PvP: An Endangered Species

[BeerHunter 0]

Think that the mere fact that the majority of servers are running co-op probably answers your question...co-op is preferred to PvP.

The fact that there are so few PvP maps might also suggests that even mappers find co-op more interesting than PvP.

As has been mentioned before there are many PvP games out there but so few that offer co-op. If you're looking or fairly massive PvP with enough realism and assets to satisfy your needs , there's always BF2's Project Reality.

Also take into consideration that BIS is trying to develop a SIMULATOR with ArmA2 , not another BF2 clone.

This means battle plans can be drawn out , troops organized and objectives assigned. Completion of the mission then becomes paramount rather than individual achievements which IMO is and probably always will be the prime object in PvP...to brag about your "l33t" skilz rather than the teams effort.

[beton 2]

Completion of the mission then becomes paramount rather than individual achievements which IMO is and probably always will be the prime object in PvP...to brag about your "l33t" skilz rather than the teams effort.

Thats one of the big problems in pvp... theres too many players that just grab a plane or helo and go cruising over the map to show how good they are at flying a plane. They dont wait for others to offer them transport or assistance.

If players in pvp would behave more like playing coop ( this means moving together and covering each other, heading for one aim) this would be more fun for everyone. Of course this would mean a player has to subordinate a bit. You cant win and have fun on a cti with 3/4 of players circling over the airport and crying for money when they have lost their toy. Why would you need a GBU if noone is hiding somewhere using his lasermarker?

I think more coop-players should joing a cti-game and try... its much fun for hours.

Another option would be to create cti missions within a smaller area and without any planes as they are renderd useless then. There would be a larger focus in infantryfights and also in commanding your AI-squad properly. This might be more cooplike also...

by the way... on a good server with an admin on there is no real problem with TK and cheating anymore

[deadsmell 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.....

Excellent post, I completely agree, thanks for saying so I didnt have to.

but how to draw attention to pvp. obviously the guys playing and hosting the bastard maps arent watching the forums.

[xeno 230]

but how to draw attention to pvp. obviously the guys playing and hosting the bastard maps arent watching the forums.

With posts like this or starting pvp thread number 1000 you won't get anywhere.

There's a reason why most of the people prefer to play coop, look at BeerHunters and betons posts.

If the common PvP player (that means public) would play as team instead of rambo style play or "I am the greatest" style it would attract more people. But that is something you'll never get in public PvP and without people communicating together.

I just have to join a PvP server and read some of the chat comments... "now everybody will die through my hand" or stuff like this, I start to laugh and leave.

Even though I've made some of the "bastard" missions I sometimes play PvP but you won't find me on any public server anymore. Playing for example AAS with all players in TS can be a great experience (but, to be honest, allmost all PvP missions get boring after one or two hours as there is no variety in the gameplay and there are no surprise elements in PvP missions).

Xeno

[whisper 0]

Also take into consideration that BIS is trying to develop a SIMULATOR with ArmA2 , not another BF2 clone.

If that was true, we wouldn't have vehicle simulation in the state we see it now.

They definitely didn't concentrate on the simulator side of things here

As for your generalization about PvP players, lack of teamplay and such, I call BS

Like Domination/Evolution (ie public coop playing) is any better than public PvP in teamplay department....

I just have to join a PvP server and read some of the chat comments... "now everybody will die through my hand" or stuff like this, I start to laugh and leave

Again, what a retarded generalization! (sorry but can't say it any different) I've seen what? 1 guy like this since I'm playing PvP exclusively on A2? Big WOW, this guys will surely make the whole PvP scene bad....

And I play PvP exactly for that : variety and surprise element. Like AI is capable of any initiative...

[xeno 230]

And I play PvP exactly for that : variety and surprise element.

Hm, so you think running to the same spots over and over again is variety and means surprise elements or what exactly do you mean with this ?

Am just curious.

Don't get me wrong, I'm thinking about making a PvP mission but not what is available currently.

Most important part beside the technical aspect would be to have a good gameplay.

Xeno

[whisper 0]

You wrote "spots" with a "s" so I'll take you realize that there are multiple objectives across a more or less large portion of the map. You'd have to tell me how it is any different from Evo/Dom objectives there (still talking about public Coop/PvP).

Running again, and again, and again (using vehicles, yes) to the same point trying to take it from static defending AI until you succeed, then going for the next point, rince and repeat. The only counterattack coming in the form of a suicide paradrop on your main base.... As you seem to not call THAT "running to the same spots over and over again" (because if you think about it a bit, any objective-based mission with respawn can be labelled "running to the same spots over and over again"), please apply the same kind of logic to PvP maps.

The approaches are different, the objectives do change during the mission, etc... If players simply mindlessly rush toward obj and get killed (ie, they "lemming"), good for them. You'll see lemming as much in Evo/Dom as in Berzerk/AAS

Variety and surprise come from players being able of initiative. AI can't do that

[celery 8]

The fact that there are so few PvP maps might also suggests that even mappers find co-op more interesting than PvP.

This mapper would make a ton of missions if his PC was a bit stronger.

Also take into consideration that BIS is trying to develop a SIMULATOR with ArmA2 , not another BF2 clone.

BIS already did what they did, it's up to the community to shape it into whatever comes to mind on a per mission basis. The gameplay and combat mechanics are already there and changing the objectives of a mission doesn't turn it into an "arcade shooter". It's simply Arma 2 with pvp objectives: realistic combat with competitive rules. You can't just play Battlefield 2 or Call of Duty X and pretend that it's the same.

[xeno 230]

Variety and surprise come from players being able of initiative. AI can't do that

Well, you can allways script surprise elements into AI behaviour, so that's not a problem. A2 AI does allready some nice surprisingly stuff.

But you are right, those bigger coop missions have the same style of gameplay (allmost) yet they attract much more players.

Having only human players doesn't mean that the gameplay is surprising or varies or is more challenging.

The problem of A2 PvP is that it doesn't attract more players. There must be a reason for it. The same happened allready in A1, where PvP was only a "niche" game type.

So it seems to be a problem of the PvP missions that are available currently, I might be wrong here, but that's my opinion and that is no offense against those missions or mission makers as I know how long it takes to make a MP mission.

The question simply is, what kind of mission or mission type would satisfy both PvP only players and other players that are mostly coop players or that normally don't play PvP ?

And once again, opening the next PvP thread or starting polls like this or moan about coop players or missions doesn't change anything and will not make other players play PvP, exactly the opposite will happen.

Let's work together instead against each other.

Xeno

[galzohar 31]

You may want to look at this:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=80452

My attempt at making a random assault mission, so that no 2 matches are the same, keeping it quite realistic while not having a very long travel time element. For realism though it's with no respawns and made to be short (8 min time limit and looking for a way to make it go quicker). Of course it has some limitations due to my lack of mission making knowledge, but it should get the concept through.

Also there's this: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=80136

No randomness, but that allowed me to hand-pick the locations to make the fight and objective more interesting. Again it's a no-respawn mission with 5 minute time limit (tighter time limit because I could hand-pick the starting locations so that they're close together and still not result in instant engagement).

[BeerHunter 0]

If that was true, we wouldn't have vehicle simulation in the state we see it now.

They definitely didn't concentrate on the simulator side of things here

I'm going to call you on this because ArmA is primarily intended as an INFANTRY simulator and everything else (vehicles,aircraft etc.) are merely support items infantry units in combat would call in as required.

To enhance the infantry aspect and allow for full blown engagements vehicles are made relatively simple to use so they can be deployed as needed for support.

The objective for example of aircraft is not air to air combat but to assault ground targets.

Tanks aren't implemented for large scale tank vs tank combat but as SUPPORT for ground assaults.

If you want tank/aircraft simulators look elsewhere.

If you want a reasonably good INFANTRY simulator you're not going to get much better than ArmA.

If you want good,organized game play you select co-op where like minded individuals gather.

For PvP (realistic... not your average public FPS mode) you are going to HAVE to join a clan where realism is the objective and you're still going to find yourself being subordinated and having to follow orders , not grabbing a sniper rifle and sitting on top of a hill racking up your kills.

[whisper 0]

Been there, done that. Thank you for trying to teach me what I should do :D (FYI check OFCRA in my sig, which is itself a child project of something I was already participating to in OFP days, but thanks for the advice :p )

Anyway, when I compare the amount of simulation centered changes made from OFP to ArmA2 to the non-simulation centered changes made, I still say they didn't concentrate on the simulation side of things :)

I'm sorry you don't like that people are enjoying ArmA2 outside of coop mode. You'll have to deal with it somehow. And please again, stop the silly generalization about PvP players, their motives and their methods

[Apocal 10]

I'm going to call you on this because ArmA is primarily intended as an INFANTRY simulator and everything else (vehicles,aircraft etc.) are merely support items infantry units in combat would call in as required.

To enhance the infantry aspect and allow for full blown engagements vehicles are made relatively simple to use so they can be deployed as needed for support.

I draw issue with this because ArmA, quite deliberately, slights several of the most crucial aspects of infantry combat to give a faster-paced game. The lack of mirco terrain, the general omniscience of vehicles, the accuracy of all weapon systems, inability to utilize cover in degrees all synergize together to create an environment extremely hostile to infantry PoV. Jesus, MOUT is to infantry as pool-table flat desert is to tanks but just look at how bad every game in the series does MOUT.

The only way to stop (armored) vehicles from juggernauting over infantry is by either giving the infantry approximately ten times the AT weaponry (Javelin excepted) they'd haul around in real life and constructing the mission around extremely closed terrain or simply not including them at all. The other aspects of OFP/ArmA do about as much to "enhance" the infantry aspect as a nail in the road enhances my driving experience.

They designed ArmA2 (and Arma1 and OFP) as games to give a fun combined arms experience all around. Other games have done infantry better, but ultimately the ability to hop into a tank or a helo or a A-10 set it apart from every other game claiming realism but having other maneuver and fire support systems as cinematic "Act of Plot" elements.

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.

Agreed. Real old, real fast.

There's a reason why most of the people prefer to play coop, look at BeerHunters and betons posts.

If the common PvP player (that means public) would play as team instead of rambo style play or "I am the greatest" style it would attract more people. But that is something you'll never get in public PvP and without people communicating together.

First of all, as a preface for this, IMHO Domination easily kept ArmA going after I thought all the steam had petered out, huge accomplishment there.

Now onto the main debate going on: I think it's the white elephant in the room that people who play ArmA don't like losing. Part of the reason I enjoy PvP is that on the other end is someone I'm imposing my will upon, in opposition to his will. At some level, it's sanctioned griefing and the tears of the opposition fuel me.

That being said, that attitude probably contributes to Ramboing... but only because Ramboing actually works. If players could realistically counter the Rambo by application of combined arms, it wouldn't be a problem. After all, what does a sniper do against a tank? What does a Javelin gunner do against a functioning fireteam of infantry?

Don't get me wrong, I'm thinking about making a PvP mission but not what is available currently.

Most important part beside the technical aspect would be to have a good gameplay.

Something to focus the line of fighting would be nice considering most current PvP missions provide no map restrictions whatsoever.

Edited July 19, 2009 by Apocal

[mrbiggles 10]

If you want a reasonably good INFANTRY simulator you're not going to get much better than ArmA

I agree 99% boredom and 1% excitement, as close to real life soldiering as there is.

I think the problem on the servers I have been playing (co-op ones) is that they are still full of people who have no idea what they are doing including myself.

When I go into the task area it says something silly like "awaiting orders" so there is no defined mission.

Only ever seems to be 3 or 4 people on teamspeak.

Freedom is great and thats why I love the game, but take for instance the mission leaving the carrier, its 10 mins travel time to any action excluding the fact there may not even be a helicopter to travel in. I may as well go and make a coffee and read the paper, whats the point?

The biggest thing for me is I take no joy in shooting an AI soldier, it bores me to tears. I get great joy knowing that I shot a real life person within the game, because no matter how good the AI gets, it will never be as satisfying.

My question is, whats the difference to the people who like co-op whether the town they are trying to attack and overun is held by bots or real people? At least let me have the option of taking a bots place in a co-op game if I want to.

Edited July 19, 2009 by mrbiggles

[mad rabbit 0]

Think that the mere fact that the majority of servers are running co-op probably answers your question...co-op is preferred to PvP.

The fact that there are so few PvP maps might also suggests that even mappers find co-op more interesting than PvP.

As has been mentioned before there are many PvP games out there but so few that offer co-op. If you're looking or fairly massive PvP with enough realism and assets to satisfy your needs , there's always BF2's Project Reality.

Also take into consideration that BIS is trying to develop a SIMULATOR with ArmA2 , not another BF2 clone.

I started this poll to determine why CO-OP games dominated the ArmA2 multiplayer scene. And indeed if the first option of the poll, "no-one likes PvP' was dominating the poll the would agree with your comments. However as you can see by the poll results and the comments in this thread, I don't believe this is the case.

I will however concede that this poll my be biased by people upset with the lack of PvP and attracted by the title. This however is unavoidable.

As for map makers finding CO-OP maps more interesting to make, I'd have to agree. Perhaps they are. Nothing like 'making a sandbox and seeing ants run around in it'! However I believe this diverges from the topic a little and you also haven't considered the a fact that PvP maps are, in my experience, harder to make.

In terms of the 'if you don't like it, don't play ArmA2' approach. I don't think this is a productive attitude and as I have stated I believe there is room in ArmA2 for all gameplay types, both of which I enjoy. Perhaps Tetris is more PvP and doesn't offer CO-OP, but that's not the game I'm talking about nro want to play.

Thats one of the big problems in pvp... theres too many players that just grab a plane or helo and go cruising over the map to show how good they are at flying a plane. They dont wait for others to offer them transport or assistance.

If players in pvp would behave more like playing coop

This is indeed the problem I find as well, but I believe patience in this respect is required as:

1) More arcade type FPS players will soon become bored with game and leave the scene.

- This is unfortunate but as we can see by the poll, those wanting PvP maps do not fear complexity so perhaps this is a good thing.

2) It takes a while to learn to a map.

- New players to ArmA2 are having problems adjusting to CO-OP maps such as Dom/Evo and PvP maps such as AASv2 alike. They need time to learn and through that find the enjoyment in this game we all see.

- Patience and 'gentle' guidance from the veteran players who have been in this game since OFP is required. I remembered back in OFP when I got lost a couple of times with only a map and compass to guide me. Now I think less of myself if I use GPS.

-However if the 13 year-old CS player with 4 satchels ruins the game then kick+ban by al means!

I also like the combination of PvP maps played like CO-OP! Great idea and concept but hard to execute. Requires lots of factors in (interface, suitable maps, etc.) and outside (clan + server organisation, forum discussion, etc.) which may be beyond this threads scope.

Again I'm just interested in why PvP games are in the minority...whatever the reason may be even if I don't like it i.e. no-one likes PvP.

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.....

Excellent post, I completely agree, thanks for saying so I didnt have to.

but how to draw attention to pvp. obviously the guys playing and hosting the bastard maps arent watching the forums.

Excellent points. However, having some limited experience trying to make a modified CTI map back in the days of OFP I can say it's hard to let go of your baby i.e. your vision of a map.

Case-and-point.

- Some excellent map makers have been asked to decrease their concept to a smaller scale but refuse to do so. But who is right?

- Major mod makers are asked on occasion to release single addons from their mod pack to the community to use in another context but also refuse to do so. But again who is right?

Perhaps the answers are luck and time.

Luck that some talented map maker will make that perfect map were all seeking. And time that we all seek, for him to make the map and us to play it.

With posts like this or starting pvp thread number 1000 you won't get anywhere.

There's a reason why most of the people prefer to play coop, look at BeerHunters and betons posts.

If the common PvP player (that means public) would play as team instead of rambo style play or "I am the greatest" style it would attract more people. But that is something you'll never get in public PvP and without people communicating together.

I just have to join a PvP server and read some of the chat comments... "now everybody will die through my hand" or stuff like this, I start to laugh and leave.

Even though I've made some of the "bastard" missions I sometimes play PvP but you won't find me on any public server anymore. Playing for example AAS with all players in TS can be a great experience (but, to be honest, allmost all PvP missions get boring after one or two hours as there is no variety in the gameplay and there are no surprise elements in PvP missions).

Xeno

Perhaps it won't do anything but the poll does seem to be disagreeing with your conclusions i.e. no-one likes PvP.

And if no-one did then why all the posts about the lack of it in the first place. We can't all be CS-noobs looking for are ego to be stroked by stating are grand intentions of killing you and everyone?!

I'm certainly not!

It's also a contradiction to say that the only reason you play CO-OP is because of the griefing/attitude in PvP...but not the gameplay. Does that mean that PvP is fine but it's the people?

Perhaps this is right and I do agree with some your points about PvP repetition.

But I'm sure I'm not alone in liking both types of gameplay and believing that there's more that one PvP gametype.

Hm, so you think running to the same spots over and over again is variety and means surprise elements or what exactly do you mean with this ?

Am just curious.

Don't get me wrong, I'm thinking about making a PvP mission but not what is available currently.

Most important part beside the technical aspect would be to have a good gameplay.

Xeno

I will have to strongly disagree with CO-OP maps being LESS repetitive than PvP maps. That's just simply not true. And if you believe it is...then you obviously have the talent to address this ;-)

I only just realised now that you made Dom maps!

I should say (yet) again that I enjoy CO-OP and Domination, which is NOT a 'bastard' mission. Nothing like parachuting into a town with a laser designator and a good pilot in TS. However I hope we see this PvP map your thinking of making soon.

Also consider that your a map maker and that you visited this thread. As such hopefully this has had some impact then...

This mapper would make a ton of missions if his PC was a bit stronger.

BIS already did what they did, it's up to the community to shape it into whatever comes to mind on a per mission basis. The gameplay and combat mechanics are already there and changing the objectives of a mission doesn't turn it into an "arcade shooter". It's simply Arma 2 with pvp objectives: realistic combat with competitive rules. You can't just play Battlefield 2 or Call of Duty X and pretend that it's the same.

Couldn't agree more.

And for those of you who don't know Celery's excellent PvP maps from ArmA1 your truly missing out on serious fun.

VODKA!

The problem of A2 PvP is that it doesn't attract more players. There must be a reason for it. The same happened allready in A1, where PvP was only a "niche" game type.

So it seems to be a problem of the PvP missions that are available currently, I might be wrong here, but that's my opinion and that is no offense against those missions or mission makers as I know how long it takes to make a MP mission.

The question simply is, what kind of mission or mission type would satisfy both PvP only players and other players that are mostly coop players or that normally don't play PvP ?

And once again, opening the next PvP thread or starting polls like this or moan about coop players or missions doesn't change anything and will not make other players play PvP, exactly the opposite will happen.

Let's work together instead against each other.

Xeno

Well I believe this thread was started because of your first sentence above which contradicts your last statement?!

That aside, I believe I also showed from initial post to start this thread that:

a) I had done my research

b) That I wish to highlight issue and identify the reason but I enjoy both gametypes

c) A poll of this sort did not already exist

Hell I had no idea what the poll result would look like let alone if this was only a local (Australian) issue. It could have just as easily been dominated by 'no-one likes PvP' and that would be that.

Then again perhaps it still will?!

First of all, as a preface for this, IMHO Domination easily kept ArmA going after I thought all the steam had petered out, huge accomplishment there.

Now onto the main debate going on: I think it's the white elephant in the room that people who play ArmA don't like losing. Part of the reason I enjoy PvP is that on the other end is someone I'm imposing my will upon, in opposition to his will. At some level, it's sanctioned griefing and the tears of the opposition fuel me.

That being said, that attitude probably contributes to Ramboing... but only because Ramboing actually works. If players could realistically counter the Rambo by application of combined arms, it wouldn't be a problem. After all, what does a sniper do against a tank? What does a Javelin gunner do against a functioning fireteam of infantry?

Something to focus the line of fighting would be nice considering most current PvP missions provide no map restrictions whatsoever.

Excellent points.

I very much agree that Dom *tips hat to Xeno* did keep ArmA1 alive. I just hope that this bias...and it is a bias... towards CO-OP wouldn't continue into ArmA2. Hence the reason for starting this thread. But there's room for all gametypes here in ArmA2 land.

The problem I guess map makers will encounter is do they:

a) Have no restrictions and more structured gameplay

i.e. limited weapon loadouts, same capture points

OR

b) Have restricted weapons but less structured gameplay

i.e. ACOG M203 with a Javelin and Laser Designator going up against a guy in a UAZ

Personally I prefer the former than the latter, but that's MY bias.

The biggest thing for me is I take no joy in shooting an AI soldier, it bores me to tears. I get great joy knowing that I shot a real life person within the game, because no matter how good the AI gets, it will never be as satisfying.

My question is, whats the difference to the people who like co-op whether the town they are trying to attack and overun is held by bots or real people? At least let me have the option of taking a bots place in a co-op game if I want to.

If I have to shoot another AI soldier lying down in the open I'm going to go nuts! By the same token, getting into any APC or tank when 'every man and his dog' has a Javelin also seems pointless and I'd just as rather walk than avoid that death-trap.

Hmm...

Perhaps a CO-OP map, like Domination with:

1) the majority of player as BLUFOR

2) a small Guerrilla force of players who 'aide' the OPFOR but start with limited weapons and can only keep what they raid from BLUFOR

3) a OPFOR 'game-master'/General who has overall control of the whole OPFOR movements but has limited assets to put into play.

I guess this is what popularised 'Dungeons and Dragons' type games i.e. chance + real-time player controlled opposition. Just a thought...

Edited July 19, 2009 by mad rabbit

[galzohar 31]

Speaking of javelins, when playing on "regular" difficulty I can see why people refer to them as superweapons... Play on expert and all of a sudden they don't detect tanks for you anymore. They could use a rework though (along with other locking weapons) to indicate a lock on expert.

I still think servers mostly run "regular" simply because it's the default and not for any "real" reason. At last the PvP servers that run it...

[danshyu 10]

ArmA2 should just look at Project Reality for how PvP should be handled, it's simple as that.

Yes PR is running on an outdated engine, and it's not perfect. But there are tons of elements that can be incorporated into ArmA2 to improve PvP gameplay. Sophisticated squad organization and command chain. Limited gear distribution. Player designated respawn point. ETC, ETC.

The fact even in public PR servers there are considerable amount of teamwork happening is a testament that their gameplay model work.

[galzohar 31]

Except PR pays with a lot of lost realism for that teamwork to happen.

[danshyu 10]

Except PR pays with a lot of lost realism for that teamwork to happen.

And ArmA2 has lost a lot of PvP multiplay community because of the poor teamwork interface. Every multiplayer game feels disorganized to the point that ArmA2 lost more realism than gained. Your point?

If you want absolute realism, then for starter when you get killed in ArmA 2 you get kicked out and banned from playing the game for at least 18 years. You're sure you really want that?

[galzohar 31]

If you want absolute realism, then for starter when you get killed in ArmA 2 you get kicked out and banned from playing the game for at least 18 years. You're sure you really want that?

That's pretty much the lamest argument ever against realism. It's not that hard to make missions that are both realistic and fun, it just takes just a tad more thought before jumping into the editor which is a phase most mission makers seem to skip.

You can have realism and teamwork and gameplay. You just have to make the right missions for it. Not everything that is realistic is going to be fun to play, but it is also not mandatory to have something unrealistic in order for it to be fun.

[marius00 0]

At the moment public PvP servers that I have tried are just not fun most of the time. For all of the reasons above. If a game requires a private game to be fun then fundamental design flaws exist in the gameplay.

Edited July 20, 2009 by marius00

[danshyu 10]

That's pretty much the lamest argument ever against realism. It's not that hard to make missions that are both realistic and fun, it just takes just a tad more thought before jumping into the editor which is a phase most mission makers seem to skip.

You can have realism and teamwork and gameplay. You just have to make the right missions for it. Not everything that is realistic is going to be fun to play, but it is also not mandatory to have something unrealistic in order for it to be fun.

So you're saying that there are no problems what-so-ever with the current PvP system? Cause realism is pretty much the ONLY thing it has going for it. But just look at how pathetically small the PvP community is for ArmA2, and it's losing more and more players each day. No matter how good you made your mission to be, without a good teamwork support interface people still won't be encouraged to play as a team.

Obviously there's a problem and it's not the lack of realism.

Not everything fun is going to be realistic, but it is also not mandatory to avoid anything unrealistic in order to get a realistic playing experience.

[galzohar 31]

I don't know how you can say such things when you had never played a good PvP mission. How can I tell you never played a good PvP mission? Because none had been made yet! While the game itself have things that can be improved, what's really killing PvP is the way the current PvP missions are designed. Currently even the best PvP missions feel like a big respawn-based team deathmatch that is somewhat directed towards certain map areas. Sure it can be fun, but this game can do much better.

If you have unrealistic stuff, I don't see how the playing experience is going to be realistic. You can't remove realism to promote realism. It just feels silly (see: revive system... pure silliness).

[Apocal 10]

If you have unrealistic stuff, I don't see how the playing experience is going to be realistic. You can't remove realism to promote realism. It just feels silly (see: revive system... pure silliness).

Now that's an interesting paragraph and depends much on what exactly you mean by "playing experience [realism]." The big thing to me personally is that it gives a fun, reasonably realistic combined arms experience. If it tramples other aspects, so be it. An example here is a restricted playable area. Real life, a rifle platoon doesn't have free reign to go wherever it pleases. So if a mission maker includes an impassable death zone (which is pretty damned unrealistic) I have no problem with it.

[Defunkt 431]

danyshu is absolutely right, ArmA2 P-v-P desperately needs more structure set by the mission maker and better interfaces to lead players through the must-know stuff, in both cases so they can immediately participate effectively. There is nothing at all in that which need compromise the realism or immersion.

Unfortunately the P-v-P mission maker also has to do a lot of other extra work because things like join-in-progress, respawn management, team-killing are so poorly provided for.