PvP: An Endangered Species

[mad rabbit 0]

EDIT: 16/07/09

Other possible Poll options I forgot to include:

- PvP isn't playable is ArmA2 due to the movement\animations\realism\etc.

- There are good PvP multiplayer maps available but they're too complex/large

- Too much team killing <- I think this falls under the 'no-one wants to play PvP' option and I believe that this actually happens more in CO-OP. At least in PvP you have a 50% of killing the enemy right?!

-----

To all in ArmA2-land,

The following is a list I'm slowly compiling of the current unrest with the lack of servers running PvP (Player vs Player) maps to join.

Admittedly this is from an Australian prospective but perhaps this applies globally.

As such, I've also posted a poll to determine where the problem lies and the following links to make everyone aware of the problem:

ANNOUNCE: PVP script pack released

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=79842

ARMA 2 Fails As PvP Game...What Happened?

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=79799

Berzerk most fun

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=79275

So few PvP serves?

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=76098

Multi Player Communities dieing overnite

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=78888

Aussie HOLD server

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=78440

North American - 50 Player AAS HOLD Server.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=78452

HOLD gametype

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=78255

Which style of multiplayer do you play more often?

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=76343

PvP - Where do I find it?

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=79878

I though mp community was more creative

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=80095

I'll try update this thread every couple of days with an aim to:

1) Making people aware of the problem -> collating posts in reference to this issue

2) Determining where the problem lies -> based on player/server admin/developer input below and through the poll

3) Trying to solve the problem -> collating PvP (exclusive?) servers, making map makers aware of these issues

Disclaimer:

- Although I have my own opinions in regards to CO-OP gameplay, these are perhaps born out of the current environment of late.

- I do love a good CO-OP as well as PvP games and other gametypes, whether it be a small focused mission e.g. 'Lost Patrol' from OFP (made by BIS) to large CO-OPs e.g. Dom/Evo and particularly the 'Island Hop' series (made by Gnat of OGN/APS)

- There is room for all gametypes in ArmA2, which is why we all love this game. I just don't want to see this now minority group die!

If anybody has recommendations for this issue, or even to make this title post/poll better, please respond!

Edited July 16, 2009 by mad rabbit

[deadsmell 10]

I think the main problem with pvp maps right now is the maps are way too big. It seems people want to play on the entire island all the time.

I would like to see the area of operations greatly reduced and see some basic squad vs. squad or platoon vs. platoon street fighting limited to one city or town, or if preferred a confined wilderness area.

Simple street combat. Theres so much to be done with this game, and people dont even seem to be able to grasp creating small intense firefight maps. I think they all just want to fly vehicles around and thats it.

PVP will definitely work on this game, we just need to get the right missions and players together. Its a shame cuz i think the small urban close combat battles are where this game really shines, I hope people dont give up just because of the over abundance of knucklehead servers right now.

Edited July 15, 2009 by deadsmell

[Defunkt 431]

Rather than limiting it to one size game or other missions need to be written to scale with player numbers. Four players get to fight over a street, eight players over a city block or village and so forth, if that first street is placed centrally then more objectives can be opened up outwards as players join until they're contesting the whole island. This way a handful of players can hope to enjoy a fairly entertaining game while waiting for the whole combined arms experience to eventuate.

[nocturna 10]

Tbh i only like warfare, i wish more people would play it, deathmatch/CTF is damn boring.

[Inkompetent 0]

Also, an alternative solution to small missions (smaller missions for a lower playercount is awesome, since one can just change map when more joins) could be to make AI behave decently in the mission.

If all squads are one-player ones like in many of the missions out there, then having some basic waypoints with switches depending on objectives and so on would be nice.

It's a lot of work - that much I can agree on - but I also think it'd be beneficial for the PvP community with maps for larger numbers with AI support, so people can have fun in a larger mission without having to be 20-30 people on the server to start it.

Also, I think deadsmell has a very good point. Too large maps makes people spread out, and it drastically lessens the intensity of the firefights. Either objectives should be sequenced so they have to be captured in a certain order (focuses players to one area) or the whole battle should be in a smaller zone. Say if you have a 12v12 squad-size map, then let the combat area be MAX 500x500 meters(assuming it's not urban combat. Can be much smaller then). Trees and hills will leave people with enough maneuver-room anyway.

Edited July 15, 2009 by Inkompetent

[HOPEnSPIRIT 10]

You missed the too many team killers option, thats why I do not PvP.

[deadsmell 10]

What do you guys think about King of the Hill? Personally I have always like koth because it draws all players to a central conflict, but still lets players choose the role that suits them and their style of play.

Is there a way to create a pvp KOTH gametype?

Do you guys think that the pvp community would enjoy that kind of gametype?

Edited July 15, 2009 by deadsmell

[Inkompetent 0]

King of the Hill wouldn't be hard to make at all, actually. Could definitely be fun :)

[galzohar 31]

Yeah, I'm really hoping for small, realistic and playable missions to start popping up. I made an example, and while it's not finished it can show you what I mean: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?p=1365363#post1365363

[mad rabbit 0]

Rather than limiting it to one size game or other missions need to be written to scale with player numbers. Four players get to fight over a street, eight players over a city block or village and so forth, if that first street is placed centrally then more objectives can be opened up outwards as players join until they're contesting the whole island. This way a handful of players can hope to enjoy a fairly entertaining game while waiting for the whole combined arms experience to eventuate.

I really like this idea!

The only problem I see:

1) Scripting this may be an equivalent task to a CTI

2) How would you translate each sides score/position/capture points from a street level to a city level when more players join?

What do you guys think about King of the Hill? Personally I have always like koth because it draws all players to a central conflict, but still lets players choose the role that suits them and their style of play.

Is there a way to create a pvp KOTH gametype?

Do you guys think that the pvp community would enjoy that kind of gametype?

KOTH is awesome!

I remember this type of game mode from the original Ghost Recon. As long as it's only infantry based it's heaps of fun. Indirect fire may kill this type of gameplay i.e. whoever has the artillery wins...much like most ArmA1 Warfare games...

I think the main problem with pvp maps right now is the maps are way too big. It seems people want to play on the entire island all the time.

I agree to some degree.

I love Dr. Eyeball's conversion of Advance-and-Secure maps to Devastation i.e. version 2:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=77709

However they are currently too big for the current small ArmA2 PvP community at the moment IMHO.

This is why I really like Defunkt's idea!

Again these are just my opinions. I really just wanted to start people talking about this like we are now, as it seems most report of this issue are just single posts that get lost in the mix without identifying the reasons.

I should also point-out that I think ArmA2 is an excellent game, and if not, well on it's way to being excellent through the support BIS provides this community. This thread is not about the making of ArmA2 and the developers but the people playing it i.e. primarily us. As the BIS can only do so much to get to start playing PvP in my opinion.

In actual fact I think the whole CO-OP domination (pardon the pun!) of the multiplayer scene is a 'carry-over' effect from ArmA1 that will hopefully even out with time. Looking at the poll currently...this would appear to be the case.

[twisted 127]

you forgot the PVP maps tend to be too similar and repetitive.

[W1NDOWL1CKER 10]

1. I want to remark that i'm in Europe, so this is not an Australian-only problem.

2. The HOLD multiplayermode I'm referring to in this reply is the one where you start at the so-called X-Ray flag, 1 on the red side and 1 on the blue side, and then u have to fight your way to the other flags in between, usually Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, Delta, Echo and Foxtrot, each one has to be captured in alphabetical order (and in opposite directions of course) by staying in that particular area with more players than the opponent has in that same area. The team with the greatest number of captured flags is the winner. You can choose your inventory in the weaponscrates and save that inventory for the rest of the game if u want.

So it's a very straightforward gamemode with large but not enormous maps which encourages teamwork and really is great fun.

3. I have started a few threads to discuss this item and I have replied to some threads started by others but so far without any real result.

Today is the second day in a row (and there were many days before) that there is JUST 1 server that is running HOLD, the strictly no ai mode I like most by far. This server was exremely laggy though.

A long list of COOP servers is on every night.

On some evenings there are a few nice hold-servers to be found, but the sad thing is that although they are always full (!) when they are running, the next few days they are nowhere to be found, disappeared into I don't know where...

I have seen loads of people remark (in-game and on this forum) that they too like this gametype the most of all, but still there are just a few servers running it, if any at all.

What you do find, however, are some of the so called Berzerk servers, a somewhat similar, but according to me and many others far less fun gametype, to hold.

I am really curious to find out what the exact reason is that although many people can't stop saying that they like HOLD so much better than the rest of the gametypes there still are so few of them, let alone ones that are running lag-free...

Please, people, more hold servers, not Berzerk, but proper Hold, please!

[Apocal 10]

you forgot the PVP maps tend to be too similar and repetitive.

I'd say the exact opposite is the case. Every mission in ArmA is different, utilizing different scripts, setups and (as more time goes by) addons. Domination and Evolution are broadly similiar and help each other immeasurably by including the same "Spawn at the MHQ" respawn script. Maybe Devastation will be the answer, but it still needs work.

[Cyberduke 10]

I just played a 45 vs 45 PvP game and it was running fairly smoothly, was great fun and better than coop by miles, we need more servers like that one.

[KEVBAZ 0]

I dont think its An Endangered Species as such, personally im working on a variety of maps including dm ctf and a&d and i will continue to do so, ive seen them being played online a number of times and even joined in on a few!

http://arma2.swec.se/server/list?page=7&sort=mission is a great browser for seeing whats being played, yeah sure domination is living up to its name, but i can count plent of other servers running pvp style maps.

There are also the private servers, hundreds of them that dont appear in the list, fo these you need to look in the squads and clan section, check out a few of their sites join their forums get chatting make friends and go play. check here

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=75086

For me i will continue to make missions and will enjoy seeing people play them

Edited July 16, 2009 by KEVBAZ

[Defunkt 431]

I really like this idea!

The only problem I see:

1) Scripting this may be an equivalent task to a CTI

2) How would you translate each sides score/position/capture points from a street level to a city level when more players join?

1) Yes, big job but a lot of effort goes into other nearly as complex missions some of which hardly ever get played because they're so all or nothing when it comes to player numbers.

2) I think you'd always need 4-5 objectives which must be contested in some sort of order if not always serially. So that first street would have 4-5 capture points and the 'map' could be won by capping them all out. Otherwise the moment enough players join mid-game that street and it's objectives would then distill into a single larger neutral objective and (for instance) 4 more would be added 2 either side of the new central zone and already in the possession of either team. At this point the first low-key (i.e. HMMVW, UAZ etc.) vehicles would start to become available. Rinse and repeat until it's 64 players, a whole island with artillery and CAS etc. The key is that at any scale there are always 4-5 objectives (contested in order one at a time to keep action focussed) and your team can always win by grabbing them all. If players leave the game scales back.

[kocrachon 2]

I think everyone forgets the main reason why people don't play PVP alot..

A LARGE majority of the community plays coop. This is what made the game appealing was the open world. To me coop missions are funner than PVP. Especially since so many franchises did the PVP pretty well before hand, but Coop is hard to come by.

Not saying PVP doesn't belong here, but I just think there are better platforms for PVP, where as ArmA 2 is the best coop platform around.

[whisper 0]

I think everyone forgets the main reason why people don't play PVP alot..

A LARGE majority of the community plays coop. This is what made the game appealing was the open world. To me coop missions are funner than PVP. Especially since so many franchises did the PVP pretty well before hand, but Coop is hard to come by.

Not saying PVP doesn't belong here, but I just think there are better platforms for PVP, where as ArmA 2 is the best coop platform around.

There's no PvP platform giving such scale as OFP/ArmA2. No reason to drop PvP in A2, honestly

[mad rabbit 0]

1. I want to remark that i'm in Europe, so this is not an Australian-only problem.

I am really curious to find out what the exact reason is that although many people can't stop saying that they like HOLD so much better than the rest of the gametypes there still are so few of them, let alone ones that are running lag-free...

As am I which is why I created the poll. And as you can see two main reasons are starting to appear.

1) Severs are dominated by CO-OP.

2) Good PvP maps don't exist.

Perhaps the latter is a reason for the former...

I'd say the exact opposite is the case. Every mission in ArmA is different, utilizing different scripts, setups and (as more time goes by) addons. Domination and Evolution are broadly similiar and help each other immeasurably by including the same "Spawn at the MHQ" respawn script. Maybe Devastation will be the answer, but it still needs work.

I totally agree but...

I think everyone forgets the main reason why people don't play PVP alot..

A LARGE majority of the community plays coop. This is what made the game appealing was the open world. To me coop missions are funner than PVP. Especially since so many franchises did the PVP pretty well before hand, but Coop is hard to come by.

Not saying PVP doesn't belong here, but I just think there are better platforms for PVP, where as ArmA 2 is the best coop platform around.

Which is a good point as well and I believe falls under the 'no-one wants to play PvP' poll option.

There's no PvP platform giving such scale as OFP/ArmA2.

Perhaps...and I'd like to agree but I saw the following post in another thread:

PVP, TVT Gaming (good post) -> This post actually highlights the PvP gametypes very well!

Though I think many former COD players and the like are suddenly presented with freedom in game play and do not know what to do. They remind me of monkeys who have been trapped in the COD cage so long that all they can do is run around in circles.

This perhaps falls under the 'complexity' option in the poll but I thought it was a good point i.e. that extra freedom in a game can sometimes be as detrimental to a game as it is beneficial.

---

Walker (above) also stated the following:

I think half the "PvP is dieing!" concern headlines are just trolls.

I just want to point out that:

a) Although I do play other games as well, I have been playing OFP since...well...the demo!

b) I like CO-OP...just a bit sick of it at the moment is all.

c) My aim with this thread, as I stated in my first post, was to make everyone aware of this issue that has becoming more and more prevalent since OFP.

Interestingly I believe that back in OFP days CO-OP was UNDER-represented.

I'd like to finish this post on a final quote:

No reason to drop PvP in A2, honestly

Regardless of your gameplay type, there's no reason that ArmA2 and it's servers can't accommodate for both. My concern before posting this poll was that no-one wanted to play CO-OP. The current results from the poll are not supporting this fear. However 50 people is hardly representative of the ArmA2 gaming community.

So com'on ArmA2 peoples! Don't even make a post! VOTE!

Edited July 17, 2009 by mad rabbit

[galzohar 31]

It's not complexity, as you can see on the poll only 10% think that the complexity is a problem. TBH the current PvP missions are a lot more simple than the gigantic evo/dom missions. Then about 1/2 the voters think that PvP missions are lacking and that too many servers are just dominated by evo/dom for no clear reason.

[mad rabbit 0]

It's not complexity, as you can see on the poll only 10% think that the complexity is a problem. TBH the current PvP missions are a lot more simple than the gigantic evo/dom missions. Then about 1/2 the voters think that PvP missions are lacking and that too many servers are just dominated by evo/dom for no clear reason.

I agree.

But still, I think statistically, we need more votes to make sure that this is indeed the problem.

[Inkompetent 0]

I wouldn't say that the missions available are bad. It's just that there are only non-CTI PvP missions designed for larger numbers as far as I can see, which means that either you have to find 30 players at once to get a good fight going, or you can't play PvP that isn't CTI.

More maps ranging from just... 5v5 or something and up need to be made so that there are good maps all the way from a low playercount to a high. Hard to fill servers otherwise.

[galzohar 31]

It's not just being designed for large numbers, but also seem to always include a long travel time. Walking 1km+ every time you die AND every time you capture an objective gets old fast.

[mrbiggles 10]

I am so sick of the co-op maps that have you traveling for ages, sure if I was on the dole and had 12 hours a day to play video games, I could see the attraction.

Unfortunately I only get 2 or 3 hours a week to play, so far 95% of that has been spent either traveling in helicopters or wandering around deserted towns that were cleared 5 mins before I get there.

It really pi**ses me off because I got on a PvP game the other night and I got a glimpse at how exciting this game can be.

If the decent PvP maps do not come in the near future, then the game will end up not getting played.

Now I have a spare server sitting in my office, how do I go about setting that up as PVP only? Do I need a license to only host the game?

These Co-op games are so boring and you can just tell that about 15 of the 30 people playing do not have a clue and are wandering around just as aimlessly as myself.

If I wanted to shoot AI, I can play single player!!!

I want PvP with 15 - 30 a side, on a map that is set in one town, no running, no flying for 20 mins to get there, how good would that be?

---------- Post added at 12:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:52 PM ----------

Smaller playing areas will also speed up the game and encourage team work.

Nothing worse than seeing your squad leader 8000 metres away with no transport.

I have enough reality in my life, I play computer games to escape reality. Yes make the game realistic, but there is no need to simulate the boredom just so you can say, well, its realistic.....

[=SEALZ=Gen.***1cem@n*** 0]

Just wait for a good berzerk pack to come out..(yes i know its "BF2ish) .. but atleast a couple servers will be packed with C&H maps .. you could always count on a berzerk to attract a pvp crowd to ya server.. berzerk can be really fun if both sides are on comms and playing seriously.. also there will be AAS and normal c&h maps avalible soon iam sure ..

On another note the damn coop servers have always dominated arma and is something people are gonna have to deal with..there will always be fewer pvp servers.. on the bright side the first copies of arma2 are showing up on SOME U.S. store shelves.. and i believe that arma will takeoff for the better ..especially in the pvp aspect .. us americans are always very competitive and are more focused on the pvp aspects of most games we choose to play.. give it some time and i promise you guys will get more pvp than you can slang sabots at..

Edited July 18, 2009 by =SEALZ=Gen.***1cem@n***