Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Peter_Bullet

ArmA maps are TOO large for public servers

Recommended Posts

I find BF2 maps really small, Armed Assault for me, could be bigger, the point of ArmA was to have a realistic environment where you could go anywhere, and I mean anywhere, this allows you to put the Biggest tactics in, for example

I need to get to Bagango but Obregan is in the way, i know, I'll go 5 km west of it to avoid enemy contact. Also the smallest tactics. I'll land on this roof in a Littlebird, continue down the stairs, take a left and clear the alleyway to the east. That's the type of game it is.

In your situation, Capture the flag is a good idea, but even they can be 20km by 20km.

The point is that I have never seen a small map that your thinking of, and I play a lot. Of course, you can be in a mission to clear the town and you start right outside the town.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree. In other games you cant glue the maps together to have one big massive one. With this game you can have it all... You can use the whole map or just a small part of it, you can use one town and confine the play field with death triggers. Some of the stock CTF's are like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you can always create small gameplay area somewhere in small forrest

then outside of it place snipers and who tries put nose out ...

turns history

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, in the ArmA a great place with zero lag for CTFs, good performance

for a small/medium size missions with scripts, units, triggers, patrols

and where place alive and static vehicles and structures... it's Antigua.

Will be much better if that island had been also given as a single island

like the South Sahrani island or something like that. Isn't too large

for a not that big computer even playing with everything set on high

or above, so i guess... that it shouldn't be that hard to swallow for

a MP server for between 15 to 25 players; that's the main problem

that i found, the true imposibility of have a true structure at your

back; arty.. cas.. evac.. medevac.. and all that, but well, that's

for another place. The Antigua island at the NNE of Sahrani in the

ArmA, it's a good place for have a bit fun even on not that good

computers. Let's C ya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I need to get to Bagango but Obregan is in the way, i know, I'll go 5 km west of it to avoid enemy contact. Also the smallest tactics. I'll land on this roof in a Littlebird, continue down the stairs, take a left and clear the alleyway to the east. That's the type of game it is.

I am astounded by your devotion. So you'll travel 30 minutes, and then might get killed by a single shot (someone HAS to die, mind you) All that work for nothing. I personnally would be really pissed off... Actually that's why I always take a direct route.. It was pretty nice move from BIS to include unlimited saves.

But if it was me playing on a public server, there would be no-one in Obregan nor Bagango..

Most of you are missing my point completely!!!  band.gif

So, there are maybe 40 towns in arma. This morning I tried warfare on a PUBLIC server. something like 17 players. Do your math people... 17 squads for 40 towns! So I captured somato, then paraiso, and never saw a single soul! How boring! (then I was mysteriously killed and teleported outside my humvee without seeing or hearing anything...)

Some of you people are playing with hundreds of units. Naturally if you have 100 squads for 40 towns the map might be even small, but I was taking about games with only 10-20 squads. I really think these people should also have a chance.

Some of us (like me) play simply for fun. Some players want difficulty, realism and a feeling of achievement. I think the game should offer something for both groups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree, in fact I feel the complete opposite going for realism. In ArmA you can drive from any place on the map to anywhere else on the map in about ten minutes in a Jeep. Never ever would we manage to get to the AO in the army (conscripted, practice only) IRL in the same time period. Take a look at the map. Some locations (not towns) are spaced 50-100 meters apart, it doesn't make sense. Also the towns and villages are much much more closer than in real life. I'm now comparing to my own area. Having to walk for five minutes? Come on, in real life we had to march for hours! I'm not saying that I want to walk for hours, only that five minutes it not a whole lot of time. Are you even scanning during these five minutes of yours?

The Sahrani island should be ten times bigger in both directions to even get close to reality. The small scale used causes other difficulties, such as having to fight in extremely steep terrain; nobody can move effectively in 45° slopes -- yet in ArmA we will fight there smile_o.gif This also causes AI to flying a lot into terrain. Doing this naturally, would cause landscape mesh/polygon to go haywire and not be playable, so it is understandable that the devs has made this more of a game than real world (again, compared to my own local area).

The difficulties you speak of is doesn't have anything to do with ArmA as a platform, but the missions you try to play on that platform. Try another mission. If warfare feels to big for you, try another mission or mod warfare more into your own liking. Many warfare fans feels the South Sahrani area is too small, and although I'm not a warfare fan I agree. When our clan played warfare we did two or three objectives and called it a night.

There are realistic missions out there that doesn't contain a whole lot of fighting. But there also exist maps where you have to kill hundreds of enemies as a small squad sized unit. They don't make any sense realitically speaking, but may be suitable for the action craving players who doesn't care one bit if he is killed or not.

If you didn't see a single soul while capturing cities, I'd call that a defect within the mission, and again has little to do with ArmA. But I also ask why would anyone try to capture a city alone, does this make sense to you? Why not work with the other players? The reward is much greater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want realistic action why don't you just use the normal area of operations for different sized units (squad, platoon, company, battalion). It should be realistic, since how much ground a unit can cover is then taken into account.

Just limit the area of operations according to the number of player and AI units available. For example a jaeger company has a frontage of about 500m wide when it is assaulting an enemy position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The difficulties you speak of is doesn't have anything to do with ArmA as a platform, but the missions you try to play on that platform. Try another mission. If warfare feels to big for you, try another mission or mod warfare more into your own liking.

Read my previous posts.

In short: on public servers there are only fullsize warfare games with 16players. -> I can't really choose another mission.

It doesn't help making my own version if the whole community doesn't know about it. If BIS made a smaller version, everyone would know about it and play it.

And yes, ArmA is a very flexible platform. I am talking about the missions BIS is going to include with the game. NOT about the engine. After all, the missions play a crucial role in ArmA.

edit:

Naaww... this is hopeless. The real flaw is that no-one wants to play ArmA on a public server. I quess I should find a group that's willing to let people try MP with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, i want to play in public servers; but with the default ArmA units

i'll preffer to chop off my hands before do so, no one out there uses

the addons (not Mods) that i like so im doomed, i hate the Warfare

mission, it's in fact very very boring as yes, you don't use to see

anyone until the BIS marksman AI shots you in between the eyes

with an AK-74 or the PKM. So... what i use to play it's Evolutions

where you've lots of people to kill, some goals and a small/medium

chance to fall in a server where some people forget about the Rambo

thing and decide to cooperate and even work as a unit; there has

been years, from the last time that i played a good coop. And was

with the OFP. I haven't played a single good coop with the ArmA

and that sucks, but that's why we've a missions editor... (without

a commands refference...) to make our own missions and upload

'em to ArmA related sites and hope that some public server add

it to the server missions list. I don't want to join to a Klan for have

a chance of play a good coop. Let's C ya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wipman, for the love of my eyes, use some paragraphs - your posts are pain to read!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just going to reinforce the point that there are too few units to properly use up the available terrain.

If you look at real world battles, you'll notice that they involve a LOT more people in a LOT less area, then is done in Arma.

I was just watching something on the history channel about the 2003 invasion of Iraq. It was talking about I believe a battalion of soldiers who were securing Bagdad International Airport.

Think about that for a moment: an entire battalion to secure an airport. How many battalions have you ever even seen in Arma? That's around 1000 men, inside an area perhaps the size of Rahmadi. And that is only on the Blufor side.

So, those of you arguing it is "realistic" to have battles across such large terrain areas with less than a company of troops... you are actually quite wrong.

Obviously you can't have that many units on the map at one time. So a realistic mission should actually restrict you to a certain area, with the pretense that outside of that area is the domain of another squad / platoon / etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wipman: Is all about what server you play at. Theres plenty of good public tactical servers out there. The tactical gamer server is one of them

As for this topic, this sounds more like a defect with mission makers rather than the size of the maps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its not that you use the WHOLE map in every mission, you use parts. even then the parts you use may seam big for you but they really are not because the scale of the combat is bigger.

one of the main reasons the css community doesn't like me is because

what i call holding ground they call camping,

what i call close range they call sniping.

what they call a rush is what i call running in the open

what they call tactics i call mouse skill

what i call tactics they call garbage

what i call a minute they call half a round.

its bigger because the scale is bigger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah every mission doesnt always use every town, might want to read the breifing from time to time to see where to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it odd that this is in ArmA II suggestions.

Though I actualy agree with many of Peters points, He has made the same mistake that many seem to have made. The BIS release of warfare was intended as a mission template. Look at most mission templates and you will notice they are devoid of all sorts of things that make a good mission.

His argument should be directed at the mission makers, not at BIS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I find it odd that this is in ArmA II suggestions.

Though I actualy agree with many of Peters points, He has made the same mistake that many seem to have made. The BIS release of warfare was intended as a mission template. Look at most mission templates and you will notice they are devoid of all sorts of things that make a good mission.

His argument should be directed at the mission makers, not at BIS.

Yes. I thought BIS published their version of warfare and now everyone plays it. Your post cleared things out pretty good. Thank you!

I think it's also the servers' fault that they run huge warfare maps with no players. And let's face it: real warfare is boring. Mostly it's just guarding and waiting and moving from place to place. There are many unrealistic aspects in ArmA, but WHY WHY WHY do you have to complain about them? The game wouldn't be playable if it was truely realistic. I don't like arcade, but I sure like to shoot at people (or aliens)!

I played this Berzerk map the other night. It was really like mini-warfare. Just 32 guys in the area the size of dolores.. well it still wasn't enough. I think it would be great if every player could have an AI squad in berzerk. That way we would get some great online combat.

Think about those arma missions where an assault takes place. There are maybe 50 units per side assaulting a city.

But I still think that BIS could include some small Battlefield missions with the boxed arma2 (like Berzerk with AI), so we wouldn't be completely at the mercy of the mission makers. Those guys who make missions are propably those guys whol love über realistic warfare. Not those who want IA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Peter maybe alittle late, but did you also tried the Insurgency Mod? I like it! First, it is a free mod for Hl2 MP. In Insurgency, you have no corsshair, no 3rd person view and you definately need teamplay! Just give it a try smile_o.gif

To me it fits the gap between Battlefield 2 and Armed Assault. But without cars...

http://insurgencymod.net/

Hope that ArmA 2 will have more enterable buildings to make urban warfare more interesting smile_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wipman: Is all about what server you play at. Theres plenty of good public tactical servers out there. The tactical gamer server is one of them

As for this topic, this sounds more like a defect with mission makers rather than the size of the maps.

Whoa, hold on there, how dare you insult the community? As we all clearly know, this unforgivable deficency in delivered content, global warming, the financial crisis, lack of world peace, and all of mankind's ill's can rightfully be laid at the irresponsible feet of BIS.

It's high time you get your nonsensical attitude straightened out or you won't last long around here.

The only way BIS can atone for their crimes is if they scrap this whole 'Chernarus' nonsense and go back to basics, some proper symmetrical mirrored 500m*500m control point maps. If they don't ship a dozen of them, with each building completely dynamically destructible down to procedurally generated factions of a brick that can then be individually manipulated, and if they don't also ship a dozen different missions for each map, then they deserve the fate that's rightfully coming their way, and the community will of course be rightfully justified in saying "I told you so".

banghead.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing wrong with huge maps only that some people "addicted" to CQB + games like CS/HL/CoD arent that open minded and think all wargames should be CQB.

Didnt BIS already made some mp missions in urban areas?

Its up to the admins and what kind of mission most people like to play there = open public servers. Its not BIS duty to force public server admins to change missions there. wink_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

The MOD tools are there.

Make an island the right size for what you want to do.

If there is real support for your viewpoint there will be lots of people on your servers.

I personaly think that you are wrong.

As people have moved more and more toward playing large scale PVP and Coop has proved. As in the real wars we simulate and play at, CQB is only a single aspect of war.

I think the islands are not big enough and have played missions that needed bigger islands.

As I point out at the start of this post. The MOD tools exist. Quit whining and get off your lazy arsses and make an island to your specification. It is simple matter to copy a single suitable section of an existing island on to a new island and voila.

But I think you will find there are very few people who want to play on postage stamps.

Kind Regards walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good FPS game should be enjoyable in both, small scale CQB and larger scale missions of all kinds. ArmA isn't. Perhaps ArmA2 will be with interruptable animations etc.

And stop saying mod this and mod that. Might as well say "well if you don't like ArmA then why don't you go program a game yourself"...

Normal people don't have the time, motivation and/or talent to fucking learn and do all that. That's why they buy games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps the ACE islands ofp community maps would fit the spec, they are mostly small and fps friendly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]

And stop saying mod this and mod that. Might as well say "well if you don't like ArmA then why don't you go program a game yourself"...

Agreed! I'm not willing to take 20+ hours to make a mission and then months promoting it so that people would start playing it. I want BIS to do it for me. Anyway they don't even have to promote it.

Linear story based mission making in OFP was a huge pain: nothing ever played out the way it was supposed to be. OFP added randomness to everything, wich is good for gameplay but hell for developement -> The only feasible option is to make non linear missions -> Mission makers must have patience and will for complete open-ness -> They present mostly those people who want huge scale (that requires patience). But that doesn't mean everyone who plays OFP/ArmA is like that.

Btw. I'm a hobbyist programmer -> If I don't like warfare, that doesn't necessarily mean I'm an immature, short-tempered kid. No-one has said that anyway, but I kinda have the impression some people here think that way: mature, polite posts saying that I have got the whole Idea of Arma wrong and that CS is the game for me. (I might be a little paranoid here. If so, sorry for that.)

Could you please stop mocking CS? I think nobody here compares ArmA to CS. They are completely different. If I say I want action, that doesn't mean I'm willing to go all the way to CS. (I have played it only few times and didn't like it anyway)

I think people demanding bigger maps are being unreasonable. You haven't got what this game is about - ArmA isn't for fixed wing aircraft, but I can hardly think of anything else that would require a bigger map. Even exploring the whole map would take months! I think that's enough scenery for anyone.

And let me be clear: when I said "too large maps" I meant "too large missions".

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  

×