ArmA 2 vs Project reality?

[bangtail 0]

There is sound in ARMA2 as well AFAIK. You hear your guy gasp (breathing) plus blur and shake. Dirt kicking up i guess is nice. Maybe doable in ARMA2? Some texture that splats up and fades away. Use "grunge" brush in PS to create the dirt.

Anyone wanting to do it - i can provide the textures

Some people in this thread have tried to turn it into a "my d*ck is bigger than your d*ck" discussion.

They are both great games and, tbh, I spend far more time in A2 than I do in PRM.

To be clear, PRM is a great deal of fun and very different from A2 in most respects.

If you haven't tried it, i'd suggest you give it a shot. It's well worth the download.

@ Deadfast : Just fired up the SP for a quick look - all the things I mentioned are there. It definitely feels like movement is inhibited but that may just be the effect of disorientation due to the distortion on the screen.

Edited November 7, 2009 by BangTail

[Geronimo 0]

If it is turned off by turning off PP then it is not well implemented, because you want your suppressive fire to make people get down whether or not they have PP on. And many people dont like other things that PP brings, and it causes a performance hit.

Just transparent texture mask would do it. Like image that appears when aiming with sniper. And of course much more severe than it is now with PP. And that it is coded to affect AI

I don't think why people are defending ARMA when it's not attacked. It is the best game ever, it can defend itself :D

EDIT: The reason that I am posting about is is that I dont want 2 different games each with some good feature, I want it all in one game! And ARMA 2 seems already to have most of the stuff that is required to be THE game

Edited November 7, 2009 by Geronimo

[bangtail 0]

If it is turned off by turning off PP then it is not well implemented, because you want your suppressive fire to make people get down whether or not they have PP on. And many people dont like other things that PP brings, and it causes a performance hit.

Just transparent texture mask would do it. Like image that appears when aiming with sniper. And of course much more severe than it is now with PP. And that it is coded to affect AI

I don't think why people are defending ARMA when it's not attacked. It is the best game ever, it can defend itself :D

No kidding, I love OFP/A1/A2.

As a complete package, ArmA 2 kills PRM. PRM is great for large scale squad battles, but that's all it does. A2 is only limited by your imagination.

Edited November 7, 2009 by BangTail

[Alex72 1]

If it is turned off by turning off PP then it is not well implemented, because you want your suppressive fire to make people get down whether or not they have PP on.

We know mate. BIS has already made changes in this to make us happy. This is something i will bring up as a suggestion, but forgot. Remember in the beginning we couldnt even turn PP off at all.

Getting suppressed and getting shot should cause blur in any setting IMO. Also would be great to have the scope blur effect wich also is removed when PP is off.

[Deadfast 43]

Must of been a while since you played. They overhauled it a while back. The movement may just be me but I always feel like it slows you down a little. The rest is definitely there.

It's harrowing and very effective.

2 days in fact :p

I just fired it up to make sure. There is definitely no movement restriction and no shaking. I guess by dirt you mean the impact effect on soil. You were right about the sound, wasn't sure if it's really there or I was just making it up. It does get muffled for some time.

[bangtail 0]

2 days in fact :p

I just fired it up to make sure. There is definitely no movement restriction and no shaking. I guess by dirt you mean the impact effect on soil. You were right about the sound, wasn't sure if it's really there or I was just making it up. It does get muffled for some time.

Definitely seems to be a slight shake but I concede that the movement is more me panicking than the game LOL.

Anyway, no point arguing. I'll end by saying it's well done. I'm sure we can both agree on that :)

[Deadfast 43]

I think that by shake you mean the image distortion (edges are multiplied). And yeah, the effect works very well :)

[Alex72 1]

So could an addon make some more effect in ARMA2? That should be the discussion here. :) Not what di*k is bigger, but how we can make ARMA2 even better hehe.

[Vipera 10]

I think, I like BF2: Project reality more than ARMA2 because Project Reality has better weapon balance. The main problem in ARMA2 multiplayer is that player has access to power weapons without limitations. On CTI maps i can capture towns alone. Capture strongholds, buy long range AT weapon, destroy all vehicles and you are done.

I'd recommend to make limitations of each weapon per map (team, squad, player). For example, both teams have limitations per map:

Main battle tanks - 8

APC - 12

Battle vehicles - 20

Vehicles - 10

...

etc.

These limits could change if you reach some goals (capture town, create special stuctures, amount of supplys, if you evacuate your damaged vehicles for repairs).

The first thing that we have to do - limit personal AA and long range AT weapons or make them not available for purchase in camps.

PS. ARMA2 has a lot more abilities to compare with BF: PR. We just have to use them right.

[An Fiach 10]

I suggest you go re-read my post, I never said it COULDN'T be done. I said that it was unlikely it WOULD be done and that's just one of the things you've misquoted me on.

Secondly, you've never even played PRM so you are completely unqualified to comment.

You have the audacity to call me confused when I actually have extensive experience with BOTH games, unlike yourself. If you don't even know what it's like, how do you know if it can be transplanted? I never stated anything to a certainty, I stated MY opinion (and I even capitalized MY in my previous post).

PRM can't do about 90% of what A2 can do but what it does, it does very well.

Until you've actually played PRM, you have no business making the assumptions you have made.

Lastly, I am a big A2 fan - so you can lower your shields, I'm not out to put it down.

Misquoted? Perhaps but not off from what you were saying. You are referring to PRM as 'out of the box' which is quite frankly misleading because you can't exactly refer to a mod as 'out of the box' when comparing it to a vanilla game. It is a mod after all.

You are behaving ignorantly stating that individuals have no business discussing a list of features because they haven't played the game. The list of features does not change by playing it. Playing both games does not make you less confused as an individual either. I can disagree with your opinion as well but I also like to deal in facts when possible.I have seen it asked in this thread, what is it that you don't think is possible? ArmA 2 is not suited to large scale PvP? PvP is simple, you only need two players and have them shoot one another, so I assume you are referring to the style of play but you aren't describing for those of us who have not played it just what you mean by that because all of the features in the list can be done in ArmA 2.

VOIP works just fine and I have seen on some missions people able to create their own groups so you don't have 32 people talking at the same time unless they are all using the side generic channel at the same time which rarely occurs anyway.

I don't think anyone is defending ArmA 2 here, simply arguing against opinions about what is possible. I'm not intending to come across as hostile here but instead of arguing against specific statements you are trying to shut people down for not having played the mod. This does not lend itself well to open discussion.

Again, I have to say, the only real factor I see is the server administration that enforces team play and that's simply a matter of active admins enforcing set rules.

---------- Post added at 06:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:34 PM ----------

I think, I like BF2: Project reality more than ARMA2 because Project Reality has better weapon balance. The main problem in ARMA2 multiplayer is that player has access to power weapons without limitations. On CTI maps i can capture towns alone. Capture strongholds, buy long range AT weapon, destroy all vehicles and you are done.

I'd recommend to make limitations of each weapon per map (team, squad, player). For example, both teams have limitations per map:

Main battle tanks - 8

APC - 12

Battle vehicles - 20

Vehicles - 10

...

etc.

These limits could change if you reach some goals (capture town, create special stuctures, amount of supplys, if you evacuate your damaged vehicles for repairs).

The first thing that we have to do - limit personal AA and long range AT weapons or make them not available for purchase in camps.

PS. ARMA2 has a lot more abilities to compare with BF: PR. We just have to use them right.

That is precisely a matter of mission design and I'm sure that many of us into realism agree, the level of weapon availability is absurd.

---------- Post added at 06:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:36 PM ----------

Oh please, since when have you had the hotline to Prague ? There are plenty of mechanisms in both games that are meant to represent real-life occurences that cannot possible be accurately portrayed in a computer game. I have played PR a bit and one thing that I really was impressed by was the feeling of suppression. Regardless of whether the mechanism was physiologically accurate or not it made me want to seek cover and it gave a distinct advantage to those who got their shots off first.

And BTW... http://dev-heaven.net/wiki/sbsmac-pvpsp/Insurgency Not that I seriously expect anybody to actually put any effort into this since it's far more fun to bicker about which game is best rather than do anything constructive about it. ;-)

Thanks for pointing that out Mac, I've been thinking of just such a mission type. I'm not a veteran mission designer but when I'm finished with what i am currently working on I'll look into this.

[bangtail 0]

Misquoted? Perhaps but not off from what you were saying. You are referring to PRM as 'out of the box' which is quite frankly misleading because you can't exactly refer to a mod as 'out of the box' when comparing it to a vanilla game. It is a mod after all.

You are behaving ignorantly stating that individuals have no business discussing a list of features because they haven't played the game. The list of features does not change by playing it. Playing both games does not make you less confused as an individual either. I can disagree with your opinion as well but I also like to deal in facts when possible.I have seen it asked in this thread, what is it that you don't think is possible? ArmA 2 is not suited to large scale PvP? PvP is simple, you only need two players and have them shoot one another, so I assume you are referring to the style of play but you aren't describing for those of us who have not played it just what you mean by that because all of the features in the list can be done in ArmA 2.

VOIP works just fine and I have seen on some missions people able to create their own groups so you don't have 32 people talking at the same time unless they are all using the side generic channel at the same time which rarely occurs anyway.

I don't think anyone is defending ArmA 2 here, simply arguing against opinions about what is possible. I'm not intending to come across as hostile here but instead of arguing against specific statements you are trying to shut people down for not having played the mod. This does not lend itself well to open discussion.

Again, I have to say, the only real factor I see is the server administration that enforces team play and that's simply a matter of active admins enforcing set rules.

---------- Post added at 06:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:34 PM ----------

That is precisely a matter of mission design and I'm sure that many of us into realism agree, the level of weapon availability is absurd.

---------- Post added at 06:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:36 PM ----------

Thanks for pointing that out Mac, I've been thinking of just such a mission type. I'm not a veteran mission designer but when I'm finished with what i am currently working on I'll look into this.

When you've actually played PRM, I'll be happy to hear your opinions. Until then ... well, enough said.

Good day

[Alex72 1]

I think, I like BF2: Project reality more than ARMA2 because Project Reality has better weapon balance. The main problem in ARMA2 multiplayer is that player has access to power weapons without limitations. On CTI maps i can capture towns alone.

Only a matter of design. Having tons of choices never was a bad thing unless the people playing are the type that needs to be "hand held" all the way by having rules enforced on them. Then it will get ugly when they are faced with tons and tons of weapons and vehicles. "I got to have the biggest boom!" style will follow and serious players will grow bored - fast. In ARMA however we have the choice to design missions ourselves, and we can limit a mission to pistol vs pistol if we want to. That some people throw all weapons in then thats because they want it that way and many missions have everything in them, but works well when mature people play them as they use the resources realisticly. As in "you just dont get in a jet if your not a pilot" kind of thing. This doesnt work well on pub servers - mostly.

So choice is not a bad thing. At least not when you have a powerful editor and design it well.

[Vipera 10]

Only a matter of design. Having tons of choices never was a bad thing unless the people playing are the type that needs to be "hand held" all the way by having rules enforced on them.

... That some people throw all weapons in then thats because they want it that way and many missions have everything in them, but works well when mature people play them as they use the resources realisticly.

...

So choice is not a bad thing. At least not when you have a powerful editor and design it well.

As i said ARMA2 has almost everything what we need. So, we just need to create good (for gameplay) missions. It only sounds goods to have powerfull weapon for everyone. Could you imagine if eveyone will have access to nuke? What will be a gameplay in this case? We need a good balance between realistic and gameplay. Though real life war confilcts do not include so many weapons at the same time. I just want to repeat my thoughts that we need some weapon limitations for MP missions.

PS. I don't play Dominaton and EVO maps because of lags which i hate. So, I don't realy know about weapon balance in those missions. I play only CTI and AAS missions.

[An Fiach 10]

When you've actually played PRM, I'll be happy to hear your opinions. Until then ... well, enough said.

Good day

I rest my case :rolleyes:

Facts , not opinions. That's what I'm looking for and you still yet refuse to expound on what it is in PR that ArmA 2 can't do without destroying established game play.

[bangtail 0]

I rest my case :rolleyes:

Facts , not opinions. That's what I'm looking for and you still yet refuse to expound on what it is in PR that ArmA 2 can't do without destroying established game play.

What case :rolleyes:

Hilarious.

I've presented plenty of facts, but your fanboyism is getting in the way of objectivity.

Again, agree to disagree (about a game you've never played) and move on.

Have a good weekend :)

---------- Post added at 06:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:00 AM ----------

Only a matter of design. Having tons of choices never was a bad thing unless the people playing are the type that needs to be "hand held" all the way by having rules enforced on them. Then it will get ugly when they are faced with tons and tons of weapons and vehicles. "I got to have the biggest boom!" style will follow and serious players will grow bored - fast. In ARMA however we have the choice to design missions ourselves, and we can limit a mission to pistol vs pistol if we want to. That some people throw all weapons in then thats because they want it that way and many missions have everything in them, but works well when mature people play them as they use the resources realisticly. As in "you just dont get in a jet if your not a pilot" kind of thing. This doesnt work well on pub servers - mostly.

So choice is not a bad thing. At least not when you have a powerful editor and design it well.

I couldn't agree more. For limitless possiblities, there is only one choice and that is A2. In almost 10 years, nothing has even come close to BI's editor.

Edited November 8, 2009 by BangTail

[jumpinghubert 49]

one significant detail of PR is that you have to choose a squad at first before spawning. The second is that every squadleader can kick a member who goes its own way on the map. Simple things but essential for good gameplay on official servers. I don´t understand why its not a standard in Arma2.

[Sirex1 10]

I appretiate the discussion you all been doing :)!

I have bought Arma 2 now and tried a little online play, and i got the same view that many has desriped, the public servers are a mess to play on.

I think i have identified the solution, based from PR, how to in theory get the same ammount of teamwork.

- Players activly searching and commited to serious play / Gated communities.

With this i mean that anyone who has played Project reality orginal only had Battlefield 2 and though it was to arcade and then actually went out and looked for a realitic mod and found PR. This creates a naturall good community since anyone not interested in serious play will stick to plainign vanlilla BF and thus never end up on a PR server. This is usually handled by clan system in normal games but this is a big reason why teamwork in Arma 2 multiplayer fails.

At a typical PR server you have maybe the first two squads that has on their own initative on a public server formed squads with the namnes like "Air transport" and "Logistic". These players almopst spend the entire round with tranposrting people, getting supply crates up and plaing a support role. This simply doesn't happen if you don't have the right players from the start.

The only solution i have here is that forget about trying to "fix" puplic play and get the normal multiplayer experience to a realistic teamwork level. Only concentrate on good teamwork communities and clans wich actually have users who want to play serious games on good servers, tring to get the all Arma2 users to good online play is simply a waste of time. This i think is a mayor problem you have here, tring to change and test with your everyday user, it can't be done.

But i due think that any method of tring to make Arma 2 public play better will fail if you don't work with right players. And also that alot of the problems will go away by themself when you have right players!

-Mission restriction.

If we have fixed the first part and only have serious players the next focus should lie on getting missions with restrictions. Everyone building tanks simply don't work and does not promote tactic. Limited assets creates teamwork since you can't get a new tank quikly and thus it is in the whole teams interest to cooperate so we don't loose the tank.

Solutions to this could be either only play where you can't buy things but every assets exist in the start, and respawn every 30 minutes or something. Or that you have the commander of the team as the only one who can buy tanks/aircraft. Or other ways of mission restrict.

-Chain of command.

This will almost fix it self with the right players but a big problem is havig bad leaders. I have played sevearal realistic multiplayer mods/games for example the mod Insurgency to HL2 and PR. And i feel that if only one guy steps up and starts giving orders people will follow and you get a good game. So if one team actually have a good commander things will usually straigten up, adn this games has a very excellent commander ability.

-VOIP.

This can't be stresset enough. You have to have a good voip system, and this is linked to the previous point i made very much. If it is hard to communicate everything will fail. In PR you join must join a squad or get kicked and when you join a squad you are ussually greeted and talked to and issued a role with the squad and short briefing, this makes teamwork very more fluent. In Arma 2 not many players speak and there is little help to incooperate joining players to the game in a good way.

I am aware that i might have taken up some already made points but this is my opinoun on the matter.

[IronTrooper 0]

...Could you imagine if eveyone will have access to nuke? What will be a gameplay in this case?...

It's already bad enough if everyone has an A-10 and keeps throwing bombs everywhere. There should be civilians in every mission and minus points for killing them. That will make better use of infantry and learn pilots (and other bomb owners) to focus on armoured targets more.

[Geronimo 0]

ATM public servers lack any kind of organization, so I don't even bother playing on them. If you want to play this game like it's supposed to be played, join up with a team or community (like Tactical Gamer). Or play singleplayer, its much better IMO than playing on public server. With some randomization, when I don't know where they come from, those AI's are more deadly than the average player on public servers ATM.

And missions should be made so they limit the equipment available, so the team has to operate in a realistic way to fulfill the objective. Good rule is not to include weapon crates, only ammo, so players must keep their own weapons. And respawn/JiP kills that little trace of organization on public servers.

This game is not supposed to be played like Battlefield, it is supposed to be played in a much more realistic way. IMO respawn/JiP don't fit here.

When I want to join server for a quick round, I join some COD4 hardcore TDM.

This game only needs that suppression feeling from PR. Oh yeah and a WW2 mod :D

[An Fiach 10]

I appretiate the discussion you all been doing :)!

I have bought Arma 2 now and tried a little online play, and i got the same view that many has desriped, the public servers are a mess to play on.

I think i have identified the solution, based from PR, how to in theory get the same ammount of teamwork.

- Players activly searching and commited to serious play / Gated communities.

With this i mean that anyone who has played Project reality orginal only had Battlefield 2 and though it was to arcade and then actually went out and looked for a realitic mod and found PR. This creates a naturall good community since anyone not interested in serious play will stick to plainign vanlilla BF and thus never end up on a PR server. This is usually handled by clan system in normal games but this is a big reason why teamwork in Arma 2 multiplayer fails.

At a typical PR server you have maybe the first two squads that has on their own initative on a public server formed squads with the namnes like "Air transport" and "Logistic". These players almopst spend the entire round with tranposrting people, getting supply crates up and plaing a support role. This simply doesn't happen if you don't have the right players from the start.

The only solution i have here is that forget about trying to "fix" puplic play and get the normal multiplayer experience to a realistic teamwork level. Only concentrate on good teamwork communities and clans wich actually have users who want to play serious games on good servers, tring to get the all Arma2 users to good online play is simply a waste of time. This i think is a mayor problem you have here, tring to change and test with your everyday user, it can't be done.

But i due think that any method of tring to make Arma 2 public play better will fail if you don't work with right players. And also that alot of the problems will go away by themself when you have right players!

-Mission restriction.

If we have fixed the first part and only have serious players the next focus should lie on getting missions with restrictions. Everyone building tanks simply don't work and does not promote tactic. Limited assets creates teamwork since you can't get a new tank quikly and thus it is in the whole teams interest to cooperate so we don't loose the tank.

Solutions to this could be either only play where you can't buy things but every assets exist in the start, and respawn every 30 minutes or something. Or that you have the commander of the team as the only one who can buy tanks/aircraft. Or other ways of mission restrict.

-Chain of command.

This will almost fix it self with the right players but a big problem is havig bad leaders. I have played sevearal realistic multiplayer mods/games for example the mod Insurgency to HL2 and PR. And i feel that if only one guy steps up and starts giving orders people will follow and you get a good game. So if one team actually have a good commander things will usually straigten up, adn this games has a very excellent commander ability.

-VOIP.

This can't be stresset enough. You have to have a good voip system, and this is linked to the previous point i made very much. If it is hard to communicate everything will fail. In PR you join must join a squad or get kicked and when you join a squad you are ussually greeted and talked to and issued a role with the squad and short briefing, this makes teamwork very more fluent. In Arma 2 not many players speak and there is little help to incooperate joining players to the game in a good way.

I am aware that i might have taken up some already made points but this is my opinoun on the matter.

I think you understand it quite well.

---------- Post added at 10:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:42 AM ----------

What case :rolleyes:

Hilarious.

I've presented plenty of facts, but your fanboyism is getting in the way of objectivity.

Again, agree to disagree (about a game you've never played) and move on.

Have a good weekend :)

---------- Post added at 06:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:00 AM ----------

I couldn't agree more. For limitless possiblities, there is only one choice and that is A2. In almost 10 years, nothing has even come close to BI's editor.

You've presented opinions, by your own admission. I can hardly be called a fanboy as I've been more critical of BIS and ArmA 2 than most. My objectivity is not compromised in the least because I don't have an agenda.

Yourself however, did you not just try to describe the suppression effects and attribute factors to it that were not there (screen shake)? You have been trying to describe the 'feel' of the game rather than its features. This is why we are butting heads.

Speaking strictly of features ArmA 2 quickly surpasses PR in its capabilities. This means we can have all of the benefits of PR with none of the limitations, in a technical sense. I think Syrex has nailed it on the head, you cannot get that experience with the general public community, just as you cannot with BF2. You can have all of the elements but if you lack the community members that share your vision for game play you cannot achieve the atmosphere that you want to have.

If you want to create the same feel a mission creator will have to have played PR to get it right I think, because you could utilize all of the same features but you would have to play in order to know just how they are implemented. The one real advantage I can think PR has over ArmA 2 is system requirements. ArmA 2 is too intensive for most average systems and so is limited in the number of people able to join in the community. This may change in a year or two as people replace old hardware and as ArmA 2 becomes better optimized.

[aurondude 10]

I think you understand it quite well.

---------- Post added at 10:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:42 AM ----------

You've presented opinions, by your own admission. I can hardly be called a fanboy as I've been more critical of BIS and ArmA 2 than most. My objectivity is not compromised in the least because I don't have an agenda.

Yourself however, did you not just try to describe the suppression effects and attribute factors to it that were not there (screen shake)? You have been trying to describe the 'feel' of the game rather than its features. This is why we are butting heads.

Speaking strictly of features ArmA 2 quickly surpasses PR in its capabilities. This means we can have all of the benefits of PR with none of the limitations, in a technical sense. I think Syrex has nailed it on the head, you cannot get that experience with the general public community, just as you cannot with BF2. You can have all of the elements but if you lack the community members that share your vision for game play you cannot achieve the atmosphere that you want to have.

If you want to create the same feel a mission creator will have to have played PR to get it right I think, because you could utilize all of the same features but you would have to play in order to know just how they are implemented. The one real advantage I can think PR has over ArmA 2 is system requirements. ArmA 2 is too intensive for most average systems and so is limited in the number of people able to join in the community. This may change in a year or two as people replace old hardware and as ArmA 2 becomes better optimized.

Don't get me wrong, your points are good. It is true, PR runs off an older game and thus has less system requirements. However the main (if not the only) advantage PR has over ArmA 2 is, as aforementioned, team play. The fact of the matter is, you must communicate with your squad and you must work with one another if you ever want to win.

I agree that you can join a clan and have the same experience, however you do not need to do the same in PR, where most servers have mature players and reasonable admins (to host a server in PR, you must get accepted, greatly lowering the amount of asshats who own servers). ArmA 2 has better options, is more flexible, and is far more realistic. However PR's first priority is Teamwork, and realism comes second (although in PR's case the two often go hand in hand). I really insist you try the game, BF2 is only $10 or something along those lines. I do believe you will change your opinion once you give it a go.

[bangtail 0]

I think you understand it quite well.

---------- Post added at 10:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:42 AM ----------

You've presented opinions, by your own admission. I can hardly be called a fanboy as I've been more critical of BIS and ArmA 2 than most. My objectivity is not compromised in the least because I don't have an agenda.

Yourself however, did you not just try to describe the suppression effects and attribute factors to it that were not there (screen shake)? You have been trying to describe the 'feel' of the game rather than its features. This is why we are butting heads.

Speaking strictly of features ArmA 2 quickly surpasses PR in its capabilities. This means we can have all of the benefits of PR with none of the limitations, in a technical sense. I think Syrex has nailed it on the head, you cannot get that experience with the general public community, just as you cannot with BF2. You can have all of the elements but if you lack the community members that share your vision for game play you cannot achieve the atmosphere that you want to have.

If you want to create the same feel a mission creator will have to have played PR to get it right I think, because you could utilize all of the same features but you would have to play in order to know just how they are implemented. The one real advantage I can think PR has over ArmA 2 is system requirements. ArmA 2 is too intensive for most average systems and so is limited in the number of people able to join in the community. This may change in a year or two as people replace old hardware and as ArmA 2 becomes better optimized.

Like I said, agree to disagree. Deadfast even said that he understood about the shaking.

You're just looking for reasons to argue and I can't be bothered.

I've conceded that A2 is by far, the more versatile option.

It's laughable to hear you make comparisons considering you've NEVER played PRM. I guess you're just that naive that you'll take other people's opinions as fact in place of trying something for yourself and forming your OWN impressions.

I'm done "discussing" this with you. If you choose to reply again, it's ignore time :p

Bye

Edited November 8, 2009 by BangTail

[An Fiach 10]

Don't get me wrong, your points are good. It is true, PR runs off an older game and thus has less system requirements. However the main (if not the only) advantage PR has over ArmA 2 is, as aforementioned, team play. The fact of the matter is, you must communicate with your squad and you must work with one another if you ever want to win.

I agree that you can join a clan and have the same experience, however you do not need to do the same in PR, where most servers have mature players and reasonable admins (to host a server in PR, you must get accepted, greatly lowering the amount of asshats who own servers). ArmA 2 has better options, is more flexible, and is far more realistic. However PR's first priority is Teamwork, and realism comes second (although in PR's case the two often go hand in hand). I really insist you try the game, BF2 is only $10 or something along those lines. I do believe you will change your opinion once you give it a go.

I'm not trying to say that PR is bad. I hate BF2 but PR would make it playable for me I'm sure. I don't have $10 to toss at it just to check it out though, besides, EA will never get another dime from me. Anyway, you are right, it is the teamwork, but that is a player issue and not a game issue. My examples were, look at the Tactical Gamer server -public (when the admins are online) and you will usually find that level of teamwork. Comparing PR servers to vanilla ArmA 2 public servers is like comparing the TG server to vanilla BF2 public servers. It is apples to oranges.

The case also isn't necessarily squad centric either. PR is a sub community of BF2 players (Tactical Gamers also has PR servers) in ArmA 2's case the squads and communities fill this role as a mod isn't required to achieve realism in the game world. In most cases these squads and communities allow non members to play on their servers provided they have shown that they are team oriented players. This sub community of players is divided further between TvT and COOP oriented players (BF2 bots don't lend themselves well to exciting and challenging COOP) the use of private servers allows their mission creators the freedom to design missions without having to focus on restricting rambo players which would take a great deal of time and effort and given the size of ArmA 2 would likely cause performance issues due to all of the extra scripts. Those that have public servers will generally run generic missions like Domination during the hours that they do not have admins on but otherwise are tightly controlled like PR servers.

Am I right to say that the PR community is more visible than the team realism community in ArmA 2? I would probably compare the ACE fans of ArmA to PR fans since ACE is far more of a public endeavor (meaning more publicity) and when ACE2 is released it will likely provide a lot of what people seek in PR because it is designed to place the focus on teamwork and the two could be more properly compared for having the same focus. They both place restrictions on the individual which discourages the rambo types from even playing, allowing for more public servers and less work for admins.

---------- Post added at 03:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:46 PM ----------

Like I said, agree to disagree. Deadfast even said that he understood about the shaking.

You're just looking for reasons to argue and I can't be bothered.

I've conceded that A2 is by far, the more versatile option.

It's laughable to hear you make comparisons considering you've NEVER played PRM. I guess you're just that naive that you'll take other people's opinions as fact in place of trying something for yourself and forming your OWN impressions.

I'm done "discussing" this with you. If you choose to reply again, it's ignore time :p

Bye

Stop behaving like a child. You have yet to counter anything I've said with a reasoned argument that disproves my statements. I'm asking about features, something that doesn't change with opinion or experience. Does the screen shake or does it not? If it does then it is a feature, if it does not, then it is merely an impression. I would say that the featured effects giving you that impression means that they are very good at conveying the 'feeling' of being suppressed and that the mod team did an excellent job. Are you saying that this effect cannot be achieved in ArmA 2? I don't know, because your only reply seems to be "Shut up.".

Ignore me if you wish, judging from your previous responses I won't be missing out on any keen insights.

[AndresCL 10]

Its all about the mission maker. For example in my missions, i always try to make it all pretty balanced: only giving two HMMVWS wihout respawn, revive script with 2 lives maximum and putting a lot of enemy units (ACM enabled too). That way our squad has to stick together in order to survive but the overall experience is pretty fun because its more infantry based and the lack of assets like armored vehicles, choppers and planes dosent really cares.

Of course this is a COOP scenario for 8 players made for the squad i play in, but what im saying is that with some balance the mission can be great. And seriously, ill always prefer the A2 hit system than the BF2 hitpoint one. IMHO that is way more important that having some fancy effects of supressive fire

[Sirex1 10]

Just a short post here from me to anfiach:

I agree with much of what you have to say, but you have to accept that the question in first post of this topic was what game/mod would provide the largest most teamwork team vs team orientated online gameplay. And right now that game is PR and not Arma2. But you are absolutly right in that in theory and if we look at the feutures and capabilities of the game engine/editor Arma 2 is better, but right now in reality it is worse.

I would not have a regulary large server team vs team with teamwork online experience with Arma 2 compeared to PR right now. But it is doable and with the right people propabbly can be right now.

And to be really blunt the question was between PR and Arma 2 and you arguments about PR is a mod and thats why it has better teamwork is correct but it is not relevant to the question asked since the question was not BF2 vs Arma2, it was specificly PR vs Arma2. Here is a direct qoute from the first post "Which games offers on avereage more teamwork?"

No hard feelings i mostly agree with what you have posted but i feelt that i needed to point this out.