PvP: An Endangered Species

[mad rabbit 0]

Is that graph per map-type played

OR

players per map-type

?

[--DST-- Anth 10]

Instead of coop it should just say evolution.

[zyklone 1]

Is that graph per map-type played

OR

players per map-type

?

It's player time per map-type.

So if 20 players play a 1 hour COOP game that's counted as 20 hours COOP.

[garbol87 10]

Lack of good missions no anti TeamKillers scripts lots of grifers and dumbasses on public servers. IMHO main reason the PvP dies in ArmA2

[{S8G}Rub!c0n 10]

yes PVP is dead

[galzohar 31]

Team killing is the last thing I would blame for ruining Arma 2 PvP, at least based on my experience on public servers. It's an issue but it's far from a primary issue.

[.kju 3244]

@ zyklone

Where is unknown?

[Jack-UK 0]

There used to be an anti TK script in ArmA.... it seemed to quell the surge for a while actually.. i put it into a couple of my maps i made.

When my PC arrives in the next few days i'm gonna start work on making various small PvP maps, none of that complex bezerk stuff.. simple PVP scenarios which may drum up some interest.. I'll try and make it more tactical than most PvP's.. maybe certain sides have less players, but are better equipped, and the other team has more players but less equipment.. So there will be a NEED for teamwork to win.

[King Poulet 1]

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....

That's doesn't add-up nor making sense. No matter how realistic the game is, if the community wants PvP, maps maker should at least focus for the best balance on both side that doesn't make more experienced player to pick the same side because of possible exploits, terrain flaws or vehicle superiority, otherwise it not fun for any players on the other side and would never join the server simply for that reason. It not a win win solution in long term.

Why do you think BF2 servers are mostly infantry only nowadays? Vehicles map are just too unbalanced with the exception of few. J-10 maps with an average player as pilot could completely dominate a game just by himself because the J-35 has too much flaws and couldn't dog fight for ****.

I remember in my OFP days, there was a tank map, M1 vs t80, equally numbered and same distance of the objective. Yet, I could beat an entire battalion of t80 with the M1 because it had less weak spot and was much faster. It was much harder on T-80 because there was a light slope on their side of the map that render the t80 tank slower than the m1 and I could never be the first to arrive on the objective technically. And the funny thing is, when the map was filled with AI as players, it looked balanced, but in the hand of good players, it was totally different, especially if they were aware of the flaws.

I know there's map that actually work, maybe it sheer luck or because the game is new. I won't be surprised too see many of you taking advantage of a side and always sitting on it because of the flaws. I'm actually suggesting to to keep balance in mind if this community wants better PvP for starting.

[flake 10]

ban COOP

[Inkompetent 0]

ban COOP

So you want to make half the players stop playing ArmA? Smart move...:j:

[mad rabbit 0]

ban COOP

Nor helpful.

I like CO-OP and I started this thread!

As I've stated a couple of times now, the goal of this thread is:

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

[papoose244 10]

I would like to see missions where we can have pvp jet battles that would be great.

[mrbiggles 10]

What I am really failing to grasp here is that when you go into a Co-op game, its always against AI.

Now lets take that phrase AI for a second, its artificial intelligence right?

It an attempt to get a computer to behave like a human would in the same situation.

I have a revolutionary idea, leave the Co-Op games exactly as they are with one minor exception, just replace the AI that defend the objectives with real people.

Co-Op people still get to play their game the way they want and the people that enjoy playing against another human & in a defensive role also get some enjoyment.

I cannot see why that would not work. Remove the AI from the game, its not that hard really, then everyone is happy!

I cannot see how doing this would detract from the co-op game style in any way unless of course the AI behaves so differently to a normal human that it changes the way the game works, in which case all the more reason to remove the AI from the game.

Its a self defeating argument, if the AI behaves just like a human then it makes no difference if they are AI or human, if the AI does behave differently then it should be removed to make the game more accurate.

I am at the point where I am tempted to shelve the game for 6 months to see if it becomes more exciting. I can live with the bugs, the patches and all the other things that come with a new game, what I can not live with is wandering around a virtual world for 2 hours being bored, I can do that in the real world.

Its great that people recommend learning the editor etc, however some of us purchased a game because we want to play it, not to tinker with creating the perfect map. I see no reason why those maps out now cannot allocate the AI positions to real people eliminating this massive void at the moment of being able to play an exciting game.

The game is really boring on the big co-op servers out there at the moment, and I know I am not alone in thinking that. These servers are going to be the determining factor in whether this game retains a big self sustaining following and be able to convert some of the single dimensional players (like myself) into players that can work well in a team and play the game at a higher level. .

Edited July 29, 2009 by mrbiggles

[galzohar 31]

The problem with replacing AI with real people is that the whole point of coop is that it allows you to make missions where you don't have to make sure one of the sides has fun, as a good chance to win or anything of that sort. You only need to make sure the side that is meant to be played by people has a chance to win and is fun to play. This opens up a great amount of possibilities in mission design, and replacing the AI with human players will either close those options or make it so nobody wants to play those missions.

[Waterman 0]

I would like to see missions where we can have pvp jet battles that would be great.

Try the Andersun Gunship Deathmatch I think it's called, it's on the Delta Strike Team (DST) server, it's great fun!

[mrbiggles 10]

The problem with replacing AI with real people is that the whole point of coop is that it allows you to make missions where you don't have to make sure one of the sides has fun, as a good chance to win or anything of that sort. You only need to make sure the side that is meant to be played by people has a chance to win and is fun to play. This opens up a great amount of possibilities in mission design, and replacing the AI with human players will either close those options or make it so nobody wants to play those missions.

The thing is, I really dont care if I win, I play a game for the games sake.

Just give the option, if people dont take up on it then have the AI auto populate to fill in and they can go play on the other team.

I can think of nothing more exciting than defending a town against a much larger force.

Team work using spotters, AA, mortars and an effective defensive system would be so damn exciting, and the acheivement felt in actually preventing a towns capture would be so much better than the current goal of "awaiting orders" that are in most maps played.

Edited July 30, 2009 by mrbiggles

[Bad Pilot 0]

I'm currently enthused about getting an Arma2 ladder running on the Clanbase site. My clan's signing the petition there. If you want it, check it out - register and sign the petition. It'll be the start of something wonderful.

[galzohar 31]

For a ladder you need a mission to compete on... Is there any mission that actually had been tested to be playable on a competitive level? Currently it seems that even the best PvP missions are too unbalanced and/or random to fit competitive (ladder) play.

[Bad Pilot 0]

The priority is not to argue over which missions to play. Gotta start somewhere!

[CarlGustaffa 4]

The very little time I have spent on PvP has been at TG, and the missions have been way too unforgiving for me to call fun - read: No Respawn / Seagull (Arma1). Also, I'm getting too old and slow to really stand a chance against the fresh meat of the gaming scene.

AI skill can be adjusted = fun.

Human opponents are way too good for me = no fun.

Also, if I do want to play PvP, I prefer other games. Typically faster games like Unreal Tournament. There we play on fairly equal ground, with nonrealistic 'glowing' suits that makes it possible for my system to actually see my opponent, and maybe even fire back before I'm dead.

I guess I just don't like realism during PvP. I'm always the one who dies early due to system specs (well, I blame it on that :)) But I love realism during Coop, since I am able to tune the resistance.

[DLcmdr 0]

camperism in ctfs like hexkensel.

Camperism is directly a consequence of the too hard breathing pulse system which makes the player not move so he can actually aim with some kind of stability..

[LJF 0]

Interesting idea about replacing AI with human players when, I was at a lan ages back and a bunch of guys were playing BF against the AI (and winning) so I joined in and led the AI forces to victory :cool: I wonder whether the coopers would be annoyed at playing against humans though? It might flop in that regard because people may just go and play traditional coop.

Why do you guys play coop? I'm not being a nob I just want to know. Is it that PvP is too stressful or ... I've never really been into coop that much so I have no clue whatsoever. Would Being in a coop game where you were fighting against humans detract from the purpose?

Me personally, I like PvP because it's a challenge and it's stressful. I find the AI to be good but in large games and especially when there are massive amounts of humans players, it's just too easy and the AI doesn't react well enough.

Wow, Idea! OK, here's the plan, you have a regular coop style mission - capture a valley or the whole of UTES or something - but the difference is that the enemy AI is all hooked up to a high command module with a single human player in charge coordinating their efforts! It would be like coop but challenging and would continue to be surprising and different, with changing tactics and all that fun stuff :D I think I might try to get that working, though my editing knowledge isn't really good enough to finish it off to the degree of most missions.

Edit: Though what that has to do with PvP I don't know ...

[Binkowski 26]

I enjoy coop, but PVP is badass. Too many evolution and domination servers though :(.

[galzohar 31]

I've had bad experience controlling AI with high command (they just don't behave as well as I'd expect them), so this idea may be a bit problematic.