Why is this game not more popular?

[whisper 0]

Changing that would ruin the non linear nature of the game so I will never condone it.

ArmA 2 is not a place for people who want their hand held I'm afraid.

Errrr.... What?

One can be inventive, you know? Providing information doesn't mean reducing possibilities to only 1 thing to do after the other ... There zero relationship, if you ask me, between linearity/open nature of A2 and the way mission are advertising what to do, how, and/or the scale they use.

(read my OT in previous post ;) )

[bangtail 0]

So you accuse me of backtracking and then do the same yourself? There is a good bit of PvP content, there just aren't enough PvP players to maintain PvP servers. You might remember that the largest server running was a PvP server.

No I didn't accuse you of anything, you said something and then tried to say you didn't say it, that's a fact.

I said there was way more PvE content than PvP content, also a fact, whether we are talking about BIS made or user made.

Anyway, there is little point in continuing this as I feel some Global Agenda coming on so have a great day :)

---------- Post added at 12:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:56 PM ----------

Errrr.... What?

One can be inventive, you know? Providing information doesn't mean reducing possibilities to only 1 thing to do after the other ... There zero relationship, if you ask me, between linearity/open nature of A2 and the way mission are advertising what to do, how, and/or the scale they use.

(read my OT in previous post ;) )

Sorry bud, you are stuck with Steam but it is worth it :)

Edited February 15, 2010 by BangTail

[avibird 1 154]

Dear god, don't encourage this game to be more like GRAW or Vegas...

Those were the killing blows to the great Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six series...

You are basically asking BIS to do a Dragon Rising...

Some of you guys are missing the point. The question was Why is this game not more popular.

Like I have said many times I perfer COOP PLAY and this game design was setup for a slower place which goes along with COOP PLAY better, but the bottom line most players who play FPS want player vs player modes. This game could be great with player vs player modes as well and help the community grow with new players and some of these new players will turn towards COOP PLAY so the community wil grow in both ways. Why are you guys so closed minded about this. If BOHEMIA put some focus on good player vs player modes (not just DM) but mission objectives right out of the box. This would help bring in some new players to this community. Yes, some of them may like COOP PLAY Better but if they never gave the game a good try due to lack of good public rooms and out of the box missions to join and play how would they no about the online world of this game. I have a very valid point to the question of this thread Why is this game not more popular.

I never said I want BOHEMIA to turn this game into Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six series but if you look at the members of people playing the games. More people play ghost recon and rainbow games then this. Why Player vs player modes.

{QUOTE- from you} You are basically asking BIS to do a Dragon Rising.

When did i say this and what have you been smoking. I have been banned for life from the CODEMASTERS FORUM lol.

[An Fiach 10]

Not true at all. As was said, Warfare is one of the biggest PvP missions and is #1 mission currently. SBSMAC made an awesome wizard and script pack for creating pvp missions, I made one this morning in under a minute (granted it was too simplistic for my tastes). Coop only accounts for 41% of what is being played, the rest are various forms of PvP.

[bangtail 0]

Not true at all. As was said, Warfare is one of the biggest PvP missions and is #1 mission currently. SBSMAC made an awesome wizard and script pack for creating pvp missions, I made one this morning in under a minute (granted it was too simplistic for my tastes). Coop only accounts for 41% of what is being played, the rest are various forms of PvP.

Garbage, as many of the Co-oP/PvE groups are private etc. You're dreaming if you think ArmA 2 has a primarily PvP playerbase. As YOU yourself said, most of them leave to play other PvP games.

As I said before, there is no point in continuing this.

Edited February 15, 2010 by BangTail

[dmarkwick 261]

Some of you guys are missing the point. The question was Why is this game not more popular.

Just so :)

It seems pointing out opinions why ArmA2 is not more popular can send people into paroxysms of anxiety after misconstruing answers to that question with demands for change.

[An Fiach 10]

Garbage, as many of the Co-oP/PvE groups are private etc. You're dreaming if you think ArmA 2 has a primarily PvP playerbase. As YOU yourself said, most of them leave to play other PvP games.

As I said before, there is no point in continuing this.

I said players new to the game will leave because they do not get anything out of the box to experience, remember this community lives on player made content. Someone that knows nothing about ArmA 2 will not know this stuff. Aside from that, you don't like the numbers so now you are saying they aren't valid. That's a great argument. The only servers that won't show up are on lan. It is impossible to know how many play SP since they are either playing it or they are among the many that bought the game and threw it in the trash but you cant track them.

AVBIRD has it exactly right, hell Command and Conquer was only popular because of the PvP mode and it isn't even an fps. Every type of game has PvP whether it be FPS,RTS or RPG. The simple fact is that people are competitive by nature and they improve themselves by cooperating or competing with those that are more skilled than themselves.

Coop is great, it's pretty relaxed and you can do things any way you lik. It is also safe, because in coop you can never lose, you can only fail to complete, in PvP there is defeat, loss, a blow to the ego. In coop you can always go back and finish it, in PvP, losing is final, even if a new round begins, you still lost, were defeated. Not completing an SP or coop is about as traumatic as never finishing that kite you were building, generally inconsequential to your life. Losing on the other hand, makes you take stock of yourself, even in a video game, it gives you perspective and makes you aware of your own limitations. People that teabag and do other obnoxious behavior are only trying to compensate for a feeling of inferiority, but they are not the majority of players.

[bangtail 0]

I said players new to the game will leave because they do not get anything out of the box to experience, remember this community lives on player made content. Someone that knows nothing about ArmA 2 will not know this stuff. Aside from that, you don't like the numbers so now you are saying they aren't valid. That's a great argument. The only servers that won't show up are on lan. It is impossible to know how many play SP since they are either playing it or they are among the many that bought the game and threw it in the trash but you cant track them.

AVBIRD has it exactly right, hell Command and Conquer was only popular because of the PvP mode and it isn't even an fps. Every type of game has PvP whether it be FPS,RTS or RPG. The simple fact is that people are competitive by nature and they improve themselves by cooperating or competing with those that are more skilled than themselves.

Coop is great, it's pretty relaxed and you can do things any way you lik. It is also safe, because in coop you can never lose, you can only fail to complete, in PvP there is defeat, loss, a blow to the ego. In coop you can always go back and finish it, in PvP, losing is final, even if a new round begins, you still lost, were defeated. Not completing an SP or coop is about as traumatic as never finishing that kite you were building, generally inconsequential to your life. Losing on the other hand, makes you take stock of yourself, even in a video game, it gives you perspective and makes you aware of your own limitations. People that teabag and do other obnoxious behavior are only trying to compensate for a feeling of inferiority, but they are not the majority of players.

So why not create more PvP stuff then? BIS isn't going to, so you might as well forget about that as an option.

I'm not looking for traumatic experiences when I play games. Video games, regardless of whether they are PvP or PvE, are not consequential to my life, they are a hobby.

You sound like you need some kind of validation with regards to PvP being "better" or more fulfilling than other game modes. You also sound like you take gaming far too seriously.

Edited February 15, 2010 by BangTail

[dmarkwick 261]

You sound like you need some kind of validation with regards to PvP being "better" or more fulfilling than other game modes. You also sound like you take gaming far too seriously.

Assumptions, fuckups, mother of all, rearrange the words etc... :)

And it seems to me that you're taking the whole thing more seriously than anybody :)

[An Fiach 10]

Assumptions, fuckups, mother of all, rearrange the words etc... :)

And it seems to me that you're taking the whole thing more seriously than anybody :)

Indeed, Indeed

[sbsmac 0]

I find it a bit depressing that these kinds of discussions always seem to get bogged down by people who claim that they alone know what 'kind of game' BIS set out to make Personally I'd like to see a lot more people playing ArmA2 online, whether it be co-op or PVP. (Ironically, despite wanting to play the occasional co-op I find it too hard to find the kind of teamwork I am used to with my PVP squad !) OFP showed that to be perfectly possible - it had a thriving community which supported many game-modes - I probably didn't start playing it until 2 or 3 years after it was released and it was still possible to go online and fill a 32 person server within minutes (this was before JIP!).

Anyway, what are the reasons it's not more popular ?

1) Marketing. Errr, I know BIS don't believe in big-budget advertising but really, even with a little imagination they could have done a lot more.

2) Partial launch was counter-productive - it just gave the gaming press an opportunity to give ArmA a luke-warm reception which was never really corrected. (First impressions really do count.)

3) The addon situation is a mess. It's BIS's greatest strength and greatest weakness. Nowadays I am used to software which automatically updates and configures itself - I don't expect to have to go through some arcane process just to play a game. Yoma's tool is great but it just shouldn't be needed.

4) I agree that some first-class 'out of the box' missions in various styles would really help retain new players. There are actually some very good player-made missions out there which I'm sure BIS could get permission to ship with the game.

5) Animations. (Cue the usual chorus of people who think that improving animations == adding bunny-hopping.) Animations are still clumsy and bug-ridden. I often find I lose control of the player for a couple of seconds after sprinting and dodging for example.

I'm placing high-hopes for OA bringing in some more players but BIS will have to pay attention to getting things a lot more polished than with ArmA2.

BTW Anfiach, thanks for the kinds words. Only fair to point out that the mission-wizard can also create co-ops though it's rather biased towards more adversarial gametypes ! ;-)

[bangtail 0]

I find it a bit depressing that these kinds of discussions always seem to get bogged down by people who claim that they alone know what 'kind of game' BIS set out to make Personally I'd like to see a lot more people playing ArmA2 online, whether it be co-op or PVP. (Ironically, despite wanting to play the occasional co-op I find it too hard to find the kind of teamwork I am used to with my PVP squad !) OFP showed that to be perfectly possible - it had a thriving community which supported many game-modes - I probably didn't start playing it until 2 or 3 years after it was released and it was still possible to go online and fill a 32 person server within minutes (this was before JIP!).

Anyway, what are the reasons it's not more popular ?

1) Marketing. Errr, I know BIS don't believe in big-budget advertising but really, even with a little imagination they could have done a lot more.

2) Partial launch was counter-productive - it just gave the gaming press an opportunity to give ArmA a luke-warm reception which was never really corrected. (First impressions really do count.)

3) The addon situation is a mess. It's BIS's greatest strength and greatest weakness. Nowadays I am used to software which automatically updates and configures itself - I don't expect to have to go through some arcane process just to play a game. Yoma's tool is great but it just shouldn't be needed.

4) I agree that some first-class 'out of the box' missions in various styles would really help retain new players. There are actually some very good player-made missions out there which I'm sure BIS could get permission to ship with the game.

5) Animations. (Cue the usual chorus of people who think that improving animations == adding bunny-hopping.) Animations are still clumsy and bug-ridden. I often find I lose control of the player for a couple of seconds after sprinting and dodging for example.

I'm placing high-hopes for OA bringing in some more players but BIS will have to pay attention to getting things a lot more polished than with ArmA2.

BTW Anfiach, thanks for the kinds words. Only fair to point out that the mission-wizard can also create co-ops though it's rather biased towards more adversarial gametypes ! ;-)

Im not saying you can't/shouldn't have adversarial play, just that the game shouldn't be changed to favour that type of play.

That's all I meant - I don't want to deprive anyone of their fun. I've been PvPing in GA all day, to suggest PvP is stupid or not welcome was not my intention.

Edited February 15, 2010 by BangTail

[sbsmac 0]

>just that the game shouldn't be changed to favour that type of play

Why not, if it makes it more popular and doesn't materially impact the experience of those who prefer SP or non-adversarial ? Conversely, I'd be happy to accept changes that would increase the appeal of the game to the 'simulation' crowd if it meant more people playing the game. :)

[bangtail 0]

>just that the game shouldn't be changed to favour that type of play

Why not, if it makes it more popular and doesn't materially impact the experience of those who prefer SP or non-adversarial ? Conversely, I'd be happy to accept changes that would increase the appeal of the game to the 'simulation' crowd if it meant more people playing the game. :)

Well I don't want to see that happen and that's my opinion on the subject. I guess we disagree on that point.

My objective is not to get more people playing because it doesn't affect my enjoyment of the game but obviously as far as PvP goes, you need as many people as you can get in order to feed the size of the encounters.

I'd rather play PRM or BC2 for PvP as they are specifically geared towards it.

Edited February 15, 2010 by BangTail

[An Fiach 10]

BTW Anfiach, thanks for the kinds words. Only fair to point out that the mission-wizard can also create co-ops though it's rather biased towards more adversarial gametypes ! ;-)

Not at all, I simply spoke the truth, though I should clarify my earlier statement that when I said it was too simplistic I meant the mission that I was able to create in record time thanks to your tool. Can't expect to make a seriously complex mission in under a minute, but still what I did accomplish would have taken me hours the traditional way (I'm scripting illiterate), I just wanted to test drive it. Don't want anyone to misconstrue that I was calling the tool simplistic.

I'm still really wanting to have a look at that insurgency template, just haven't got the chance to get into the nuts and bolts, the wizard will help speed things along so I can figure out some interesting ways to set it up.

[galzohar 31]

People keep saying this game isn't geared towards pvp, yet other than a few glitches (aka getting stuck on corners and other character control issues) that affect coop just as badly (except you might be less bothered by them because AI is easier and you can get away with them), I really don't see what's wrong with PvP in this game.

The only thing that hurts PvP in this game is that there isn't 1 accepted game mode that works and that everyone would play and thus the PvP servers simply don't get enough players. In addition, the lack of PvP missions does not seem to be enough to make PvPers jump every opportunity to test new PvP missions - I'm far from the only one who published PvP missions and didn't get enough feedback to keep improving them to a competitive level.

Another thing is that for some reason in the back of many people's mind "PvP=deathmatch" and even if it's a quick attack/defend mission with a very well defined objective to attack/defend people would play it as if it's a deathmatch with no plan or communication, even though they just finished a 1 hour coop mission with a briefing that took 20X longer than it should've and were going to play another one. Something in the "it's a short mission" and/or "it's a PvP mission" switches off a lot of peoples' will to use teamwork. Maybe it's because it's simply harder to plan and communicate when there are real people on the other side trying to kill you, or whatever - I don't really know. But like sbsmac said - You can get very good teamwork in PvP if you play with people who actually want to do their best to win the match and are playing the right missions (aka missions that focus on doing things right rather than making the best use of the respawns).

[bangtail 0]

People keep saying this game isn't geared towards pvp, yet other than a few glitches (aka getting stuck on corners and other character control issues) that affect coop just as badly (except you might be less bothered by them because AI is easier and you can get away with them), I really don't see what's wrong with PvP in this game.

The only thing that hurts PvP in this game is that there isn't 1 accepted game mode that works and that everyone would play and thus the PvP servers simply don't get enough players. In addition, the lack of PvP missions does not seem to be enough to make PvPers jump every opportunity to test new PvP missions - I'm far from the only one who published PvP missions and didn't get enough feedback to keep improving them to a competitive level.

Another thing is that for some reason in the back of many people's mind "PvP=deathmatch" and even if it's a quick attack/defend mission with a very well defined objective to attack/defend people would play it as if it's a deathmatch with no plan or communication, even though they just finished a 1 hour coop mission with a briefing that took 20X longer than it should've and were going to play another one. Something in the "it's a short mission" and/or "it's a PvP mission" switches off a lot of peoples' will to use teamwork. Maybe it's because it's simply harder to plan and communicate when there are real people on the other side trying to kill you, or whatever - I don't really know. But like sbsmac said - You can get very good teamwork in PvP if you play with people who actually want to do their best to win the match and are playing the right missions (aka missions that focus on doing things right rather than making the best use of the respawns).

In that case, someone really needs to come up with some kind of standard. Of course it can be developed, it just doesn't seem like anyone is stepping up.

When I say the game isn't "geared" towards PvP, I just feel that there are many other games that are and do a far better job of it (mainly because they are designed from the ground up to be PvP games and nothing else).

[galzohar 31]

Just about anything done in those games can be done in Arma 2 by enough effort by mission makers, but it just seems like nobody is finding it worth his time. And seeing the lack of interest in the Devastation (which tried to bring PR gameplay into Arma 2) I can see why not a lot of people are willing to put a lot of effort into actually making such missions. I even made some simple America's Army style missions (short, attack/defend objective, using towns with added clutter by Tom Anger so it doesn't turn into the regular Arma 2's 500m sniperfest/pixelfight) and they got no real interest either.

Oh that's another thing that might make people say this game is not geared for PvP - In coop if there are enemies 500m away, especially if you're not using zeus AI, you can just move closer or take another approach. In PvP they will shoot you and probably hit you if they have any kind of scoped weapon or at least run a high enough resolution to see you. Of course this is more of an island (and slightly a mission design) issue, not an issue with the game itself (which again is why I used the towns with added clutter from Tom Anger's missions).

[bangtail 0]

Just about anything done in those games can be done in Arma 2 by enough effort by mission makers, but it just seems like nobody is finding it worth his time. And seeing the lack of interest in the Devastation (which tried to bring PR gameplay into Arma 2) I can see why not a lot of people are willing to put a lot of effort into actually making such missions. I even made some simple America's Army style missions (short, attack/defend objective, using towns with added clutter by Tom Anger so it doesn't turn into the regular Arma 2's 500m sniperfest/pixelfight) and they got no real interest either.

Oh that's another thing that might make people say this game is not geared for PvP - In coop if there are enemies 500m away, especially if you're not using zeus AI, you can just move closer or take another approach. In PvP they will shoot you and probably hit you if they have any kind of scoped weapon or at least run a high enough resolution to see you. Of course this is more of an island (and slightly a mission design) issue, not an issue with the game itself (which again is why I used the towns with added clutter from Tom Anger's missions).

I can see why you really need an urban setting. It's honestly the biggest problem in BC2 at the moment. Everyone thinks they are Tom Berenger and sits on sniper hill.

Edited February 16, 2010 by BangTail

[Guest]

In the Original Arma I remember a very popular game mode, although I do not remember what it was. It was pvp, but it also seemed like domination. There would be opfor vs blufor, and at the begining of the game, you would move to the objective with your team and also AI.

You would also encounter the eneies moving to the same objective. It was an amazing game mode, I really loved it. But I haven't ever seen it in Arma 2?

Maybe when we get our desert maps back we will see it again. Lets face it, as great as the communtiy is, how many servers do you see running addon maps compared to those running chernarus?

It's sad really. :(

(Not that Chernarus is bad, it is beautiful, it would just be nice for a bit more variety)

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

The problem I find with Chernarus is that there's isn't enough cover or terrain variations to really allow much cover.

For the majority of the map you're either behind trees or in the open (cities/towns aside.)

[Baff1 0]

Buggy, poor performance, unwieldy interface, difficult to manage AI, high system requirements, horrible movement.

I think that pretty much covers why it isn't a "game of the year" best seller title.

(Although it is very high on my personal list).

With regards to PvP, this isn't a game that has ever inspired me to PvP.

The things that make this game spectacular and different form all the rest don't really conspire to make great widely accessable PvP.

The maps are too large. The frame rates too low. The time required to master the roles too long.

Not finding your enemy is boring. Dying because you are lagging is frustrating. Not being able to compete with the hard core players is unenjoyable.

Being booted because you crashed the helicopter an impediment.

I know people can and do enjoy PvP with this title, but I far prefer BF2 and Quake Wars. America's Army etc.

Games that were specific and wholly designed for PvP. Games that are fluid and well balanced both in equipment and arena design.

Games that are intuative to control and quick to master.

(I want my victories to depend more on my superior tactics and strategies than the amount of hours I spent learning to master the interface).

I really buy these BIS games for the single player campaigns, The Co-op, the mission editor and the mods of my national units.

I'm glad they have included PvP and make an effort to support it. The extra people this draws to the community benefits me because of the mods they make. The longevity this adds to the games play life does the same.

But I don't personally bother with it. I don't enjoy those single player missions that mimic

the PvP modes either.

It's more of a role play game for me. A simulation.

---------- Post added at 01:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:07 AM ----------

I can see why you really need an urban setting. It's honestly the biggest problem in BC2 at the moment. Everyone thinks they are Tom Berenger and sits on sniper hill.

Unfortunately this game lags like a pig in Urban areas and the AI is unconvincing and difficult to manipulate effectively.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Baff1

[bangtail 0]

Buggy, poor performance, unwieldy interface, difficult to manage AI, high system requirements, horrible movement.

I think that pretty much covers why it isn't a "game of the year" best seller title.

(Although it is very high on my personal list).

With regards to PvP, this isn't a game that has ever inspired me to PvP.

The things that make this game spectacular and different form all the rest don't really conspire to make great widely accessable PvP.

The maps are too large. The frame rates too low. The time required to master the roles too long.

Not finding your enemy is boring. Dying because you are lagging is frustrating. Not being able to compete with the hard core players is unenjoyable.

Being booted because you crashed the helicopter an impediment.

I know people can and do enjoy PvP with this title, but I far prefer BF2 and Quake Wars. America's Army etc.

Games that were specific and wholly designed for PvP. Games that are fluid and well balanced both in equipment and arena design.

Games that are intuative to control and quick to master.

(I want my victories to depend more on my superior tactics and strategies than the amount of hours I spent learning to master the interface).

I really buy these BIS games for the single player campaigns, The Co-op, the mission editor and the mods of my national units.

I'm glad they have included PvP and make an effort to support it. The extra people this draws to the community benefits me because of the mods they make. The longevity this adds to the games play life does the same.

But I don't personally bother with it. I don't enjoy those single player missions that mimic

the PvP modes either.

It's more of a role play game for me. A simulation.

---------- Post added at 01:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:07 AM ----------

Unfortunately this game lags like a pig in Urban areas and the AI is unconvincing and difficult to manipulate effectively.

Like you, I've just never liked Arma 1 or 2 for PvP, OFP was a different story.

I prefer dedicated PvP games for that particular fix :)

[galzohar 31]

The problem I find with Chernarus is that there's isn't enough cover or terrain variations to really allow much cover.

For the majority of the map you're either behind trees or in the open (cities/towns aside.)

This isn't just a Chernarus problem, it's a problem in most islands, and in many it's even worse. However you should take a look at Klurs (ported from A1) - while it's not perfect, it does get this aspect covered better than any other island. If only the author would remove the hardcoded music...

This is the main reason you get this "everyone wants to be a sniper" problem (possibly same problem in other games except in shorter distances as other games have both shorter ranges but also much shorter effective range on non-scoped/sniper weapons due to no zoom and/or conefire). Mission design is only a secondary reason and the players are the last to blame on this (you could only honestly blame them if it *wasn't* effective).

[bangtail 0]

while it's not perfect, it does get this aspect covered better than any other island. If only the author would remove the hardcoded music...

I remember when I first played on that Island, I kept thinking I was hearing wind chimes and new age sounds.

It's a decent map.