PvP: An Endangered Species

[marius00 0]

The main issue is that ArmA2 delivers a great platform or framework, if you like, but fails to deliver anything great for the PVP community with its default setup. So the tools are there to make it whatever you want it to be, but as a default setup its crap. So... Might be a great game down the track with some effort from the community but initially, crap. Or I could look at it from a different angle and say its great all around as the game was never meant to deliver anything great initially out of the box for PVP.

I can see the light lol and I do think its a great game but currently I would rather do something else due to the state of the PVP games available.

Edited July 20, 2009 by marius00

[spamurai 3]

Maybe they should fix the game first. That's what I'd argue is wrong first and foremost. Once players can stay connected without their device drivers crashing them out to the desktop all the time... then we can discuss the internal mechanics and infrastructure needed to play PvP games.

[Defunkt 431]

Maybe you should grind that axe elsewhere and come join this discussion when you've sorted out your device driver crashes.

[BLSmith2112 0]

I'm hoping that once the dust settles from the games release and the player-base irons out - the servers will equalize out and we will have a balance.

If we don't I will go absolutely CRAZY! :icon_mad:

I turn the game on, if I see 1 PVP server its full. If I'm lucky and see a CTF server (which is never dedicated), which closes minutes after I arrive. One PvP map seems popular in one server, "Bezerk" (From Arma1)... it always crashes, the mission AND the server. So its completely pointless to even think about playing that. I quit Arma for 8 months, because I really just hated the game. I love Arma2, but I hate the hell out of these servers, which are the only thing keeping this game alive.

AAS maps run off like 3 servers out of the 100 out there... they are ok missions, but theres no variety. I've played over a dozen CTF maps - but they are all so confined into such a tiny space and they jack up the player count to 30-40 players - it feels like counterstrike. Hexenkessel from OFP is fine once and a while, but jesus stretch the flags out a bit will you? Warfare just feels funny... its not the old CTI I'm used to from the OFP days thats for sure.. It's too fast.

Everytime I just think about that server list I just want to scream, I refuse to play against those damned robots... I hate coming home after work, grabbing a nice cold one out of the fridge, and sit down for a round of Arma2 only to find out that theres no PvP servers for me to get into.. I didn't play this game to Vs. 0s and 1s. Arghh!!!!!!

Edited July 21, 2009 by Victor

[marius00 0]

I got a friend running a HOLD server but its constantly crashing so if he is not on it to keep it alive every so often it wont be any good the next day. If he is on leave its screwed for several days until he comes back and kicks it in the guts.

[spamurai 3]

My server is up and running with a full assortment of HOLD maps, all the time... though... it stays empty because no one joins a PvP server if it's empty. I need like 30 players to join it all at the same time so the momentum of activity builds up to perpetuate itself.

Until then, it stays empty. A 2v2 game of Berserker just isn't very attractive from the server list.

[galzohar 31]

Yes, servers definitely need to have some pvp missions that work with less players to get them started, and swap to bigger missions only once enough players are in. It shouldn't be that hard to make an AAS-based mission and just change it to one very small zone that is very close to both bases in some urban area so that it'll work for <10 players.

[Murklor 10]

Yes, servers definitely need to have some pvp missions that work with less players to get them started, and swap to bigger missions only once enough players are in. It shouldn't be that hard to make an AAS-based mission and just change it to one very small zone that is very close to both bases in some urban area so that it'll work for <10 players.

Or maybe one could mix coop mission and pvp mission instead of focusing the server on either exlusivly... Thus gathering people during the coop mission and having enough to play good PvP mission when they come.

[galzohar 31]

If people wanted to play coop rather than PvP they would've found a different server that isn't empty though. PvP servers is what is hard to find. Additionally, it's not like there are a lot of small coop missions either. Anyway, if you want PvPers in your server, running a coop mission to get people is going to be counter productive.

[Jack-UK 0]

i havent got ArmA 2 yet so i'm basing this off other peoples observations and how ArmA played out but...

I think the major gap in the market, so to speak, is that there arent really any tactical PvP maps... Bezerk seems to be the most popular... and to be honest (in arma at least) it was just people jumping on, everyone rushing for the nearest vehicle and then a load of single players running around fragging..

I think what a lot of PvP players will want is a TACTICAL PvP mode, not so complex as CTI perhaps where things have to be built etc, but somehow i think players need to be encouraged to work as a team.. maybe some sort of evo system for points unlocks more stuff etc, and you get more points if u work as a team (if you're in close proximity to team members and focus on one objective agaisnt the enemy you get more points, which u can spend on new weapons and vehicles)...

Cut out the complex scenarios, but keep in the tactics? Just a suggestion.. if i was any good at mission making i'd have a go myself.. but atm.. still waiting for both my new pc and my copy of ArmA2 to arrive :)

[King Poulet 1]

I think PvP is unpopular simply because it unbalanced. Not to mention the time it can take to test a new map for it balance. Considering developers can spend a whole year into mp map balance, I figure the interests of making new maps is simply reduced in this game because of the hardened dedicated involvement.

[An Fiach 10]

I think PvP is unpopular simply because it unbalanced. Not to mention the time it can take to test a new map for it balance. Considering developers can spend a whole year into mp map balance, I figure the interests of making new maps is simply reduced in this game because of the hardened dedicated involvement.

In what way is it unbalanced?

[Reyn 10]

The fact is (as you mentioned), is that the game is not really built for it. OFP was... It was dominated by CTF maps. Deadmans Alley, The End, Hexenkessel etc.

The gameplay has changed totally since then (animations mainly) and it seems that instead of CTF's it's CTI that rules the roost when it comes to players vs player combat.

I don't think that the old run and gun, side strafe and corner camp can be relived in Armed Assault.

[Murklor 10]

I don't think that the old run and gun, side strafe and corner camp can be relived in Armed Assault.

Obviously it cant, but I dont see how that makes it unbalanced? :confused:

I dont think map balance has anything do with it. Map balance is when its corridor maps: Chernarous is hardly a corridor. If you tell people to capture a town 1.5 kilometers away by simply being near it and gain superiority, there is nothing to balance. Unless of course the mission designer is a retard and place the zone 100m from west spawn and 8000m from east spawn... and east get to walk.

The weapons are of course another deal... A team with DMR vs a team with MP5 isnt gonna be a particularly even fight. But that can easily be solved with fixed classes instead of free-for-all weaponry. Same for vehicles.

[galzohar 31]

Where there's PvP, there's a need for balance. It doesn't matter if you're playing Jackstraws or a "take over the universe" realistic simulator. And it's not just about "X team has it easier than Y team", but also balancing the skills that are required of each team to achieve victory.

I'm sure that if you played some of the PvP missions around for more than a couple minutes, you'll see the major balance issues, and even if the map is completely symmetric, you would notice that the skills needed to win aren't necessarily anywhere near the kinds of skills you would want to be needed in this game.

It's not about the mission designer being retarded. If you've been keeping track of things you would've noticed how hard it is to make something properly balanced. Other game companies, which don't even try to have any kind of realism (which makes balance easier), still struggle for years to make the game balanced.

[Cellus 10]

My server is up and running with a full assortment of HOLD maps, all the time... though... it stays empty because no one joins a PvP server if it's empty. I need like 30 players to join it all at the same time so the momentum of activity builds up to perpetuate itself.

Until then, it stays empty. A 2v2 game of Berserker just isn't very attractive from the server list.

I'm going to start a mission this weekend that will scale up with each objective, so it will be best played with a few people in the beginning, then by the end be your large scale, combined arms war, in the hopes of overcoming the 'need 20 people for good game, no one around, join co-op' problem. Though I don't know why I'm bothering, as whenever I look at the server list, there isn't even 1 in 10 that is PvP, so it's obvious few people are interested. But I'll do it anyway. The more I play it, the less I like co-op. Like turning up to an orgy and jacking off in the corner - sure some bloke might be there to give me a hand, but there is just so much more. Just need a test dummy to finish off my last 'learner' map...

Edited July 25, 2009 by Cellus

[LJF 0]

What about Scenarios? Like real-world scenarios - hostage rescue, hold location (1 team attacks the other defends, then swap for round 2 even), etc etc. I'd really like to play realistic scenarios, that's why Coop bores me, and to a certain extent, so does CTF or Warfare, they all feel so removed from reality, I'd make some maps myself but I hasses no skillz :(

ArmA2 has great potential for realism - apparently realism being why people like it ... is it? - but at the moment the online scene is dominated by imitations of other "games", and in a lot of cases those other games can pull it off better even. If we could get together a few dedicated PvP servers and some nice missions it would be great.

But yeah, as to the question, there are simply no PvP servers at all for me with a ping of under 100 (I live in Australia - I just checked a few minutes ago and all of the servers with <100 ping were coop) so I think people are just playing coop because it's the only thing there. A good PvP server would draw people I think.

[.kju 3245]

CTF / CQB players need to try the AAS mission from CoolBox.

It is amazing! :bounce3:

[galzohar 31]

AAS is decent in principle, but needs a lot of tuning for a lot of its missions. Some send you on longass walks, some are all about who gets the tank/aircraft, and some just have the objectives scattered like crazy. To top it all off, spawn camping is basically required to capture an area.

[.kju 3245]

Fully agreed - do you support CoolBox in anyway to achieve that?

[Rekit 10]

The game is full of to many mindges. Hence multiplayer TvT or PvP suck due to lone wolves, *************** and the like

[mrbiggles 10]

I think PvP is unpopular simply because it unbalanced. Not to mention the time it can take to test a new map for it balance. Considering developers can spend a whole year into mp map balance, I figure the interests of making new maps is simply reduced in this game because of the hardened dedicated involvement.

If its a military simulator as the name suggests then the fact the mission is not balanced means its more realistic.

If every game was balanced in every way including expertise of the participants then it would always end in a draw.

I would love to play a game where I have to defend a small area against a large opposing force.

Khe Sahn, Monte Casino, Somme, they were all real and unbalanced....

[An Fiach 10]

I'm going to start a mission this weekend that will scale up with each objective, so it will be best played with a few people in the beginning, then by the end be your large scale, combined arms war, in the hopes of overcoming the 'need 20 people for good game, no one around, join co-op' problem. Though I don't know why I'm bothering, as whenever I look at the server list, there isn't even 1 in 10 that is PvP, so it's obvious few people are interested. But I'll do it anyway. The more I play it, the less I like co-op. Like turning up to an orgy and jacking off in the corner - sure some bloke might be there to give me a hand, but there is just so much more. Just need a test dummy to finish off my last 'learner' map...

The number of servers isnt a good way to judge who is interested, it simply tells you that more people are hosting other game types.

[whisper 0]

The number of servers isnt a good way to judge who is interested, it simply tells you that more people are hosting other game types.

It tells you also what gametypes are easier to jump in and play without taking too much time thinking and apprehending the mission

[zyklone 1]

It just takes ALOT more work to manage a good PVP server..

The distribution of players is not really as horrible as people think though.

(Last 30 days)