So can anyone tell me why everyone is playing coop

[Pathy 0]

For me the thrill comes from fighting alongside a bunch of good lads, getting some good drills down without having to get wet and muddy, having a good contact with the enemy (and it's possible to, and we have, tweak the AI so that they are less accurate, fire at longer range, etc, so that you get longer lasting, longer range firefights), then buggering off for tea and medals. Alst whilst having a laugh with the group you're playing with.

PvP can't give me that. Coop, particually with a tight knit group, has a certain camraderie.

[TrunkzJr 0]

i thought PvP would be fun in this game before the game was released. Well it's not, it's really not that fun compared to Co-op. I hope ArmAII leans more towards co-op and spending time on the AI (unless they made some close quarter combat modes for pvp).

[JeRK 0]

ArmA actually comes with a really good CQB PvP map, most people don't like the idea of playing standard stuff though...

It's called Sector Control. It's a great map, I had lots fun with it in the first days of ArmA. Then all those huge, boring maps like Air Cav, Berzerk and Evo came by and messed it all up.

[walker 0]

Hi all

People vote with their feet.

If you like CTF DM twitch play, you play on those servers.

If you like Berzerk, you play on those servers.

If you like Evolution, you play on those servers.

If you like PvP coop, you play on those servers.

If you like pure coop, you play on those servers.

It is that simple.

Same as with games. I got RID of COD 4 on my computer 2 weeks after I installed it. Worst MP game I have ever played and SP took me less than 2 days, the most atrocious scripted AI ever.

OFP and now ArmA are the only games I have kept for years. No others have lasted as long.

Do we all still like to play the odd half hour a month of hexenkessle, sure like I play space invaders once or twice a year for 10 minutes.

The fact is people apreciate Coop and PvP Coop over CTF and DM twitch play. It is a question of the fun factor. People play what is fun. Berzerk, Evo, Coop and PvP Coop servers become more popular and get more players because people prefer them for the fun.

Complaining about it is just advertising the reality.

Kind Regards walker

[celery 8]

Walker, you are writing huge essays to say a simple thing that has already been said like a million times: PvP in its current state is not fun. Phrases like "hexenkessel", "mad half hour" and "vote with their feet" have been repeated in your posts hundreds of times. Do you have something new to say instead of copypasting your rant templates?

But one thing you just don't seem to understand that it's not the game modes that suck, it's the buggy gameplay that makes urban PvP combat very dull and unfair. Please don't write a book about war being dull and unfair, this is a game where soldiers are clumsier than in real life.

[W0lle 1050]

The same you said about Walker one could say about you.

In almost every thread made about MP you jump in and complain about the oh-so-bad AI, the horrible anims and of course the crappy Evolution played everywhere.

[Michael_Wittman 0]

"Actually PvP game is DM with vehicles"---- Agree 100%

This game is not ment yet for PvP since map...for its size would need batallion or regiment size teams (thats thousands people). And yes...classes should really be restricted not everyone camping around with sniper rifles and AT.

"Default AI aiming accuracy is too high"---- Agree 100% they not only shoot you death at 300m with ironsights...they do it whyle you are sprinting for cover.

"There is no fear factor on AI"----- Agree 100% If anyone have played Combat Mission knows that... fear factor goes from aware to routed... It should have influence on their will to fight and also on their aiming accuracy (you dont aim that good if you are saking).

"Player controls are slow"----- Agree 100% Its so much that urban combat is too hard. I would also say that better controls for vehicles could be very apretiated as sometimes I accidentally expose myself whyle searching a hull-down position.

"AI tanks and AI in general spot you too easy"---- Agree 100% and is also related to the moral/fear factor....surprisingly they run directly to you...and hattech tanks are almost blind...and def (as someone said).

Final word about PvP and cooperation. Most people dont want to think in a tactic, most people dont start and attack with a silence recon, most people dont know a word about how to use tanks or what is a safety path according to AA positions and terrain. Most people wish that chess were as easy as tic-tac-toe because they dont have the patience to learn or play it. Comparing Arma to CoD4....well...keep playing tic-tac-toe surely its not that frustrating for you...and you will be a tic-tac-toe champion soon (and you´ll be proud )

[(FPC) Bacon 0]

To bring all this PvP or COOP disscusion to and an end remember,

(Don't blame the player blame the game)

[JeRK 0]

To bring all this PvP or COOP disscusion to and an end remember,

(Don't blame the player blame the game)

No, do blame the player for messing up the game with awful missions. Why is ArmA unplayable in PvP now when it was playable back in v1.0? Because of Berzerk and Evo. That's why. We need new, well planned and thought over missions. Where gameplay is chosen over scale.

[Michael_Wittman 0]

One of my points was...dont use a Ferrari to carry pigs...a Ferrari can carry pigs and you can attach it a trolley to carry more pigs...but there are other vehicles ment to do just that...

On my country there is and old idiom that says...."Honey were not ment for the mouth of the donkey".

[Frantic 0]

To bring all this PvP or COOP disscusion to and an end remember,

(Don't blame the player blame the game)

No, do blame the player for messing up the game with awful missions. Why is ArmA unplayable in PvP now when it was playable back in v1.0? Because of Berzerk and Evo. That's why. We need new, well planned and thought over missions. Where gameplay is chosen over scale.

No, the game is just not good enough for PvP.

It wasnt playable in 1.0 and its the same in 1.8/1.9.

New maps and missions brings something new but it wont bring masses of PvP players.

Look at the number of users playing online, thats nearly the same number of players playing still OFP and at OFP are even more PvP servers.

So what can be the reason for it?

Grafix are better in ArmA, the netcode is better, bigger area, higher player numbers possible...

However all this good stuff cant help because of the clumsy movement possibilities.

Playing as an infantry soldier is the most common state in a war game and so it should have good controls and movements,

otherwise you wont have the right feeling to it.

OFP got the most intense atmosphere of all games i played so far and with ArmA i never got any of that feelings, because of the fact that i was always wondering what my soldier is doing instead of just reacting in a native way after pressing a button.

I was always protecting ArmA´s movements and controls at the beginning.

I always told the complaining users that they just have to get used to it.

However i was wrong.

Like you see at the number of online playing users, nearly every PvP player left ArmA only a few are left.

ArmA is a pure simulator.

It even has an army of robots which are trying to be humans.

[-HUNTER- 1]

Personally I think the best would be 2 GROUPS of humans fighting against eachother is the most realistic. No AI bs. Cover works, and enemy will give you some surpresive fire back at ya...

[Michael_Wittman 0]

Among map scale other of the Arma problems related to PvP playability is that it is played with modern weapons...120mm cannons, 0.50 Cal Mg.. , 40mm grenade launchers, AT accurate up to 1000m.....and so on...

This game could be much more fun with WWII weapons more tricky and harder to aim... but the game itself lacks the same that Red Orchestra lacked...thats reallistic ballistics. I have been a big fun of Day of Defeat since the early betas and although compared to this is like playing in a shoebox it was great and although it had no tanks at least we never saw a tank flying 250m in the air like someone was doing a free kick on it. Both CS:S and DoD:S implemented the physhixs really well compared to ARMA.

The game that took me here was Ghost Recon. And for the mod of WWII I saw (called War of Infamy) it had the potential...

To say it straight...to make balance on armor/infantry there should be 1 tank on 35 players when it could be 1 on 10 players if it were WWII.

[walker 0]

Hi all

In Reply to Michael_Wittman there is already a WWII mod under construction for those who like that style and want to be able to play it. If it is as popular as you think then lots of people will play it.

People have their particular beliefs on what makes good game play.

I am sure CTF DM twitch play suits some people. I have seen some people wanting to play COD4 style play they say it requires different anims and various config changes. The config changes are simple any one with half a brain could do it. The anims could in the short term simply be speed-ed up or negated till the people who want that style of play can make the anims. If there are people who think it is important they need to get off their lazy buts and do it. I do not think they will; partly because they are lazy, partly because they do not wish to do it; they just like whining but they can prove me wrong, I do not think they will though.

Others prefer different styles of play. They seem to be creating mods that suit their style with no problems. The Mod I am playing a lot slows down player speed to be more realistic instead of the speed some assume humans can turn at they measure the average turn speed of a bunch of people with a weapon and equipment then get the game to conform to that. They increase engagement ranges and dispersion of AI, so battles often take place at 500m plus with thousand of rounds flying both ways, with weapons that are not sighted it can take two or three mags to kill the target. They reduce the running speed to what a fully equipped soldier can manage over distances greater than 100m. Wheeled road vehicles are slowed more off road. I am sure all these changes would drive a twitch player up the wall. Personally I think they are realistic. When we play PvP and we play a lot of PvP we are playing at realistic engagement ranges using realistic tactics. We plan, we rehears, we work off SOPs and Actions On, we use directed fire, we observe and ambush.

Hell the other day, while commanding a PvP I got one guy up in the second seat of the AH60 instead of only haing it attack I tasked it to orbite the target buildings in a hostage rescue while the second guy tried to spot the position of the principle and all tango-es. I even asked him to FRAPS it and take screen shots then give us a report. He liked the task so much he wanted to do it again.

Others make new maps even new game play styles like Berzerk and Evolution which are very popular.

People are busy making new PvP and coop missions, SP MP missions. Some make models some are making new islands. Some create versions of the weapons and equipment their nation uses. Some add new animations. Yet others MOD ArmA as they did OFP, Sci Fi mods, CWC mod, strategy games, WWII, Napoleonic, Realism mods.

Essentially ArmA continues as OFP did with very rich and diverse number of Mod teams busy making of the game what they will.

That flexibility is what makes ArmA like OFP before it great and why so many people keep playing it.

Kind Regards walker

[Frantic 0]

...

Essentially ArmA continues as OFP did with very rich and diverse number of Mod teams busy making of the game what they will.

That flexibility is what makes ArmA like OFP before it great and why so many people keep playing it.

...

?!?

it seems you are having a day dream...

ArmA is just a small piece compared to OFP

Many mods went off or to other game engines.

Most of the PvP OFP clans went to other games.

Many people are still playing OFP instead of ArmA.

You are right that ArmA is flexible like OFP, but it lost a lot of the old OFP community.

and to say that so many people keep playing it. just sounds wrong.

more accurate and suitable for ArmA would be so many people stopped playing it.

im wondering why?

[benreeper 0]

It's simple: If you think that the game isn't designed for PvP, then don't constantly tell us the game stinks, move on to a game that is more to your game style. There are countless twitch shooters out there for you to play.

Many of us like the game the way it is and it seems to me that the constant harping on animations and other things only serve to try to make us hate the game as much you do.

If you played this game for more than ten hours (which includes Editor time) then you've already gotten your money's worth (COD4 only lasted 6 hours for me) so leave Arma for another game. Why make yourself more miserable, unless you like being miserable.

--Ben

[The_Captain 0]

Personally, i would prefer to play PvP than coop. My favorite public server mission is '[DM][20] gdtdeathmatch'. I forget which server I've played it on, but it usually shows up on Berzerk servers.

Setup: up to 20 players, randomly spawn on Ramahdi, and can create a random helicopter or tank with an action menu command. Tanks spawn with an AI driver. Hellicopters don't have AT rockets.

Similar to Andersen's gunship DM and similar, except the list of spawnables is reduced to simply zsu/bmp/vulcan/t72/m1a1/ah1/uh60/mi17/ka50, tanks get drivers, and there are no jets or guided AT missiles.

Call arma itself, and its infantry or vehicle combat, unrealistic, and clunky, etc, etc, etc. But such a deathmatch, pitting helicopters and ground vehicles against each other on the small island of ramahdi, is intense and quite fun! Ramahdi is small enough so that you can reliably find most other players while still having enough terrain to hide from them. Players are out to kill each other, and displaying your position too long or revealing yourself by fire leads to a quick death. There is no traveling 10 minutes to the action after respawn, no flags to capture, and no cities to conquer. It's simply balls-up DM on a 1000m island with rolling terrain.

Why is it the most fun Arma PvP I've played? You can have a continuous amount of fun, and the victor in the small engagements is the one who is intelligent and exploits advantages in other players. Tanks aren't neutered by being forced to have one crew, so you can reliably move and shoot as a tanker without being either blind or immobile half the time. Want to fire your shilka at a helicopter? The other players are going to spot your tracers, so you should move! Want to attack a tank from long range? You had better be sure of killing it (with whatever your weapon), as once it spots you you'll quickly be dead.

Though the setup is laughably unrealistic, the combat engagements feel far more realistic than most SP or MP arma missions, and that's why I like GDT Deathmatch.

Call me a philistine, but playing 20 minutes of this deathmatch is more cerebral and more rewarding, for me, than a few hours of playing either Berzerk or Evo. More Arma PvP should have a similar balance of fun and skill needed. If there were a team based, objective oriented MP mode that had a similar combat balance, I'd play it exclusively.

To the answer of PvP or Coop, I say "N/A": As it is, I spend 99% of my time either in ArmaEdit or Arma itself testing and debugging missions...

[Frantic 0]

It's simple: If you think that the game isn't designed for PvP, then don't constantly tell us the game stinks, move on to a game that is more to your game style. There are countless twitch shooters out there for you to play.

Many of us like the game the way it is and it seems to me that the constant harping on animations and other things only serve to try to make us hate the game as much you do.

If you played this game for more than ten hours (which includes Editor time) then you've already gotten your money's worth (COD4 only lasted 6 hours for me) so leave Arma for another game. Why make yourself more miserable, unless you like being miserable.

--Ben

Who is talking only about PvP here?

We are talking about ArmA and the clumsy movements are the same in PvP and in COOP or even in singleplayer.

The only thing why there are more COOP servers than PvP servers is the fact that the clumsy controls are not so easy looked over at PvP compared to COOP. Human counterparts use every mistake you do to get you down.

And of course you can even play a COOP alone or just with 2 users.

We are just talking about the topic title and as far i know is that here a forum and a forum is there to tell your opinion.

So please stop telling us to go away otherwise only yes sayers would be left and BIS will release an even more clumsier game than ArmA was and are wondering why only the same people buys and plays their game.

Most of us old OFP lovers are gone to other games already, but we still like the idea of ArmA with all of its freedom to do whatever you want.

So why should we stop our hopes that BIS will make all correct with ArmAII?

[walker 0]

Hi all

For me the best PvPs are the realistic scenario ones. Too many to mention; everything from CQB style hostage rescues to all arms battle groups with thousands of AI and 30 human plus players each controlling a squads of their own or some times acting as sniper teams, or tank hunters, or running observation for indirect fire, or playing undercover scout in a road patrol etc. Any one remember the "Forest of Death" on Nogova from OFP days? Well we are still playing those style missions

Loads of possibilities I guess this is why so many of us are still playing ArmA.

Coops are not the only type of games people play in ArmA.

In fact it is about a 60% PvPs 40% Coops split.

Of the PvP

About 2% of the PvPs are DM or CTF twitch play shoebox scenarios.  About 40% of PvP is Berzerk, 30% of PvP realistic scenario games the rest is a mix of other C&H and new game styles people are experimenting with.

The problem with other games it is Shoe box or nothing Which means only CTF and DM work there. A 30 a side realistic scenario would not last more than 3 minutes in CoD. Plus there are no vehicles unless you count the pretend helo-strikes. So there never will be any realism in those games. You also have the problem that the AI is scripted only so no one can make the AI work in MP without spending months programming every step and trying to limit player action so they cannot be flanked or an unusual strategy used on them.

A lot of people who consider themselves leete come from those environments. They step into ArmA and actually get killed by an AI about a couple of seconds into a game, seriously embarrassing for them so it must be cheating; or get sniped spawning into a Berzerk zone that has just been captured   Dumb. They even complain about spawn killing.   Common sense tell you spawn into the previous zone then drive fly or walk, you only spawn into a secure spawn; there is an exception to this but leetes are too dumb to explain this too, best to keep it simple.

So those types tend to go on what they know CTF and DM then complain nobody else wants to play with them; hmm I wonder why? By all means play CTF and DM, Most of us do for a half hour every so often, but get real, that is not the be all and end all of PvP by a long chalk.

When you have islands the size ArmA OFP are and an AI that does not have to be told where its a*se is to have a sh*t you are obviously going to have more fun by using them and the whole environment than you are creating a new shoe box.

ArmA and OFP's popularity is because people exist in more than a shoe box.

Kind Regards walker

[lwlooz 0]

Hello Frantic(and others) ,

could you elaborate on "clumsy movement" controls please? I have been told this before and I spend quite some time switching between OFP 1.96 and ArmA 1.9 forth and back and I personally can't see much difference. There are still are some weird broken anim-transitions but besides the Run->Lay Down(Which seems to be missing,only Sprint->Lay Down most of the time) it has not much effect(as per ms) on input control , but rather looks a bit ugly. So are you unhappy with the animations or is it something else? If its just the animations I would suggest you look into the Anims config and slow down the speed of movement or speed up the animations(Like Reload) . The first minimizes the effect of the character running further than you want(something I can't even measure,my character stops immediately) and the other just makes the game better adjusted to unrealistic(yes,it is) classic PvP gameplay.

I personally have the feeling that many people in the DM/CTF scene are just too used to the camera-on-rail movement of most shooters and claim OFP has the same type,which it doesn't.

[whisper 0]

Mainly, some animations stopping late after user has request it to stop, and way slower transitions, making the raising of a gun from running, or passing from up to prone, too slow and visible.

OFP was more fluid about that, you'd go from anim A to anim B without a turtle speed transition.

Same for ironsight, a bit too slow to go on ironsight mode in ArmA.

All this, only my opinion and views on the matter. I'm not the best "twitch" expert on OFP/ArmA

[walker 0]

Hi all

Nice of lwlooz to offer a pointer on how to alter animation speeds. Edited at Whispers rquest

Kind Regards walker

[whisper 0]

Could you just avoid making any judgement about how other people play an open game like ArmA?

That'd help immensely if the flamebaiting was cut down.

By like... a lot.

Thank you.

[Inkompetent 0]

I do wonder. How would the interest for Battlefield-series Conquest-like missions be?

I suppose that seeing that it's almost only EVO running the general base of players want something easily accessible to play.

Then how about easily accessible PvP (without making it like Berzerk where everyone and their mother have the heaviest weapons they can find) that's pretty much Sector Control and where you can choose to spawn at any of the controlled zones?

At the moment I'm tinkering with a 17v17 mission where there are some jeeps, a truck and a light armoured vehicle for each side, then three four-man squads, only one sniper and medic per side, and only two guys with AT weapons. On top of that only the two crew members can drive the armoured vehicles.

With gear-whoring stripped away and some level of cooperation greatly beneficial, mission area being about 2x1km with four sectors to control, how does this sound to people?

Would there be any interest in this from both sides, or is it not... uhm... ArmA-ish or arcadeish enough but a bad in between? Or is it a good idea?

[beta 0]

Quote[/b] ]how does this sound to people?

I will try ANY ArmA PvP mission once.

If the mission includes:

-restricted weapons (and, no, you can't have all the weapons in a crate somewhere)

-can't drive a Tank/Jet/Helicopter as some random rifleman

-players in SQUADS, not just on their own causing ungodly amounts of text spam

-FEW armoured/air vehicles

I will play it probably exclusively ... MAYBE some Sahrani Life once in a while.