Which do you play more? Huge PVP MP battles or small coop missions?

[BF2_Trooper 0]

I'm still pretty new to this whole concept of playing in custom missions but I suppose this is one of the things that prolong the life ARMA? I'm curious, do you guys play PvP battles more? Or do you much prefer playing with a small group of friends in a coop mission?

[Wifout Teef 10]

I'd rather play with huge PVP battles but there are none. So I play Co-Op

[PRECISION 10]

I like having a small squad, against an army. And a ton of objectives. Co-op.

[ModeZt 0]

Huge PvP suck most of the time.. Medium-Small ones rock. Like 10vs10 inf. Or some missions with the story. Like resque the pilot.

[Alex72 1]

We will have to see what happens on the ARMA2 MP scene after a while. For people wanting huge PvP battles they should join places like IC ARMA (International Conflict) where they always had huge interesting battles and an updating map on their site showing how the teams are doing (wich cities are taken so far). There should be tournaments coming soon where you can join up and fight your way to the top etc.

Personally i enjoy coop with a team of friends where we apply proper tactics, but i wouldnt mind huge PvP battles. Might even sign up later on with my mates to do some bigger stuff. :) If you have fun it doesnt really matter what you do. ARMA2 can be played either way and be great fun no matter what you do.

Check these links out. This is just some that organize large battles and tournaments etc.

Link: IC ARMA

Link: AGW ARMA2

Link: ARMA Tactical Combat

Alex

[galzohar 31]

The problem with coop is that after a while, your "proper tactics" turn into "proper anti-AI tactics", and it's just not the same thing anymore :( PvP won't allow you to do stupid stuff like that because real people are smarter, or at least can somewhat adjust.

[Placebo 29]

Moved into MP as threads about multiplayer surprisingly enough belong in the multiplayer forum....

[protector 10]

If there were any I would play more PVP games as i'm not a big fan of the coop game, instead I go for CTI where its both humans and bots and it works out really well actually.

[Sniper_ITA 10]

PvP are playable only with a small group of well known friends, it's my opinion that PvP missions are the faster way to see all arma servers full of cheating people or if they are not cheating will be squabbling for this.

It's my dream to play a good Coop Missions with a perfect AI that do not look and shot me just for a changed bit from 0 to 1. This is my dream, this is what I would like.

oh BTW sorry for my bad english.

Edited June 26, 2009 by Sniper_ITA

[walker 0]

Hi all

Sorry but ArmA 2 is much bigger than both those options.

I play both those game forms and many more besides, where is the option for PvP coops? Where are the Asymentric PvP options? Where are the role playing game options? Where are the Player against Player strategy options? Where are the CTI options? Where are the campaign options? I could go on for ever...

Your poll is also based on a false dichotomy, it is straw man argument.

ArmA is not about creating prisons for the players mind, it about giving them freedom to choose. A choice of two when in reality we have an infinity of options smacks of nothing more the party hacks confidense trick.

Kind Regards walker

[hund 0]

Isn't that kind of a loaded poll question? I play huge co-ops.

[HitmanFF 6]

Isn't that kind of a loaded poll question? I play huge co-ops.

Seems so. I play small PvP battles, for example...

[adom23 10]

I play domination mostly at the moment but i would like to see more PvP.

Time and time again people keep ranting on about how Arma 2 allows you to do eveything the community is asking for. Thats cool and i applude that but its fair enough to keep goin on about freedom of the creator but I guess i would like to know how it is implemented.. through a single mission edit of a map? or are can peoples ideas just be brought in through entire overhauls like mods?

Cheers :D

[vs.Pain 10]

Huge PvP with people you know. Teamspeak on. Awesomeness pure. :bounce3:

[wormeaten 0]

Huge PvP with people you know. Teamspeak on. Awesomeness pure. :bounce3:

Once you try real huge PvP battle there is no feeling which can beat that one. As real war veteran I can say it was most close to real live. All that Evo Domination things are not real at all repeats “not real at all†it is just more sophisticated training shooting range map especially how most of the people play it.

Good organized Coop like on some servers for example Zeus or Tactical Gamer is more real but AI is steel ‘tards and you can play one mission mostly two times after that is not interesting any more.

In PvP huge battle map newer is the same for example in ATOW tournament we fight 4 battles, every Sunday one battle long 3 hour, for just one objective “Tiberia Bridge†because it was entrance for capturing Cayo and there is above Corona hill which dominate the area. It was epic fight 4 battles just for that hill that was falling in one hand to other.

Such experience you will never have with AI or with retard Warfare which strategy level is more like you taking care on expenses when you shopping in some supermarket having nothing with real military strategy.

Unfortunately there is no proper PvP maps or mod for ArmA such is PR on BF2.

[Panzeh 0]

Once you try real huge PvP battle there is no feeling which can beat that one. As real war veteran I can say it was most close to real live. All that Evo Domination things are not real at all repeats “not real at all†it is just more sophisticated training shooting range map especially how most of the people play it.

Good organized Coop like on some servers for example Zeus or Tactical Gamer is more real but AI is steel ‘tards and you can play one mission mostly two times after that is not interesting any more.

In PvP huge battle map newer is the same for example in ATOW tournament we fight 4 battles, every Sunday one battle long 3 hour, for just one objective “Tiberia Bridge†because it was entrance for capturing Cayo and there is above Corona hill which dominate the area. It was epic fight 4 battles just for that hill that was falling in one hand to other.

Such experience you will never have with AI or with retard Warfare which strategy level is more like you taking care on expenses when you shopping in some supermarket having nothing with real military strategy.

Unfortunately there is no proper PvP maps or mod for ArmA such is PR on BF2.

I don't know, I just think that ArmA is not a very good game to play as an individual infantryman.. much prefer commanding the AI squads or commanding entire platoons using the HC interface, humans are just too unpredictable to use on your own side.

All humans is just a waste of the use of ArmA in my opinion, better off playing battlefield where the infantry play is smoother.

[maxter 10]

IC-ArmA and now Charlie Foxtrot is exactly what I've been looking for all along; Big PvP battles but in an organized manner. There's no turning back now.

[streamline 10]

yeah man, IC-ArmA and now Charlie Foxtrot give you 60v60 PvP battles every Saturday. I played OFP single-player for years, until I played vs real people. There's no comparison. There's absolutely nothing like playing against a thinking breathing person, who's talking on his mic to his buddies about where you are hiding. That's why I don't pay much attention to the entire "improved AI" bit. If you're playing against AI, even a co-op or Warfare, it's still an arcade game.

I've played in the armor role recently in ArmA and there's nothing like having 3 guys on 3 different continents in the same tank, adrenalin pumping, looking for the enemy's tanks -who also have 3 guys together - as part of a 60v60 battle. Once you've done that for a few weeks together, and can call out targets, with gunner looking one way, commander another, driver moving from cover to cover; whoever spots the target calls them out to the gunner, gunner swivels the turret and tries to hit a moving tank, meanwhile enemy heli swoops in, you pop smoke and run for the trees, zig-zagging all the way as HUMAN BEINGS try and aim their AT launchers, etc. at you... absolutely amazing.

No comparison to figuring out the AI weaknesses - present in any game, however sophisticated - where you can take out a squad one by one while they sit there and scratch their nose, or else take you out from 400M away.

Come join CF and see what it's like...

streamline

[galzohar 31]

What missions *exactly* do you play? From what I tried so far I was not impressed:

DM: Die within 2 seconds of spawn. My weapon doesn't even go up and I'm already dead.

CTF: Almost as bad as DM, same issues. COD4-style gaming except Arma 2 is not very well designed for CQB either.

CTI: While it's *supopsed* to be pvp, it's really most of the time capturing towns and not meeting any enemies at all, even though the actually important part is fighting the enemy. So most of the time is spent on traveling and waiting for captures, which ruins it. Maybe if they made it only have like 3 captureable towns and much less distance between the bases, with each town providing more resources for a faster game. It sucks when you can play for hours only to find out that the the other side either has practically nothing and you steamroll them, or they have so much more than you and they steamroll you, and again after hours of not really doing much of anything. The neutral AI often doesn't even do anything to stop you.

Evo/Domination: Not only I don't like pure anti-AI missions, I also even more don't like it when it's a long, respawn-based coop, with mobile respawns and very long travel distances otherwise to top it all off. Plus it has scripts that behave weird.

Hold: Best one so far, but the traveling-to-action method (random vehicle spawn) and weapon selection (few possible weapons from crate at start), combined with a bad area to hold (basically a small castle where you end up with CQB which doesn't work well in this game) added up to a pretty bad experience.

Any servers actually have GOOD missions that are fun to play? Preferably PvP? For now it seems like missions are pretty much designed randomly with no real testing whatsoever (or tested by people with an extreme abundance of patience).

To top it all off pretty much all servers seem to have some kind of low-difficulty options enabled, which really suck. I wish they'd just keep it on expert. If you need aids for teamwork, then learn to communicate with VOIP/text/map marks. If it's not possible because it's all nub public server players, no aid in the world will make them work with you anyway, so again you'll play without those aids fine. Not to mention crosshairs and 3rd person are just totally lame. However any missions with respawns *should* give everyone (or at least commanders) GPS so they have a clue where they are.

Do the good ones exist or is it hopeless and I should just play against AI in the editor? :(

[Mickd 0]

At Charlie Foxtrot we have developed a quasi-Search & Destroy format. I personally call it Search & Destroy as there is no real name for it but its the closest thing I can come up with.

[Slyder73 10]

Poll should ask what do you PREFER to play not what DO you play. A bit skewed as there are mostly only coop servers available. The results will show a lot more coop results than it should.

[Inkompetent 0]

Ehhh.. And what if I prefer small PvP missions over large ones, and prefer large coops (at least platoon size) over small ones, how do I vote then?

I'd love to play large PvP missions, but I've only ever played one good one (SimHQ, ShackTac and TacticalGamer get-together in ArmA1), and generally find them either being a chaotic mess, or being tournament-style with such levels of dedication and commitment needed it instantly kills the fun.

Edited July 2, 2009 by Inkompetent

[Gloigan 10]

Charlie Foxtrot is really great if you like huge pvp battles.

Everyone is working with each other.

Everyone should try it out, you do not want to go back then!

[Richmuel UK 0]

Definately IC-Arma and Charlie Foxtrot for huge PVP battles. Nothing can compare even closely. Also they don't require a deadly serious amount of dedication. Its simple enough in that you have to turn up once a week for the main battle (the event itself), be able to communicate and follow orders. Which to be honest is asking very little. Beyond that you can get promotions and form part of fully organised armies.

I think the fact that the server being full most nights to 66 players i testament to the fact the game mode we have developed over 2 years is very popular. Its unfortunately a touch confusing to the new people but once they got on TS and start to understand how to fit in it can get very exciting. Emphasis to enjoy this though requires teamspeak use. I know the last few nights even the public non-dedicated people joining in have had a blast and with so many veterans on its been a great experience. The tournament creates players who have a great depth of knowledge in all aspects of flying and tanking and there are some very skilled people. People learn all sorts just by jumping into the makeshift squads.

The fact is its different everytime and the human factor makes it unparralelled. Of course I say the server currently holds 66 players for public events only, but we believe we have the potential to double that on 'battle nights' once we finish testing and sorting out a few problems here and there.

[galzohar 31]

Any link to an actual explanation of how that gametype works?

A lot of people seem to mention gametypes, but very few actually have a good description that you can find that will give you an idea how they work. For example "domination" is nothing similar to the original domination from Unreal Tournament.