget it. Nothing wrong with coop, or having AI in PvP. If people didn't like it, they wouldn't play it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if u have read carefuly the whole post youd would have seen that the general idea is not to dispose coop, but make the game a little bit more competitive so the muliplayer will be raised and more ppl will come to the game, especially for those who like to play in ladders and things like that. About plaing cs and cod... those games are fun but the close clistophobic corridors and the unrealistic nature of the game in all aspects and this type of gameplay make them boring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if u have read carefuly the whole post youd would have seen that the general idea is not to dispose coop, but make the game a little bit more competitive so the muliplayer will be raised and more ppl will come to the game, especially for those who like to play in ladders and things like that. About plaing cs and cod... those games are fun but the close clistophobic corridors and the unrealistic nature of the game in all aspects and this type of gameplay make them boring.

The problem with PvP right now is mostly caused by the players. Many of them only want to play Evo and Bezerk sad_o.gif

ArmA missions (both MP and SP) seem to have been made in a rush, so they just aren't good enough IMO.

Hopefully ArmA 2 will have more players. Less bugs and enough gameplay improvements should help things.

And better marketing.

For good PvP we need more people. The game can handle some really impressive PvP with a large amount of players. The CTI and other large scale games could be great, it's the players that let them down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The CTI and other large scale games could be great, it's the players that let them down.

Huh?!.. you blame the wrong ones.

The broken animations, performance issues and the odd weapon handling are the reason.

OFP is better in this things, and CTI player still play CTI in OFP.

Even CTITC season 8 will still use OFP, and not ArmA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well Zaphod said he gunna limit usage of guided missiles in similar way how now sniper rifles are limited in 1.23

tho i would love implementation of mando (like) missile scripts, flares and so on ...*

i think that there should be limit on each 'advanced weapons'

but this limit could be 'lighten' by two factors

the score/skill of player

the team score (winning team gets chance to easier/faster get some weapons/vehicles

again it must be carefully balanced to not break team vs team gameplay

---

*:

for example v 1.23 of Berseker shows that air is 'meat for gringer' easy to shoot down

(definitely must blade 'designer/developer' for missing

IR protection (flares)

Laser protection (auto-smoke protection/other jam technigues)

Optical targeting protection (laser blinding sensors of incoming missiles)

Radar protection (chaff)

as basic i start with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countermeasure

these defense technologies prolong lifetime of ground, air and naval vehicles versus infantry or other vehicles

which create immersion of battle not just 'aim, lock, fire, forget & repeat'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the odd weapon handling

what do u mean?

Everying, aiming and recoil is complete differend to OFP ( and poorer).

I made 2 shot movies about it, time ago.

example for aiming

and for recoil, click the pic.

default.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Everying, aiming and recoil is complete differend to OFP ( and poorer).

I made 2 shot movies about it, time ago.

i totaly disagree. ofp is more hm... aracde comparing to ArmA. In ofp the shots where just going where u wanted and also the 2d crosshair made aiming pretty much easier + the weapon was too steady. In general ofp was just easier.

Comparing Ofp and ArmA its just nostalgeous and u know why. Ofp had pretty much everything at that time and ArmA hasnt anything really rebelous, but damn its far more realistic than ofp.

and btw what ur are showing here is an addon. ofp didnt have Barret wink_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In such a vid as THIS you can see that it'd be very hard to rebalance the weapon to the exact place of your last shot. In OFP without addons after each shot you just aimed in the exact same place almost, which isn't realistic unless you have a bipod or something to rest on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ArmA is not more realistic, as long only the shoulders move while recoil.

OFP weapon moved allways back to nearly the same spot after a shot, correct.

Why didn't fixed Bohemia this little issue?

However, i know if there will be the same poor weapon behavoir in the ArmA2 demo, like in ArmA1 is now, then i am not a customer of BI again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OFP aiming was too easy and Arma maybe a little too hard.

Difference is i feel much more acomplished after hitting a bead at 500m in Arma than OFP where is was just routine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×