Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
CyDoN

One question that MANY fans care about.

Recommended Posts

Though I would expand on my comment regarding my preference for Co-Op/SP vs PvP.

First , with the introduction of mods and ACE the AI seem to be almost as intelligent (sometimes more so) and just as willing to obey orders as the majority of players on PUBLIC PvP servers who tend to come from other fast action, go for broke FPS such as BF2042(?),CoD etc. etc. and play ArmedA that way.

These also bring with them cheats , hacks , inane chatter and the odd one has no other intent than to disrupt the game. (I've obviously had bad experiences playing online haven't I confused_o.gif )

Obviously there are a lot of players out there that want to play the game properly,that's why there are so many clans. For those who can organize a full scale PvP scenario I can honestly see where it could be challenging and a lot of fun.

Being a casual player myself , not interested in clans nor competition , the fact that there are so many decent Co-Op/SP maps and,if I want to venture online , well run/adminned Co-Op servers , puts ArmedA head and shoulders above anything else out there right now for me.

As was stated earlier , creating your own maps is so easy in ArmedA so it isn't really necessary for BI to cater to this sector. Look at many other games in the leagues and count the ones that are NOT using custom maps. They are few and far between.

If the PvP sector was that big,there would be nothing BUT PvP on armaholics but , fact is , there are tons of SP and CoOp missions there too so quit a few players also like or even prefer this mode of game play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Provided the basic mechanisms are fine for PvP in ArmA (character handling, etc...), you would see much more PvP played on servers.

Fact is, ArmA fight vs humans is a pain to handle.

In OFP days, you'd see tons of people playing competitive PvP.

Low number of people playing PvP in ArmA is probably not because there are more people prefering Coop only, but because PvP people have been put away from ArmA by the bad sides of the game (performance, handling).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe there should be an FPS Mode for infantry in difficulty options, to make infantry move and aim, and weapons handle like COD4. I bet there would be a ton of PvP servers and good PvP missions.

The mode should also restrict view distance to 200m to keep acceptable frame rates for fast PvP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is that you need to change run-n-gun style PvP into a more tactical based team vs team style PvP that ARMA/ARMA2 is mean for, which many PvP players have no idea what it is, or dont give a fuck to learn how to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]he mode should also restrict view distance to 200m to keep acceptable frame rates for fast PvP.

That'd be misusing a game specifically designed to offer huge environments...

200m is overkill in a dungeon or space station, but in outdoors, that's not doing Arma any favour.

You have to use a game for what it's good at and accept that it cannot be the best at everything, from Blackshark to Counter Strike (even though the guys at BIS are doing their best to strike the right balance).

On a side note, you can fix the viewdistance on the server already...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Problem is that you need to change run-n-gun style PvP into a more tactical based team vs team style PvP that ARMA/ARMA2 is mean for, which many PvP players have no idea what it is, or dont give a fuck to learn how to.

I think for ArmA the above is the biggest issue of all.

Offcourse ArmA isn't as smooth in animations, and I've had my fair share of issues with performance as many others.

But PvP should be played as TeamvsTeam even if it's just 5vs5 (razor teams?) in ArmA and ArmA2. But it's hard to find people that KNOW how to play in such a style and with all the years of PvP gameplay and all the other games having such gameplay most if not all people will tend to try and survive in such way.

So to have a succesfull PvP scene you need people to know how to run it succesfull and create missions that fit this gameplay and people to learn this new gameplay.

And I guess THAT is the reason why it is and will not be popular on this engine.

But on the other hand, if you get the Co-op groups interested in having TvsT challenges with others and eventually have that open for individuals you might see it work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think BF, CoD or Quake-style competition scene is about individuals fighting each others instead of teams, I'm afraid you're wrong.

Taking for example ETQW, playing as team is cornerstone of being effective.

That doesn't mean the 1vs1 part should be overlooked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know i'll get bashed, but maybe one of the reasons coop is so popular in Arma is because the ai is often unpredictable and tends to get you cornered somehow.

Its generally fun and engaging to fight against well script supported ai's. Also they are more deadly compared to most other games, and a solid enemy to fight.

Sure there are pvp unfriendly elements in Arma, but there where also in OFP. A pvp in both games tends to be more of a camp fest then anything else. The problem is that Arma and ofp simulate real life a lot better, and often camping is a very good solution ;-)

Other pvp games often solve this by raising the speed at which one can move. This however contradicts simulation...

However there may be a lot of reasons noone seems to consider for a "lack" of pvp.

Other games that provide a "better",mostly corridor, pvp experience churn out by the thousands...

It may be a question of competition, that cannot be solved without ruining the basic arma/ofp experience.

That said, with a bit better anims and a stable game i think pvp might just come back.

What i miss most is the basic CTI experience OFP had: an ideal mix of PVP VS COOP. I don't know why but Warfare never was my nack...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Gnat

Well i don't want to play that kind of map, thats you don't understand, its a matter of taste, you might enjoy it I and many other people don't.

........ you completely missed my point.

I'm not say you must like it, I'm saying MANY people liked it and played CTI (maybe other than you and your many friends).

AND, it wasn't an official BIS mission.

Same applies to the likes of Hexenkessel, huge favourite for OFP and ArmA, but again not from BIS.

@lwlooz

Quote[/b] ]The games by BIS are of the sandbox type

Exactly

@Ptolemaios

Quote[/b] ]@Gnat:What makes you think that the community is you? The community is every single person that plays ArmA.So i dont want you to speak for me ok?Just keep your opinion

LOL ... wtf. I didn't speak for anyone, I was just questioning where the so called "MANY" came from.

And do you realise what you just said ? ..... "everyone is community" ... "but I should shut up" ? wow

All I'm saying is

- There gamers who buy BF2 because thats what they want

- There gamers who buy OFP and ArmA because thats what they want.

- Both games have a different market

- BIS don't have to make their game a clone of another

- I personally (still not speaking for the community) don't like run-n-gun canned games that pretent to have teamwork for a matter of minutes.

- I personally (still not speaking for the community) like realism sandbox games with awesome moding tools, huge custom mission flexibility, HUGE environments, sessions that can go on for hours and hours and a shit hot community of like-minded people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe we would be talking about the same thing, i am just gonna call it TvT:

There should be at least one of those wide spread style maps delivered with a2 (COOP, CTI, DM, TvT -CTF, -CTH etc).

BUT that doesn't mean those should be "official", the most played missions and game concepts out there were done by players anyways.

I am sure you know that ALL the other games are released with so many maps because the player have no easy means of doing that by itself (aka no mission editor). So there is no way you can compare CS, UT, BF2, COD4 with arma here

There is a good reason ppl don't play PvP games: they are usually just that: run and gun. I am sorry to say, but every server that i've been on and had CTF/CTH missions playing had a similar to CS layout, contained, same damn weapon, same damn crap flying around.

Who is to blame? BIS? No! but the ones(players) trying to port the same run and gun PvP concept from games like COD4, BF2 into arma: it just does NOT FIT.

Arma allows you to play on 100x more terrain than any other game. It allows you to flank, outmaneuver, etc etc. Most ppl don't go that far, they just wanna pwn some others. There are plenty of games allowing you to do just this out there

The only small size layout that i have actually enjoyed was in arma was the A&S one.

BUT Yes, i do enjoy myself playing against humans rather than AIs.

Why? because even with the best AIs out there in any game, it is more fun to play against a working brain. And that is why i am currently enlisted in 3 different ArmA TvT tournaments: 2 featuring respawn, the kill count is off and it doesn't matter at the end of the day, and another one having a more realistic setup, based on a non-respawn mission: this is where teamplay shows, as well as strategy, thinking ahead, as well as player skills.

in the end, i am all for bringing more life in the PvP/TvT community (support for more players - tournaments, more fluid animations, etc). But you all need to understand that all that bunny hoping crap that happens in any other game like CS/BF2/COD4 will never work on a platform like arma anyways. You will need to adapt your run and gun to fit this game, and not the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe there should be an FPS Mode for infantry in difficulty options, to make infantry move and aim, and weapons handle like COD4. I bet there would be a ton of PvP servers and good PvP missions.

The mode should also restrict view distance to 200m to keep acceptable frame rates for fast PvP.

Why would it be a good idea to make it a different game when fighting against human enemies? I thought the idea of pvp missions in a game is to play the exact same game against players instead of AI. The animations and graphical performance in Armed Assault are universally poor and just because it shows better in pvp doesn't mean that sp and coop people don't have the same issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe there should be an FPS Mode for infantry in difficulty options, to make infantry move and aim, and weapons handle like COD4. I bet there would be a ton of PvP servers and good PvP missions.

The mode should also restrict view distance to 200m to keep acceptable frame rates for fast PvP.

Why would it be a good idea to make it a different game when fighting against human enemies? I thought the idea of pvp missions in a game is to play the exact same game against players instead of AI. The animations and graphical performance in Armed Assault are universally poor and just because it shows better in pvp doesn't mean that sp and coop people don't have the same issues.

True, controls do generally suck for everyone in ArmA, but it's supposedly better in ArmA2 with animation interrupt and separate upper and lower body animation for reloading on the move etc.

I just don't see how you can make "realistic" (ie, slow movement, slow weapon handling) animation and controls that the average co-op / SP / A&D player wants and at the same time make them fast enough to keep a shoebox DM enjoyable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just me, but shoebox DM == I play CoD

What will be in ArmA2 that would make shoebox DM better than in other games suited for this type of gameplay? I see nothing, personnaly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What will be in ArmA2 that would make shoebox DM better than in other games suited for this type of gameplay? I see nothing, personnaly.

Not much. But at least that way people wouldn't cry about the slow animations not being suited for PvP.

I can also imagine the clumsy first person controls being the number one deal breaker in ArmA for many players who are only used to normal FPS controls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well,

This game is supossed to be battalion scale at least....thats like 200 men per side...ARMA1 was supposed to give 124 vs 124 online players and I never saw it in my life.

PvP is a hacker attractor so...if BIS want that they´d surely put half the whole money in a "allways latest" cheating buster and for sure that is not the case. If you are asking for PvP game...fun...playable...and run-into-action-quick this is not your game.

MOST of the people dont know the f#~€€¬ of how to survive having the best equipment....let alone play as a team.... I had a hard time teaching my fellows comrades how to assault, retreat or withdraw...where to set a fire position or how to use tophography to attack using choppers!!!

Dont be such a smart%%&& ..... playing coop is hard for 80% of the people....and we are talking only as infantry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does PvP have to be shoebox DM? ArmA is HORRIBLE for shoebox fighting. It isn't meant for that. If one wants it there is both CoD and BF2 that does the job 100 times better, but on the contrary would be utter crap for fighting at distance.

Judging from the TvT maps running on public servers I understand if it isn't many playing it. Not a single person cooperates, communicates, or does anything logical at all for that matter. It's usually an on orgy in e-peen measuring where everyone want the biggest guns.

On the contrary I just now (after the release of ACE) started playing on the TacticalGamer server, where one of the missions is a random location TvT mission on Sahrani with just one infantry squad on each team fighting over a random objective. The combat zone isn't bigger than one square kilometer, but it's perfect for that scale of infantry combat.

This kind of TvT play is awesome. But if TvT has to mean "twitch-play in shoebox sized map where e-peen is more important than communication", then I'd rather not have TvT at all in ArmA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it wasn't so depressingly predictable, it would be amusing to see so many self-proclaimed Co-op players coming out of the woodwork to comment on a form of play they shun.  Worse, to hear so many ill-informed opinions from those players about why PvP isn't popular in ArmA .

As Q said, anybody who actually played OFP will know that PvP was a _huge_ success in that version of the game.  Many players valued the 'one-shot, one-kill' model along with the floating iron-sights, semi-realistic ballistics etc.   Unfortunately, ArmA had a less-than brilliant launch and also introduced a rather clumsy animation-transition model.  Many of my team-mates (yes, PvP players do join teams and use teamwork) simply weren't willing to wait for the game to be patched up to playability. Personally, I stuck with it and was reasonably happy with the final state of the game but by then there simply wasn't the critical mass of players to get decent games going.  

According to steam there were a maximum of 26 ArmA players online today. sad_o.gif

To comment on the original request....

Yes, ArmA2 needs to have a couple of default CTF's and maybe a DM but the reality during OFP days was that you very rarely saw those maps getting any time amongst the huge variety of player-made content.  There were many successful leagues which used maps created specially and it's interesting to note that these ranged all the way from 1v1 death-match right up to large-scale team matches with more 'realistic' rules and scenarios such as WGL.  The beauty of OFP was always that it could incorporate such a wide range of casual fun through to hardcore simulation.  PvP will not live or die based on the supply of 'official' maps but on the success of the game launch and the ability to build a critical mass of online players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
According to steam there were a maximum of 26 ArmA players online today. sad_o.gif

Steam only shows the players using the steam version, so there were 26 players online with their steam version of ArmA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, I did a quick count rounding up to ten right now, and theres easily a lot more than 500 people

BTW while looking at the server list, its great to see how many servers are embracing the ACE mod.

Yes the animations has its issues, but it really isn't such a pain when you plan ahead instead of the usual run in a straight line until you find a enemy to shoot at.

And I can not see how that can be coop/militaristic tosser exclusive, because surely you want to stay alive and win the game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I can atm at http://stats.swec.se/server/list see there is 932 players online, so yeah... smile_o.gif

But on the PvP again: Indeed, there were some fantastic CTF maps in OFP, and I can't really see why that wouldn't work in ArmA.

I do agree with Q though. Take popular maps that are made by the community and stick them into ArmA2. Even though ArmA comes with the lovely ability to download missions on the fly when connecting to a server, it doesn't hurt with a few different and good maps to start with, to give flavours of Warfare, CTF, TDM and alike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Steam only shows the players using the steam version, so there were 26 players online with their steam version of ArmA.

The server list at SWEC counts over 800 which is a pleasant surprise. I might have to reinstall my copy ! biggrin_o.gif

Interesting to see how relatively unsuccessful the steam version seems to have been although perhaps that's because it primarily served the US market and the stats are simply showing the fact that most of them are still at work or school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

STEAM version is fail mainly because ATARI failed to keep it up2date forcing users lived to 'comfort' of automated up2date game updates to manually update the game ...

in short ATARI (non)support for STEAM version is total disaster for end user ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It always funny when people come and brang their non existing

KNOWLEDGE and EXPERIENCE how decent OFP and ArmA PvP

looks like.  rofl.gif

So please do us all a favor, if you know only hexe and berzerk

stop to annoy us with your lack of understanding.

Have you ever played PvP maps from Zeus, ShackTactical?

Have you ever played in OFRA, IC or AToW league?

Have you ever played Celery's missions?

Have you ever played OFP in ANY PvP league?

No. Ok. Now continue to derail this thread and make yourself

laughable.  yay.gif

As said, it would be in BI's best interest to sell again 2+ million copies.

If YOU want to tell us OFP was a bad game, please

leave this place for the better.  band.gif

Edit:

That said hexe and Berzerk are decent maps as well.

If you don't like them, don't play them. Simple eh. wink_o.gif

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  

×