Arma 2 like Project Reality?

[kocrachon 2]

All three? Thats even less realistic and not really what we need. Unless of course you mean Fixed seats.

The 30 second warmup on the main guns however isn't really such a bad thing, infact it is positive since it further enforced teamplay effort, you can't simply make a quick switch in a battlezone between driver and gunner, killing to guard yourself quickly..Instead the 30 second timer would make you a sitting duck, thus it discourages rambo stylers.

Yes, and you can easilly set that up in game.

Download the mapfact Apache and CH-47. Making a player sit through a pre-flight check up. Is that realistic? Yes... is it really necessary? No, and more of an annoyance.

30 second warmer timer? That should only account for the first time you switch to the gun. After that, even in real life a person would be able to switch between seats and shoot it if he really wanted to. The warm up procedure is not completely realistic.

You can always claim that PR adds teamwork into the game, but not often enough. Yes 2 people will get in the tank to work together. But they NEVER communicate, its the driver going where he wants and the gunner is just in it for the ride and free kills.

[Litos 10]

Not always. In fact, not at all.

The thing is, most people play in squads. It is rare that a situation like that would happen. 2 people from the same squad would most likely get in the tank... and communicate. Most of the servers REQUIRE you to join a squad within 90 seconds of joining the server or so.

[kocrachon 2]

Not always. In fact, not at all.

The thing is, most people play in squads. It is rare that a situation like that would happen. 2 people from the same squad would most likely get in the tank... and communicate. Most of the servers REQUIRE you to join a squad within 90 seconds of joining the server or so.

Yes, but that never effects team work. Again, I always join a squad when I first join a server. Does that mean the squad is working together? No, people use it as a mobile spawn (or in the servers case a way to not get kicked)

Plus that is not the GAME itself forcing that, but the owners of the server. Thats also in Normal BF2. Its always been that way. Servers trying to force teamwork.

But it doesn't always work. I cant even tell you how many times I have joined a server where all that has happaned is people team up but still go lone wolf. The squad leader at times will be a sniper who is sitting in the middle of no where and causing a pain for his squad members having ot walk a long arse distances back to the battlefield.

Then again, how realistic is it to spawn on some one in the middle of the battlefield to begin with?

[Litos 10]

It depends which server you're in.

TG servers are usually full, for an obvious reason - they actually use teamwork there at all times. I had never been in a squad in TG server that doesn't use teamwork.

It isn't like these slackers don't exist in Arma either. There's just not as many of them.

[kocrachon 2]

It depends which server you're in.

TG servers are usually full, for an obvious reason - they actually use teamwork there at all times. I had never been in a squad in TG server that doesn't use teamwork.

It isn't like these slackers don't exist in Arma either. There's just not as many of them.

But that has little to do with the add-on. That has to do with the servers and the people who run them. You cant give PR the praise for that, its not PR itself forcing the teamwork.

[Litos 10]

Any game has to do with the servers and people who run them. Even in Arma there could easily be a dumb lone wolf who will keep dying because of that but that's his problem. (then he might be even dumber and go rant about the game on his dumb forums of dumb people and dumbness).

[Steakslim 1]

Does anyone else agree with me that this topic has outlived it's usefullness? What was needed to be said has been said and repeated for 16 pages now, and is just going on in an infinite loop. Really all that's left is up to people's differing opinions.

[White_Hat 0]

I think you are confusing games. Last time I played BF2... last week.. I was team killed repeatedly.. For variosue of reasons. Mainly because people wanted the vehicle I was about to get in. Very common when it comes to aircraft.

And lone wolfing? Again you MUST be confusing games. Because 99% of the time I join a squad on their where the whole point of the squad is just so that everyone else can use the squad leader as a mobile spawn point, and the team work ends there...

Again this game was not a target demograph for the individuals complaining about its style. If you do not want coop, this game was never meant for you in the first place. This franchise is doing pretty damn good on its own. With a much large mod base then BF2 has ever seen. If you want to play an Arcadish run and gun respawn game, go stick with PR. ArmA was not meant to be that, nor will it ever be that. Thats not why we enjoy it.

This game is just a CIVILIANISED version of a combat simulator. I trained on Virtual Battlespace 2, and I can tell you, that this is pretty damn close for what the civilian world will ever get.

Alot of us players on here are Military Vets, who like to replicate and play things that go along with the life we once had. If I wanted to play run and gun unrealistic games I would switch over to Call of Duty 4 right now. But that is not what made this game what it is. If it would have stuck with that route this game would have been dead in the water already because theres a flooded market of those games types.

Well i think you don´t have a clue what PR is comparing it to vBF2 so i think anything you contribute in this thread is biased and pointless.

[White_Hat 0]

But that has little to do with the add-on. That has to do with the servers and the people who run them. You cant give PR the praise for that, its not PR itself forcing the teamwork.

Well, on the contrary but i guess biased as you are you would never admit that!

[kocrachon 2]

Well, on the contrary but i guess biased as you are you would never admit that!

Again, read my previouse post on the previouse page. I admined BF2, I played PR, and PR is not porgramed to say "Any player not in a group is banned form every server". That is a server hosts choice. And an admin has to be there to enforce that.

As for comparing it to VBS2, Im saying ArmA is the civilian version of it. Its unlimited.

What makes PR realistic other than equipment? what is realism?

If I put an M16 with 100% realism in a game, but then add jetpacks and aliens and godzilla, does that make the game realistic because it has a realistic M16? Realism is MORE than just equipment.

[st!gar 3]

Alot of us players on here are Military Vets

[Citation needed]

What makes PR realistic other than equipment? what is realism?

I agree with your core statement. "Realistic" weapons and vehicles has got nothing to do with how realistic the actual game is. You could dump a truckload of actual WWII weaponry and vehicles into a sandbox full of kindergardeners, (BF 1942, anyone?), but the result would look absolutely nothing like an actual WWII-era military conflict.

Edited May 14, 2009 by St!gar

[dr_eyeball 16]

PR styled game-mode mission for Arma 2

The original poster appears to be new to Arma, so his question was incorrectly stated, but common sense indicates he should have asked:

"Will Arma 2 include a PR styled game-mode mission or addon?"

For which the answer is simply "No" or "Very unlikely", but can be added by the community.

Supporters of the PR are expressing what they like about that particular game-mode and the features it introduces over it's base engine and having a similar game mode available using the Arma 2 engine. Nobody is asking for PR to become the new Arma 2 or something. Don't be an idiot.

PR for Arma?

So why is there no PR MOD / game modes in ArmA?

There is. The closest PR styled game mode so far would be Devastation. There are similar implementations, but they don't apply any of PR's rules.

Next major version is due out in a few weeks, acting as a base for Arma 2 from day one at a time when there will be the most TvT players. We'll see how it goes.

Why are you fruitloops comparing PR to Arma?

Arma by itself (without a mission) is an engine. PR is a game mode which can work on top of any engine. Unless you specify exactly which mission or game mode you are comparing it to, then it's mostly irrelevant, as seen.

Why are you fruitloops comparing "Realism" in PR to Arma?

The talk about realism is pointless. There's always a misconception about the over used word "realism".

I think when people are carelessly applying it to PR, they are really simply recognising the game mode rules which brings the game closer to fair game play than the base engine allows.

The majority of "realism additions" in PR are in fact imposed limitations (or rules) which are primarily achieved through: time delays, resource management and penalties.

So what's missing? (The game mode is)

What has PR that is missing in Arma 2?

Warfare is a game mode. PR is a Game Mode. So what's missing is the Game Mode itself.

So I think this question is irrelevant. Obviously there will be minor differences, but essentially it is not missing anything. It's the same as asking "What has Warfare got that is missing in Arma 2?".

Game Modes

What is a Game Mode?

A game mode is the distinct set of rules defining the game mechanics. The common case is a mod/mission using a base engine.

Why is a well designed Game Mode useful?

The same rules can then be applied to multiple missions. After learning the game mode rules, you can then join any mission using that game mode and know what to expect. (Eg: what functionality is available on vehicles, what support can be requested, where to obtain resources or find assets, etc.) This especially applies to competitive team missions (TvT) on public servers.

Why do you need these rules?

- to ensure the mission is completed within a practical period of time (eg: 2-3 hours).

- to impose restrictions (which introduces a dependency on others and hence encourage team work and increase the challenge. Although partly artificial, it's effective.)

- to prevent exploitation of base engine capabilities. (Eg: infinite instant repair, seat switching, infinite resources, etc).

- manage resource usage

- primary reason is to keep the mission enjoyable and continuously flowing and thereby encouraging players to join day after day, especially on public servers.

Coop uses game modes too.

Domination, Evolution and Warfare are all game modes.

Why do players like these coop missions which use a game mode? Because they know the mechanics of the mission once learnt.

Responses

fuzzhead: Thanks for the tactical gamer link. Interesting read.

HavocDemon & Alex[Dev]72: take heed of these notes and learn what a game mode is first.

HavocDemon: Most of your PR statements have been false (whether you know it or not). Your lack of knowledge of the features in recent versions indicates you probably haven't played any version after maybe v0.4 or so, since which there have been 2 years worth of changes up to v0.85 which you refuse to acknowledge. Even your statements that are true are so off topic, that I wonder why are you even mentioning those points?

- PR does allow servers to auto kick players not in groups automatically without an admin. Even Arma allows it via scripting.

- No you can't easily simulate delayed seat switching in Arma. Engine warm-up delay is not the same.

- Yes there is a need to simulate the delay of a tank driver switching seats to the main gun. Think about it some more.

- the rest, ...

[kocrachon 2]

- PR does allow servers to auto kick players not in groups automatically without an admin. Even Arma allows it via scripting.

Which is pointless. Because no matter whether or not you force them to be IN a squad. That doesnt mean a player will communicate or follow his squad leader. All it does is force you to be in a squad, maybe even causing a conflict where people who want to work together will be in separate squads because they just joined what ever one poped up, really with out the intention of working together.

- No you can't easily simulate delayed seat switching in Arma. Engine warm-up delay is not the same.

But you can, all it takes is a trigger set up, or any form of timed event where you prevent them. Use the assignas and make it to where they are assigned to one spot, and after a 30 second delay you can remove the assignas and they will be able to switch again.

Even better in ArmAs realism is the ability for crew checks. Where one person can only drive or be ejected. Or where you have to be a pilot class to fly an AH-6.

- Yes there is a need to simulate the delay of a tank driver switching seats to the main gun. Think about it some more.

Im not saying there isn't a need. What I am saying is there is no need for a Warm Up, as in, waiting for the cannon to get ready. Otherwise in a real M1A1 you can move from the driver seat to the gunner position in less then 15 seconds (pending on how flexible you are).

In the long run, yes, he was refering to a game mode. But read the entire thread. It did eventually turn into an all out battle on what realism is.

Heres a few ways to separate the games.

ONE

PR: Pick up and play. Run and gun. You can hop into a game and for 10 minutes play and leave and do what you want to do. Wether its casual play or in a clan.

ArmA: Requires dedication and lots of time. Between the need to make maps since there are no official support, and the need for coop, ArmA really puts alot of focus on needing a clan and a lot of time. Especially since you never know how long a mission will take.

Two

PR: Your a medic? Here, you get an M16, knife, pistol, and some medical equipement... Oh that tank over there? Yeah your out of luck let an AT player take it out.. (kit restrictions)

ArmA: Your a medic? Well, you can take an M16 if you like. Or maybe this M4 with an acog and 203? Would you like a sniper? Oh that tank over there? Here take this javelin it does a pretty good job. (Your choice)

Three

PR: Being in a squad seldom means you will work together with them. Out of 32 people maybe 5 work together. But in the long run the team work is limited to 5 people agreeing to follow eachother to a singel capture point to over whelm the pressence there, seldom do you hear them use team work like "Guy second floor of that building", and even if they do, its seldom one again.

ArmA: Since it is mainly coop missions, for the most part its you get one life if they play the way most of the coop groups I played with do. Being that most arma servers that are coop are run by clans, you are generally going to be in a clan, and thus alot more teamwork. Yes this works for PR too, but even then alot of lone wolfing happens still. ArmA you arent allowed to because it will end your one life quickly.

Again, in the long run, the only thing that makes PR realistic is its guns. The team work in it doesn't fit realism, the game mode doesn't fit realism.

All PR is, is a mod, that adds some realistic dynamics to the guns and equipment of an arcadish shooter. It slowed the game down, to make the people and their equipment seem more realistic, and thats it.

The game mode, is not realism, its not suited for a realistic simulator. ArmA was never designed to be played that way. not to say it cant be, just play a game of sector control. But thats not the foundation it was built on, its not what the game was set for. The game was set as an open sourced realistic combat simulator. It wasn't even designed for a single player experience, that was just thrown it for the casual market. The game was meant to expand into the player content, where players could create a world they see fit, making any mission or more they wanted.

PR is taking an existing game, and modifying it. Thats it. In the long run you are still comparing BF2 to ArmA, because all PR is, is a mod that changes dynamics. It is still a run and gun shooter. Its still an arcade. It is still a bunch of lone wolves with the occasional team working together.

ArmA was made for a more hardcore dynamic, of creation and modding and scripting, going well beyond some basic shooter. It was never meant for PVP, which is why the devs have spent most of their time working on the skills of the AI. If it was meant to fall into the same category of BF2, they would have made it that way, but that was not their goal, nor will it ever be. Its not meant to be a full blown game for the general public, its not meant to be the new BF2, COD 4, CS Source, Americas Army. Its a world all its own, and it will always be its own, putting itself above the rest in the world of realism, because it allows players to go above and beyond what any other game limits us to.

BF2 and PR are both casual market cannon fodder.

ArmA is for a more hardcore market.

ArmA never tried to be the best selling casual game in the world, its target audience are the people who have the knowledge and know how to expand the game. Not some limited game with limited interactions for the basic user to use safely.

This is, however, also its downside I will admit.

The reason the online community seem so bare is because of the amount of mods and individual add-ons out there. Alot of coop clans, mine included, run a lot of different individual add-ons which prevent most players from joining in with us. My clan has an add-on compilation of over 2 gigs in size, running of about 30 different add-ons. Which means if you dont run all 30 add-ons that we run, you cant play with us, this in a way is also a downfall to the community, because it makes it hard for us all to play with eachother when we dont know what all add-ons we are all using. But this is also what makes arma blow PR out of the water, because every day theres something new. Every day you have something you can change. Every day you have a new island, or a new aircraft, or a new gun.

This is what makes ArmA great...

Edited May 15, 2009 by HavocDemon

[whisper 0]

@DrEyeball : would you have read all I was writing, you'd see we're perfectly in line ;)

No need to tackle a single quote and forgetting the rest.

Yes, the question was irrelevant, because, and I pointed it ad nauseum afterwards, most of the requested features to have "PR in ArmA2" were doable by mission/mod ways, and not to be done by the engine.

@HavocDemon : Not agreeing at all with this elitist talk. OFP appealed to a very wide variety of players, ArmA a less varied crowed, but I can bet it was not BI's intend.

[nodunit 397]

Havocdemon I think you are playing on the wrong server, or just playing the game wrong if that is your experience.

We know how Arma is a freeworld and the engine allows much freedom to do what you want, and that several people (myself included) love it for this reason but it's not a sin to ask for a more realistic restrictive mission.

IE a tank crewman doesn't know how to pilot aircraft, a medic doesn't know how to use that javelin and so on. If you don't like the idea of the mission simply don't download it.

Just like the startup sequence on mapfacts apache, some of us like that sort of thing because we get to see what more the engine can do. While I understand and respect your preference of disliking such things the option of actually downloading it is still your choice, nobody forces it.

But your words do seem double standard, you speak as if an advocate of the Arma's freedom yet you would call what can be done with this freedom an "annoyance".

Edited May 15, 2009 by NodUnit

[booty 10]

I have to agree with some of havocs post, although PR was fun to play it isnt realistic you say a tank crewman doesn't know how to pilot aircraft, a medic doesn't know how to use a javelin and so on, so if I wait 5 mins and request a pilot kit i will all of a sudden know how to fly a plane, allthese handicaps PR added was for gameplay so people couldnt just 'steal' some ones plane .What you get now is like 10 guys in main with pilots kits waiting for 2 or 3 planes to spawn and constant b!tching over assets.

At the end of the day PR is trying to portray some realism with with good gameplay which is good and I love the teamwork you can find in some PR servers, but if your looking for simulation you WONT get a fraction of that on a bf2 engine so I would say ARMA is more bettersuited for the job, whether it'll be more fun depends on the player.

A bit like Marmite you either love it of hate it

Edited May 15, 2009 by booty

[dr_eyeball 16]

@HavocDemon:

Edit: WTH?

I just found this post stating that "you are making some TDM games that are Sniper Wars for my clans". If that's not a contradiction of your stance, I don't know what is. What's all this crap about simulation and realism when you still play DM? LOL

- Agreed. The 'auto kick player not in group' option is not a useful solution. I simply needed to clarify that the option does (or at least did) exist, since you repeatedly stated it didn't.

- I can't quite see how that seat switching trick would work to cover all cases. The standard 'get in' actions would still exist, unless there's a way to remove them. Plus seat switching from inside the vehicle is tricky to deal with. Plus dealing with simultaneous seat changes.

I guess that might be worth a query on the Scripting forums since that would be a very nice feature. The benefit of this is discouraging a sole player from taking a tank out into the field by himself and encourages coordination between the driver and gunner.

ONE: Yes a player CAN join for 10 minutes, but the more likely scenario is a player joins, completes at least one whole mission (usually 2-3 hours), then leaves. Flexibility either way.

The references to Coop are not really relevant either. Yes Arma excels at coop, but we've already played TvT missions on Arma and they have been the most memorable missions I've ever played, maybe not in your play style though.

TWO: You shouldn't be out of luck because PR allows at least one player per group to be AT. Therefore you are not depending on other groups. If you already have an AT member in your group, then why should you need to have a 2nd AT. AT weapons are not necessarily in abundance. When a mission allows too many AT weapons to be carried, then armoured vehicle become redundant and with Arma's great range of vehicle combat, it would be disappointing to think they can't be used effectively.

THREE: True/false for either game. I've had great factory clearing scenarios in PR.

The one life coop missions is a luxury in our community. Some of the groups I play with use that. But others mostly complain about it.

Improving upon PR:

Quote: "It did eventually turn into an all out battle on what realism is."

Exactly, which is what should be prevented in overtaking a valid topic and preventing a show of support and discussion on how better to achieve such a project in the future.

Undoubtedly, PR has features which could be improved upon. The idea is to take a good already working model and then further improve that model with new ideas. However that won't happen when a small group of agitators keep overtaking a valid topic with nonsense.

Undoubtedly, the BF2 engine is quite ugly now with it's age and limitations. Another splendid reason to bring PR game modes to a new fresh engine. Why do you want to hinder that?

Again why are you talking about realism and comparing it exactly to your one life coop missions? PR game mode means it runs using a different set of rules. It's not supposed to be the same! It caters for a mid range group. Nobody is saying it is realistic and the game mode doesn't need to "fit realism" to your standard, just something near that.

Again PR is about a game mode. The game mode defines the concepts and rules for that mode. Nobody cares what adjustments PR dev's had to make to get the BF2 engine to "slow down the game". When you apply the same game mode using the Arma 2 engine, all those particular problems automatically go away (weapons, vehicles, ballistics, etc).

There is also a benefit to BI and the community to expand Arma's player base as much as possible.

Nonsense:

Your post started off well, but your last couple of paragraphs about simulation and realism are just pure nonsense. Both that you believe that Arma is fully realistic and that it can only handle modes you've spoken of. Now I see you are probably just being a forum agitator. They are simply your points of view of how you would like to perceive it in a limited fashion and you even partly contradict yourself.

The game was meant to expand into the player content, where players could create a world they see fit, making any mission or more they wanted[/i]."] and for some strange reason that conveniently excludes any form of TvT or multi-life missions, even though Warfare is being included and is an even more complicated implementation of another game mode. Perhaps contact BI dev's and tell them of their silly mistake.

Arma is suited for a hard-core market but capable of a variety of modes.

Hard-core players play against real players, not AI. Our best squad (clan) training sessions proves that.

"there is something intrinsically rewarding about outwitting another Human, and not so for AI." - Pancho

@Whisper: I am aware of your stance. I simply used your quote to start that topic off, since it was appropriate either way. I don't think people need to be searching for these differences unless discussed from a game mode point of view, not a 'what do we need to add to Arma 2' point of view, otherwise it will indeed lead to these discussions on missing features which leads to realism topics, etc. Not a big deal.

Edited May 15, 2009 by Dr_Eyeball
WTH

[nodunit 397]

@ booty

That's where the moderators responsibility comes in.. I play on the UK Warfare server alot and they have a rule that you cannot steal assets, that is to say if there is a squad with a name Tank, Logistics, Huey Transport and so on you (unless in that squad) cannot use that vehicle or they will boot.

You get several warnings and if not adhered you get the boot. If however lets say there are three tanks, a tank squad is made with 2 people and locked you can make another tank squad and use the other tank(s).

By doing that you don't get several people waiting on a vehicle.

Naturally if a mission with similar rules is made for Arma we would need a responsibile mod to watch over, otherwise yeah we do get the "wait for vehicle then rush for it" bf2 syndrome.

[Litos 10]

Wait, what are you guys arguing about?

Although I agree with Eyeball's posts, it's either we're trying to find out whats better - Arma or PR, or if PR is just a good game.

Arma Vs. PR doesn't need arguing. Arma is clearly better than PR for a whole lot of reasons, and its a retail game while PR is just a mod.

Don't blame PR for the fact that it's using the BF engine! That engine has a lot of limits, so just because of that it doesn't meant it's PR's fault.

And PR alone is a good game. I've personally played it and I loved it, and all that you've said, HavocDeamon, barely ever applies to the game. I don't know where you managed to get such facts but I never complained about PR. Run and Gun is call of duty for you, but it's not PR trust me.

[kocrachon 2]

Edit: [/b]WTH?

I just found this post stating that "you are making some TDM games that are Sniper Wars for my clans". If that's not a contradiction of your stance, I don't know what is. What's all this crap about simulation and realism when you still play DM? LOL

For the most part i dont play TDM, I have missions set up for it, saying that its not impossible to have such games. Mainly I have 3 maps, one is sniper war map on Porto, to put my trash talking elitist friends in their places. But we spend 98% of our time on coop missions.

- I can't quite see how that seat switching trick would work to cover all cases. The standard 'get in' actions would still exist, unless there's a way to remove them. Plus seat switching from inside the vehicle is tricky to deal with. Plus dealing with simultaneous seat changes.

Its possible, try the BAS_F editor helper. You can restrict even a specific unit to only be a driver, you can restrict a specific unit to be a UH60 gunner only, and not a AH-1 pilot. Its all possible and all there.

ONE: Yes a player CAN join for 10 minutes, but the more likely scenario is a player joins, completes at least one whole mission (usually 2-3 hours), then leaves. Flexibility either way.

The references to Coop are not really relevant either. Yes Arma excels at coop, but we've already played TvT missions on Arma and they have been the most memorable missions I've ever played, maybe not in your play style though.

The point I was trying to bring up was the fact that PR is a pick up and play game. Anyone can launch it, open it, player it, with out little effort.

Where as ArmA, unless your clan is on your really not going to be playing a coop game much, because ArmA missions realy require large teams, so you will not be picking it up at your leisure, I was saying this a difference. One is pick up and play, one requires patience.

TWO: You shouldn't be out of luck because PR allows at least one player per group to be AT. Therefore you are not depending on other groups. If you already have an AT member in your group, then why should you need to have a 2nd AT. AT weapons are not necessarily in abundance. When a mission allows too many AT weapons to be carried, then armoured vehicle become redundant and with Arma's great range of vehicle combat, it would be disappointing to think they can't be used effectively.

Well, aside from the Javeline, when I was in the Army, a combat medic was taught how to use every standard weapon. From the M16, to the 203, to the M249, to the M2, to the AT4/M136. Hell, when I was in Iraq, a combat medic in one of my company's squads had a Dragonuv he took from a dead insurgent. Its not TYPICAL, but he knows how to use just about any equipment. The Army Trains soldiers on just about all weapons (aside from snipers or the Javelin system).

THREE: True/false for either game. I've had great factory clearing scenarios in PR.

The one life coop missions is a luxury in our community. Some of the groups I play with use that. But others mostly complain about it.

Well that is always changeable too. If you want you can have them take possession over one of the AI units, or if you really want, give them a re spawn at the base. To me this removes 99% of the realism.

One prime example of why I think that is when myself and 2 other clan members got tired of waiting for people and played one of the games shiped Coop missions. we had 20 total men to respawn into. We lost our lives till we were down to the last 4. Why? We got so careless with our lives eventually. That assurance that you can respawn makes you take risks you wouldn't normally. And fundamentally ruins your team work.

Undoubtedly, the BF2 engine is quite ugly now with it's age and limitations. Another splendid reason to bring PR game modes to a new fresh engine. Why do you want to hinder that?

Simple, because while the PR group is a nice individual of people, the minute the large populous of casual retards from original BF2 will hear about it from friends, and come wreak havoc for a month or two before they get bored and leave, but not before leaving a bad taste behind to the people who wanted to take the game more seriously, who left earlier because of the children.

Again why are you talking about realism and comparing it exactly to your one life coop missions? PR game mode means it runs using a different set of rules. It's not supposed to be the same! It caters for a mid range group. Nobody is saying it is realistic and the game mode doesn't need to "fit realism" to your standard, just something near that.

Again PR is about a game mode. The game mode defines the concepts and rules for that mode. Nobody cares what adjustments PR dev's had to make to get the BF2 engine to "slow down the game". When you apply the same game mode using the Arma 2 engine, all those particular problems automatically go away (weapons, vehicles, ballistics, etc).

There is also a benefit to BI and the community to expand Arma's player base as much as possible.

Beneficial in sales, but to the community, all it would bring to the community is casual gamer, the same people who play BF2 and team kill for aircraft, the CS people who team kill at the spawn, it brings in the market that ArmA has had some luck keeping down to a minimum. There is the occasional aircraft team killer, but we have been fortunate enough to have these in limited sessions. Plus that has the potential to drive away those who want to dedicate time to the realism aspect of the game because the casual gamers would make playing it too unbearable. The casual community has a great way of ruining a great game...

As much as I feel like a nerd for saying this... take a look at World of Warcraft... A game that was set for the more Hardcore gamer, and eventually Blizzard gave into every demand with the casual gamers, and now the game is terrible. All of the work the hardcore gamers put into over a year, Joe Average can get in 1 day. Giving into the casual market may boost sales, but it hurts the initial community you picked up.

Then again I guess thats more up to BI to decide, what more important, our core audience that we have made happy since OFP, or sell ourselves out and just give some generic shooter that will make us millions. I hope they choose the first, they already have VBS2 to sell to governments for large sums of cash, so please save us this game so I don't need to resort buying VBS2...

The game was meant to expand into the player content, where players could create a world they see fit, making any mission or more they wanted[/i]."] and for some strange reason that conveniently excludes any form of TvT or multi-life missions, even though Warfare is being included and is an even more complicated implementation of another game mode. Perhaps contact BI dev's and tell them of their silly mistake.

And yet there are hardly any TvT or Warfare servers. And the few there are, are generally empty Why? Because thats not what the majority of our population desires. Yes we play TDM, DM, and the likes on occasion, myself included, but in the long run, thats not where the game was pushed to be. If I want my TDM games, I play CoD 4 of BF2. Those are the games I hop onto when I want to play those game modes. Why? Because thats what they were always intended for.

ArmA was never advertised as the great TDM game. It was always advertised as an open sourced engine to do what ever you wanted. Its main focus was on mission making (thus why the superb mission editor).

On that note, its not impssoble to make TDM games, but its not the desire for the community that plays. They may add it, but I ask, go find a server that is full, and see how many in total you can find. For the most part, the community focuses on a cooperative experience.

Arma is suited for a hard-core market but capable of a variety of modes.

Hard-core players play against real players, not AI. Our best squad (clan) training sessions proves that.

"there is something intrinsically rewarding about outwitting another Human, and not so for AI." - Pancho

Yes, in a way it is more rewarding to kill another human player. But Id rather have a mission of 20 players working together a force of over 1000 AI units. Because in the long run, that's more of a challenge. That requires a lot more team work.

I do have the occasional TvT. But even those are set up 1 life no respawn modes. I set it up similar to Americas Army style where its an objective based fight. And I never put respawns on it, because again that takes away the majority of what puts people into working together. Punishment comes from know what you did was wrong. In PR, its not wrong to die, its just a setback.

Edited May 15, 2009 by HavocDemon

[Squint 0]

HavocDemon, I am starting to suspect that you're just making stuff up as you go along. Your posts are full of contradictions and generalizations.

Its all possible and all there.

Yes indeed, just about anything you can think of can have an approximation in an Arma mission, but then you go on to say this:

Where as ArmA, unless your clan is on your really not going to be playing a coop game much, because ArmA missions realy require large teams, so you will not be picking it up at your leisure, I was saying this a difference. One is pick up and play, one requires patience.

No they don't. They don't require large teams. They don't require small teams or tanks or planes or even guns. Arma missions only "require" whatever the mission maker dictates. You said yourself that anything is possible, so why can you not conceive of small-scale co-ops? Why can you not conceive of simple missions that are indeed pick-up-and play (such as the missions you yourself made for your friends)? The PR system takes some time to learn as well, after all.

Simple, because while the PR group is a nice individual of people, the minute the large populous of casual retards from original BF2 will hear about it from friends, and come wreak havoc for a month or two before they get bored and leave, but not before leaving a bad taste behind to the people who wanted to take the game more seriously, who left earlier because of the children.

This is nothing but a guess and a worst-case scenario you dreamed up to justify your own opinion.

It was always advertised as an open sourced engine to do what ever you wanted.

Do you have any idea what "open source" actually means? It certainly doesn't mean this.

They may add it, but I ask, go find a server that is full, and see how many in total you can find. For the most part, the community focuses on a cooperative experience.

PvP games are more tightly regulated, and public servers shy away from them for good reason. For example, I'm in a private group and we play PvP quite often—in fact, I'd say the majority of the missions we play pit human players against each other.

Edited May 15, 2009 by Squint

[celery 8]

WTH?

I just found this post stating that "you are making some TDM games that are Sniper Wars for my clans". If that's not a contradiction of your stance, I don't know what is. What's all this crap about simulation and realism when you still play DM? LOL

Are you completely unable to comprehend that he might mean the realism of the gameplay? The gameplay (controls, weapons, physics, and core mechanics) stays the same no matter what kind of mission you play. Please, you're only embarrassing yourself with comments like that.

[kocrachon 2]

This is nothing but a guess and a worst-case scenario you dreamed up to justify your own opinion.

So you can honestly say this stuff never happens to you?

Do you have any idea what "open source" actually means? It certainly doesn't mean this.

More or less when the developers of said game give out the products source. Allowing for ease of making mods and add-ons and general changes to the engine itself.

PvP games are more tightly regulated, and public servers shy away from them for good reason. For example, I'm in a private group and we play PvP quite often—in fact, I'd say the majority of the missions we play pit human players against each other.

And this goes back to what I said earlier. For the most part in ArmA to have a good time requires joining a clan. Where as PR is more of a pick up and jump into the middle of a server.

And I am not saying TvT is not a viable game play. But alot of the community still puts focus on Cooperative experience.

No they don't. They don't require large teams. They don't require small teams or tanks or planes or even guns. Arma missions only "require" whatever the mission maker dictates. You said yourself that anything is possible, so why can you not conceive of small-scale co-ops? Why can you not conceive of simple missions that are indeed pick-up-and play (such as the missions you yourself made for your friends)? The PR system takes some time to learn as well, after all.

It still takes a large team, let me rephrase, clan, to really get a good coop experience going. Even if you make a 4 man missions of special forces. You have either the option of playing 2 men down for a mission that was most likely crafted in a way most functional as a 4 man team, or you wait for more members to get on. Because unfortunatly, the Join In Progess system on ArmA is terrible, so you end up waiting for players to join rather then launch and have them spawn right beside you in the middle of, say, a sneaking stealth mission.

Now if you have 6 people on, what do you do? Do you leave 2 men out or move up to the next mission. And who makes these missions? Just one man? Or multiple people?

Im sure alot of arma players dont make their own missions. Im sure most of them rely on a member in the clan to get it going. It takes a large group of about 10 or so people in a clan to really ensure that every night you have a decent gaming experience. Even if it is for a 4 man game. I have a clan of about 20 ish people. For the most part I cant even get a 4 man game going except on the weekends.

PvP games are more tightly regulated, and public servers shy away from them for good reason.

When you have to regulate the people you play PVP with, does that fit into the same line with the community that falls in line with the BF2 crew that I mentioned? why would you need to regulate a TvT game? Unless its to keep out the casual person who ends up ruining the game for everyone..

I just found this post stating that "you are making some TDM games that are Sniper Wars for my clans". If that's not a contradiction of your stance, I don't know what is. What's all this crap about simulation and realism when you still play DM? LOL

Also like celery said, the realism is still there.

My sniper wars are also a lot more slow paced then 99% of the PR population would even be able to handle... Last time my clan members and i had a 4 way duel it took an hour for 4 kills to happen. The reason I add a respawn is because it would be boring having people watch me finish them all off, give them another chance to kill me, out of pity.

Also if you read my other 200 posts in the scripting section, not the one based on TDM, you would see I almost always ask for help on scripting Coop missions.

Edited May 15, 2009 by HavocDemon

[CarlGustaffa 4]

So basically what we need for Arma2 multiplayer is:

* A system of role play enforcement with selected gear instead of everything available to everyone. A single switch in Domination is all that is needed (pluss additional work if you want to customize it). But I haven't seen a single Domination version out there that uses this (d_limit_weapons I think?). I wonder if this mission would be as popular if the switch was on as default. Sometimes I think server admins/modders are too lazy to try all the various switches. Only on a single server did I see that you couldn't enter enemy tanks or air vehicles. Stuff like these being on as default, well, let's just say I'm not a very big fan of it since it causes what fuzzhead says at TacticalGamer thread. That being said, I feel also TacticalGamer servers running Domination are running them out of the box and not tweaked for 'enforced' roleplaying.

* In a dynamic mission environment set for 40-60 players, it should be possible to select/generate smaller missions when the player count is low. Massive multiplayer missions seems to be the trend, it is hard to find missions suitable for 4-8 players while remaining realistic in scope instead of having to kill half a town. Joining a Domination server today as the lone player starting up is insane. I hope this will change for Arma2 version.

* Limit the amount of hardware to avoid it becoming a hardware mayhem, or base it on the number of players available. It's nice to have a tank or Cobra supporting a couple of squads of infantry. But I feel like an idiot when I'm the only infantry running around covered by 4 tanks and 5 Cobras.

* System that rewards teamplay and staying alive, but penalizes the lone wolfs and mr. getting-killed-a-lots.

Although I favor playing against AI since we can adjust their skill (I'm getting too old and slow to play against the super humans of today), I like many of the ideas covered in Devastation. Sadly I've missed this mission in Armed Assault (shame on me!!), but I will keep a lookout for it for Arma2.

But since it is TvT based, I think I will prefer Domination once again. Only problem I have with Domination is that it acts way too gently on stupid players. I have tried to make my own version that tries to tackle these problems, but it sure doesn't bring much people around. Only a few selected hard core ones. If regular Domination was more strict right out of the box, I think it could help generate a more mature player base than we see today. I assume the same is the case with Evolution and the other most popular game modes, but I don't play these much.

[dr_eyeball 16]

@HavocDemon: I have been bamboozled enough. I cannot keep up with the number of contradictions you've added in those last few posts alone. It's like you are on both sides of the fence. A very convenient method to win any argument without logic. I give up.

@Celery: Don't worry mate. I'm not having a go at TDM game mode, which it may have seemed like. I support any game mode that people want to play. I won't spend a whole forum bashing people's favourite game modes to death, unlike some I know. I'm just using that as another example of his non-stop contradictions. He certainly was not implying that in his comments overall.

I've simply been trying to gauge why he has the nerve to criticise the complex game mechanics of the PR game mode (even if used on Arma/Arma 2) even though he plays far simpler game modes. It's astounding. All of ArmA's realistic qualities serve to further enhance the PR experience. Let people play what they want without criticising it all the time.