Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Peter_Bullet

ArmA maps are TOO large for public servers

Recommended Posts

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".

it is far easier to moan isn't it? everything else is doable quite quickly. especially small missions.

take the time you spent posting here and create a nice small pvp mission and post it on the forums. if it is good it will be adopted without much effort on your behalf. the community is always hungry for good ideas and missions of any kind.

good luck and i look forward to seeing your insights translated into a enjoyable pvp map - which i enjoy in arma and other games. also enjoy co-op and all other types - i do not discriminate blindly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it would be a bad idea if they made an island a little more than half the size of South Sahrani to use for Multiplayers. In Warfare, you don't need the whole map anyways. They did this in Arma 1 by creating South Sahrani only without the North. They can do it here too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I can remember playing (when I was a frequent player 4 months back) was Bezerk and even way back in OFP's Battlefield 1985 maps...They are all over the place smile_o.gif

Unless you mean official missions that is. I mean I'd agree to a Warfare where the number of players at mission start dynamically scaled to the number of players in-game... but I think the community this time around will be much larger as the new players wont be so hasty to run away due to a bunch of glitches etc. So we shall not worry about our favorite type of missions as they're sure is going to be many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh is this thread still going on?

I figure the problem that comes up here again is that this game engine wasn't made for "Instant gratification".

I know it is hard to deal with this engine that offers much slower gameplay when the rest of the media society bombards us with new content in milli-second intervals , much harder to actual create something yourself. I mean, that takes like some hours!

And we want fun now,now,NOW!

Unfortunately for you unless you get lucky and BIS already finished their Project: "Fuck our OFP ideals, lets go mainstream!" with Arma2

the relative slowness of things around here is going to stay and you will have to adapt.

By either accepting "Waiting"/Patience is a major part of most missions or going with the believers into some fun Hexenkessel style gaming.

Now what I really want to disagree with is this in my eyes very flawed notion voiced by some people here that the maps are already too big.

1. One 20 km x 20 km island offer logicaly way more mission making possibilities than four 10 km x 10 km islands. Not only because of the overlapping areas but also because of the obvious fact that you can make actual missions where you have to fight through 20kms corridors

2. Vehicles , especially Helicopters require much larger areas to make any sensible missions for them. And this is a combined arms games.

3. Modern warfare actual does make use of a lot of ground , the density of soldiers / per square meter ground decreases constantly. Even tho there are usually concentrations of soldiers at one place which we can't replicate yet, limiting our maps in size would totally destroy any sort of attempt to model modern maneuver warfare.

4. Just like A&D/CTI is better for innovation and new development over DM,CTF, bigger maps require new development,while we can do smaller ones already , so it seems quite logically to me that if you want to progress, you push your engine to the limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are only islands and missions.

Helps to avoid confusion. whistle.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Download Visitor

2) Make something

3)? ? ? ?

4)PROFIT!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately for you unless you get lucky and BIS already finished their Project: "Fuck our OFP ideals, lets go mainstream!" with Arma2

the relative slowness of things around here is going to stay and you will have to adapt.

By either accepting "Waiting"/Patience is a major part of most missions or going with the believers into some fun Hexenkessel style gaming.

Sorry but I think they 'fucked' it, because ArmA2 is going to be as fast as ArmA1/OFP.

Yes. OFP/ArmA are slow compared to mainstream. That's fine by me. But apparently what you are wishing is something like 100 times slower than OFP. I just wish MP was more like SP.

I can walk a few minutes, but traversing hours on an empty map is just plain boring!

edit: I can't make an MP map, because I have only one computer, so I wouldn't be able to test it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I must say, I get the impression that people here are very defensive and/or closed minded. I think Peter_Bullet makes some good points, but it seems to me like he is all but being castrated, and I'm not even sure why.

For some reason, BIS's mission design seems to be a bit of a "sacred cow". If anyone dares to suggest it could be done better, they get told to play another game, or else to "do it themselves". It's funny that suggested changes to the animations in-game don't have the same backlash, even though there is nothing stopping anyone from replacing Arma's anims.

Yes, it is great that Arma has a mission editor and can be modded. But did anyone ever stop to think, hey, maybe some people don't want to edit missions, for whatever reason? Shouldn't a game come with kick-ass levels, in addition to kick-ass models and gameplay mechanics?

For many players, the official SP and/or MP levels of a game are all they will play. So, if those missions are crap, the community loses a lot of players, and also a lot of potential modders/mission makers.

Of all the things to make suggestions on, I'd think that mission design should be the #1 issue ANYONE should be concerned about. A game with terrible level design will not do well. Most people are players, not modders. They want a game to come complete, including good levels. They shouldn't have to rely on 3rd party websites to find "good" levels.

I come at this from the perspective of both a player and a mission maker. Feel free to flame me too, but I think there are some really good points here. Sacred cows be damned.

I'd also like to point out, I think missions with higher unit-per-area density are actually more realistic. Most ofp/arma missions I've played are terribly unrealistic, because there are too few units in too large of an area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "I cant make missions" argument makes me wonder.

Chances are that the mission you request, has already been made by others. Most mission makers also work on suggestions by others,

as long as someone will play the mission that has been suggested.

So then I guess you are under a assumption that anything BI sets its name on "turns to gold", mission wise.

Quote[/b] ]They shouldn't have to rely on 3rd party websites to find "good" levels.

Actually, if the mission is liked enough, its probably already on a server because people want to play it.

The average gamer therefore does not have to visit a website to find it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's so hard about BI adding a smaller island map? They did it for Warfare when patch 1.14 came out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A guy PM:d me a link to some smaller wafare missions with only few towns.

That was the first time I heard from such a mission.

I haven't seen anyone play those missions on a public server. So that guy's attempts didn't help me.

Anyway, I have been repeating the same points for a long time, and so has the other side. I don't think there is much more to add to this discussion.

Okay okay: I am an immature kid who plays CS all day long on his computer and uses words like "OWN" "FAIL" "EPIC" "RETARD" "FUCK YOU" all the time, like you have seen from my posts (are you happy now, everyone?) -> That means that being such an immature kid I'm not prepared to take a long walk to engage the enemy -> that propably also means that I'm too lazy to search for new missions, and so is my whole breed!

Ps. I'm almost 21. Pretty pathetic, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) Download Visitor

2) Make something

3)? ? ? ?

4)PROFIT!

Hahaha 4chan *** detected! biggrin_o.gif

TBH I agree with OP. People want to get that CoD and CS intensity sometimes. Current missions in ArmA are usually spawns the player kilometers behind the frontline. Nothing is wrong with that actually, but it'd be nice to have a quick fight in ArmA 2. Most of the time I don't feel like playing a 3 hour mission to get decent action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's so hard about BI adding a smaller island map? They did it for Warfare when patch 1.14 came out.

Rahmadi?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's so hard about BI adding a smaller island map? They did it for Warfare when patch 1.14 came out.

Rahmadi?

No, south sahrani....

I still don't get the topic here? Pointless in my eyes... there will be no smaller islands in Arma2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No GC, Rahmadi as a smaller map as requested by thread starter, included at release of Arma 1.

Actually, I think there will be a small independent island in Arma 2, just like Rahmadi. Just a guess from my side.

arma2hg4.th.jpg

"Utes" smile_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]No GC, Rahmadi as a smaller map for pvp, included at release of Arma 1.

Lol in know, i just corrected you because he mentioned a "smaller" islands which came with 1.14 and its clearly South-Sahrani.

BTW, Rahmadi is not for PvP, its for testing.... a quick loading default island.

"Utes" is confirmed by BIS to even take part in the story, but i think its the same concept as Rahmadi - a quick loading default island for quick editor testing with high performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still disagree that both the island and the missions are to large, even though you can't support massive battles that would be needed for the largest mission spanning over the whole island. I like to think of it as being part of the force instead of the entire force.

My biggest gripe with the typical public coop play is how lives doesn't seem to matter. If left behind, respawn. If killed, respawn. Even if injured, respawn. Run into battle like mad men, getting insta killed. Flying UH60s right over the target area which everyone know is full of both MGs and AA.

People just don't care if they die, because of insta respawn usually applied. Not realistic at all crazy_o.gif I agree on non respawn for certain missions, but some obviously require respawn. So my personal plea to other mission designers is this: Force *all* people be afraid of getting killed. Serious players are afraid by nature, but the non serious players are currently ruining it for the serious ones.

I can see only a few countermeasures against this:

1. Limited amount of respawns. I used this with revive (with only limited success, non serious players and Rambos would leave quickly).

2. Longer time to respawn, maybe increasing duration. Not sure if increasing duration is possible with engine though.

3. A medevac system which reduces the waiting period when the 'body' is brought to hospital. Again, not sure if possible.

I will now try to set respawn time in Dominatrix (my Domination clone/offspring) to 2 minutes instead of 20 seconds and see how people react smile_o.gif Just finishing ACE1.04 support for it.

Drastic measures, sure. But I really hate the respawn frantic that ArmA has evolved into.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Utes" is confirmed by BIS to even take part in the story, but i think its the same concept as Rahmadi - a quick loading default island for quick editor testing with high performance.

Yes, like the desert island in OFP smile_o.gif

Concept or not, its still a small island that can be used to any purpose mission wise.

It very rarely is though, something that is yet another example of how pointless this thread is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Utes" is confirmed by BIS to even take part in the story, but i think its the same concept as Rahmadi - a quick loading default island for quick editor testing with high performance.

Yes, like the desert island in OFP smile_o.gif

Concept or not, its still a small island that can be used to any purpose mission wise.

It very rarely is though, something that is yet another example of how pointless this thread is.

Yes indeed.... rofl.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd also like to point out, I think missions with higher unit-per-area density are actually more realistic. Most ofp/arma missions I've played are terribly unrealistic, because there are too few units in too large of an area.

The Close Combat series (WWII real time tactical, overhead 2d, circa 1998+) had a good feeling unit density.

You had about a company (8-15 squads or vehicles) on each side in maps that were about 500m square, fighting to control about 4-6 victory locations or annihilate the enemy force. This unit density seems roughly realistic and created battles that 'felt' intense. With suppression and a proper morale model in place (as well as units that all deployed at the start of a mission, with no mid-mission reinforcements), you had games that lasted 15-30 minutes and were suitably intense.

Arma missions, especially in multiplayer, don't usually come close to a similar density, and I think the game suffers for it. Whether you have ~6-10 squads per side spread out over 16^2 km of south sarahni (warfare), or 30 players spread out over a 2-3km chunk in a berzerk style mission, player density is usually low enough so that players tend not to be in the same "fight" as others: players encounter each other in ones and twos and fight individual engagements, which is not in the spirit of a larger battle game. Lethality is also fairly high, so that once a player is engaged in a fight, because the battles are low density, it's hard for another player to help him out before the fight is won or lost (or the player in need of assistance simply dies). Combat power of vehicles is magnified due to the usual dearth of infantry, but at the same time because density is so low, vehicles can be ambushed from anywhere by man carried anti-vehicle weapons. The battle becomes a series of small, brutal skirmishes instead of a longer engagement.

I think missions would feel more realistic in multiplayer if there were more soldiers (AI or human) in a smaller area, such that they can focus on the same objectives and support each other in the assault or defense. One or two square km is not unreasonable for an infantry centric battle with somewhere between a platoon and a company on each side. The old soviet style doctrine for a mechanized infantry company in the attack called for a frontage of about 800m.

Personally, I think Warfare focuses too much on higher level aspects of gameplay (base building, resources, city control, supply, unit production) and not enough on lower level, small unit tactical gameplay. I would like to see a style of mission that focused all the participating players on solving tactical problems and fighting each other, instead of focusing many of the participating players on travel/exploration/construction/capruting/harvesting/production. I think Warfare has the right idea in giving each player a squad, but spends too much time forcing players to save up money, build their squad, and get it to the fight, and not enough time on actual combat. I would like a mission that gave me a small unit (vehicle crew or squad), asked me to complete some limited objectives with a few other players, and let me respawn into my squaddies when I died (so I could stay within the same general battle). I wouldn't really care about exploring a huge island if the tactical situation in the immediate area were interesting and engaging. Part of this would simply come from having a realistic density of enemies and friendlies and limited, but achievable tactical objectives.

The Armed Assault features page has had this blurb listed as a multiplayer feature since the game was released:

"Large scale multiplayer: battles where tanks supported by infantry and helicopters take control of an enemy city can be played with 100+ living opponents in a role of both friendly and enemy forces."

That's the type of mission I'd like to play, done properly. Maybe we'll see that out of the box in Arma 2, but I'm not holding my breath.

My random two cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1

I'd love to see Close Combat style battles in Arma!

Unfortunately, from the types of comments on this thread, I don't think most Arma players would actually enjoy that. They might sneer and insult your intelligence or attention span for suggesting such a thing. Then they will go on to play "Warfare", which is as realistic as spaceships and laser guns (that's not to say it isn't fun).

Smaller terrain isn't really the solution, though, IMO. The answer is to restrict the battle to a specific section of the terrain using some kind of artificial barrier or game mechanic. This needs to be available within the editor, so any mission maker can do this.

Next, I'd love to see missions need to focus on a simple tactical problem. I'd love to see a mission where the whole mission is to envelope a single enemy position. You could play the mission a number of times from all different points of view. Once you are the base of fire. Next you are the assault element. Next you are the security element. Most Arma players don't even know what these terms mean, even though they cry "realism" every time Arma is constructively criticized.

Most of the MP missions I've played are these epic, absurd quests, where you've got one squad that must single-handedly tromp across the entire island, destroying various objectives. This is absolutely ridiculous, and totally unrealistic.

People should play Close Combat to see what real battles should be like.

Oh, but I guess this thread is "pointless". How dare we suggest improvements to mission design, instead of new models or hotkeys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most of the MP missions I've played are these epic, absurd quests, where you've got one squad that must single-handedly tromp across the entire island, destroying various objectives. This is absolutely ridiculous, and totally unrealistic.

Evolution and Domination? Yea I know what you mean. Decent missions but overplayed, and the way they are played on public servers makes for a boring time IMO. Spawn alone at base, grab UH60, land by town, abandon chopper and charge in icon_rolleyes.gif

Mobile HQs that act as spawn points help a little.

There are plenty of smaller scale missions that focus on one area or town. Not all of them involve large amounts of empty land. You just need to find a good server that isn't full of people who play the same stuff over and over again crazy_o.gif

I also like the smaller missions that don't involve excessive travel. One that focuses on a small area involving, say, 2 towns or some objectives can also be fun.

Warfare can be great, but not with a small player count on a large section of the map. I hate it when you join a server where there are only like 5 people, and they choose a Warfare map that takes the whole of Sahrani banghead.gif

That just ends up being tedious and boring.

Smaller missions on reasonable realistic scenarios can be awesome fun, PvP or coop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as the server/players are disorganized, this will happen no matter what kind of mission is played. The problem with these epic missions aren't the missions themselves, but those who play them. Often in Domination the communication boils down to "don't steal the A10, that is mine".

Sometimes though, you can get into some nice teamplay when a clan is performing sidemissions (Domination) on a public server. Join them, even without TS, and just follow the lead. Hold your fire until it starts, but many lone players doesn't play like this. Instead they open fire on the first enemy they see without even scanning the surroundings.

Planning the mission, good leadership, scouting, logistics, and conducting a synchronized attack (without being spotted) is awesome, especially when it works. I've never seen this on any public servers yet, although Tactical Gamer can come pretty damn close at certain times.<

As for Close Combat in ArmA, it doesn't "really work", since the AI suck at taking cover, using realistic supression fire, reacting realistically when taking supressive fire, and make any grand plans. TvT is the only way to go here, but I suck too much (old and slow I guess) to really enjoy TvT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the end its all depending on the "military/tactic" knowledge of mission designers and how good they can implement this into missions. On the other hand there are many people who like to have simple run-and-fun shooting gameplay. They are grown up playing mainstream (console) products eg. shooter series incl. aimbots... Funny that they get lost in bigger terrains - even with compass, GPS and map.

Maybe its better to change thinking from close combat (mostly urban areas) to combat in open areas/terrains.

Tank combat within 500m?

Helicopters/planes flying in close range when they could fire missiles from ~8km away or release bombs as standoff weapon?

Its bit more complex and different if you want combat or warfare close to realism. Think that most people would be bored if they dont see action like in movies...

IRL your happy if the patrol or transport to mission/camp doesnt get ambushed or in fight - imo such feelings should be more implemented in missions instead of instant respawn/revives.

Better if people know that they should really take care of themselves + their teammates!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"public server,  public server, public server"...

Peter, i see you mention pub servers all the time and that seem to be your real issue here. You cant find anyone that plays smaller warfare out there.

Your salvation would be to join a clan or team. Maybe go onto some pub servers and ask around. Getting into a team where you together choose what to play and play together as a team will change a lot on how you see ArmA. Getting in alone into a pub server can often be what you mentioned - running after everyone else - empty towns - respawn and get back to the front alone - coming too late - alone again.

With a team people wait for you and you do the fighting together and thus youll see more action. More fun action as well. Many people have had the same problem as you in feeling ArmA online is empty and nothing is up that you want to play. A clan or team is your salvation mate. Take your time in finding one - test some out and see if the people are like you - if you get a long and have fun. Then awate ArmA2 - buy it, and have the time of your life. I know i will. This year will be a great ArmA year - i can feel it. pistols.gif

Good luck buddy.

Regards

Alex

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  

×