Public PvP gameplay: not quite dead!

[qwertz 10]

I agree 100% with Celery.

I also appreciate qwertz's dedication to keeping PvP active and keeping a popular server going (unfortunately for me I'm not too fond of AAS though).

Grass is eye candy. I like it. It looks nice in screenshots. I don't like it in PvP (in it's current form) though. And it's not a FPS issue for me either. It's for the reasons Celery has pointed out already.

That's all I got, carry on...

Thanks for the appreciation

I guess we are sitting a little between the standard chairs here - one being the coop crowd, one being the hardcore/killcount/competitive FPS fraction.

The AAS game mode is fast, but not as fast as e.g DM. Sometimes you need to wait and not go for the kill so you can assemble a coordinated attack. Its not exclusively focusing on quick reaction, and kill scores are irrelevant. Still, for the coop player it might be too hectic and lacks detailed preparation. For the average FPS player on the other hand it might be too structured and slow/boring, and everything that does not help to do the kill (i.e. grass) is deemed unnecessary.

Anyway,

happy gaming everyone !

Edited April 22, 2010 by qwertz

[CarlGustaffa 4]

I don't want "shorter grass everywhere". I want it "more varied so you could find a better position when it becomes a problem". I think grass is an absolute must in missions where you try to achieve closer than regular battles. Without grass (and shadow), an enemy is extremely visible when laying in the grass right in front of you, and the uniform doesn't hide him one bit.

Put grass (and shadow) on, and observe the uniform camouflage being put to extremely good use. This effect is slightly opposite from the real world though, since in Arma2 at distance, the camouflage doesn't seem to help much anyway.

The bad effects of grass can to a certain extent be planned against. Attacking a hill top is about the worst thing you can do, since you will be faced with a convex surface exaggerating the problem. Study the contour lines and try to avoid an uphill route of approach where the lines are far apart, then denser, then more far apart again.

But, something else is also causing a problem. Most of these hilltops and ways up are covered in dense woods. That means your guys behind and above may not see through the forest canopy. If a sniper can't do the job, how about an Mk19, mortars, or artillery? Danger close :D

If you're forced, have a team covering from the back which does see above this part. Have guys with Javelins in the back take out hellish vehicles, if you've got them. Also keep in mind the vehicles you are facing, and how they might have a limit to how low they can aim. They might be close, but can they achieve a firing solution? Shilkas and D30s are always best attack from below. Vehicles will (usually?) not enter forests, but if you get into close combat here with infantry, grass and shadows will make everything oh so much more immersive.

Let me "attack" Celery's points :)

Pros

1) Game looks better (how much better and whether it even does is subject to opinion)

2) You have a chance to hide on the ground within 40 meters from an enemy

Cons

1) You are completely visible to enemies from 40 meters and up

2) You can't see anything in front of you on level ground when prone

3) Proning is seldom a viable tactical option as a result of the above two points

4) The above points result in illogical gameplay that has no basis on the real world

5) Worse FPS = more inequality between hardware: low and mid range especially struggle with grass

Pros

1) Although it affects look, this "look" is for me a major immersion factor, ref the AI camouflage ability I mentioned above. Sure, we don't get to have the same ability against the AI, but given the tactically "stupid moves" the AI often does, I'll give them that bonus as a freebie to compensate.

2) Probably true, haven't really noticed any difference since I only play with grass.

But, you forgot these pros:

3) Tactical effect and consideration. Does anybody even recce an area and recognize problematic grass areas, or do everyone just jump into combat hoping for the best?

4) Camouflage works better with grass (ref #1 above), but needs a separate point, as it appears to me you only took the aesthetics of grass into consideration when you said "looks better".

5) Increased terrain grid increases the resolution of the terrain mesh. With grass turned off, you have the coarsest mesh causing problems such as: People walking above the surface, seeing people but you can't shoot at the (fire geometry doesn't seem to match). This causes some to fire before they should, ruining the surprise factor and giving away our location in the process.

Cons

1) Unfortunately correct.

2) Also correct, but... That also happen in real life? If you lay down in grass, you shouldn't expect to see anything. Unless you were in a mowed lawn or golf course. Two ways to "prep" a firing position though: One is to roll around, but unfortunately this effect lasts too short to be of any decent effect. Two is to have in mission the ability to put down a grass cutter object. But simply laying down in tall grass, sure, why would you expect otherwise?

3) Still viable. Proning makes you a smaller target to hit, even if you don't get to shoot. Remember, he did see where you hit the dirt. This part feels only natural to me. I'm assuming you have backup teams in the back with better view on overwatch? Let them deal with the guy, or at least suppress the shit out of him making his aim go all bad. Now would be a good time to seek hard cover, while under cover fire.

4) Except for #1, I don't see anything else resulting in "illogical gameplay that has no basis on the real world".

5) I have actually no problems at all running any amounts of grass. A small decrease at the top end, but that's all. I have pretty low spec hardware, and I'm forced to run pretty low spec (especially texture resolution, which I near some trees have to change to low). Maybe there is a penalty at the higher texture resolutions (I really couldn't tell), but if I'm forced to go down due to trees (to the absolute lowest mind you), why shouldn't others be able to go down on texture resolution due to grass? If they were forced (i.e. by mission design), they wouldn't have a choice :)

Again, I'm not saying the issue doesn't exist, but usually it can be dealt with. Other suggestions that might help on this issue:

1) Ability to change stance smoothly, especially on the low end. There could be several prones to deal with clutter, and several knees to deal with windowed and solid cover positions.

2) More variations of grass height. That would make certain routes a bad choice due to grass being an obstacle, and other routes better. Currently too often we only get the bad choice, which is bad as some of us might not have the option to have back covering our backs (small sized squads).

There might be others (feel free to add), but turning off grass is (for me) not a good option to overcome a problem that we should be able to tackle.

Just fyi, I do belong to the coop camp, but tend to play slow paced games. Rushing is not for me :)

SAP Clutter? I'll have a look for it, as some in my unit simply refuses to "fight the grass problem with tactics instead of bitching about it" :D If it doesn't remove the ability for a nearby AI to get "less visible" due to grass, I don't think I'll have a problem with it. Varied patches of high (normal) and SAP (lower) grass would be ideal though, as there is just too much of that high grass, at least in Chernarus.

Edit:

If I was running a public server I would definitely approve this addon's signature and recommend all players to get it installed.

I wanted to try this, but I can't find any server key (.bikey) anywhere, only the client signfile (.bisign). I searched the files section, but that SAP.bikey isn't compatible. Although the addon "fails" in terms of having to consider grass, it doesn't interfere as much in what I value most in my mission, the closer combat. AI still remains fairly well camouflaged in the areas I tested.

Ashamed edit #2:

I forgot to drag the .bisign file into my mod dir :S It works well now, thanks for the tip. But, it should really be included with the addon I think.

Edited April 23, 2010 by CarlGustaffa

[galzohar 31]

Having to consider grass will never work in a realistic fashion due to how the engine works. The best you can do is avoid having it work in an unrealistic fashion. It might feel nice and tactical to hide in grass but in the end what your tactics really need to be are "how far the enemy is from me? Is he close enough to render the grass or can he just see me if I go prone while I get completely blind? Is this piece of vegetation a bush that can hide me or just a huge piece of grass that will disappear 40m away?" Those kinds of "tactical considerations" are not anything near realistic, and thus anything that removes them from the game is a good thing.

[mosh 0]

I guess we are sitting a little between the standard chairs here - one being the coop crowd, one being the hardcore/killcount/competitive FPS fraction

I fall in the middle too. I am hardly competitive nor hardcore... I like PvP and coop.

I just don't like the grass the way it is now.

But back to the topic...

You're right about PvP not being dead though. Just don't pull the plug on the life support system. :)

[76 0]

I tend to agree with grass off in PvP, I can easily live with it on... but I would love the extra fps... or like galzohar said allow SAP Clutter to be an allowed addon for ArmAcalyspe, I've used it many times and its very good, terrain still looks great but little obstruction and big increase in fps :)

The comments so far that imply the spawn system doesn't work are wrong... it works extremely well despite how it looks on paper, I think you just need to play it... more than once with ~20 ppl and no... ai aren't any test of AAS.

Please jump on ArmAcalyspe or any servers playing AAS with ~20 ppl, try a few missions in a row (so you get the hang/feel of it) and I think you'll really enjoy it.

[qwertz 10]

I just checked - both GDT Mod Grass and SAP clutter only seem to work on good ol' Chernarus and Utes. We are currently predominantly playing new worlds such as Panthera2, Namalsk (grass hell - lol) and Quesh-Kibrul....

[galzohar 31]

Yeah, would be nice to have a solution for some of the other islands as well, but Chernarus is a real grass hell and a solution that just helps that is already great.

[qwertz 10]

(...) Chernarus is a real grass hell (...)

Just guessing - have you seen Namalsk yet ? Meter high grass :eek::

[galzohar 31]

No, It's one of the few islands I hadn't tried yet, but from your other post I got the idea of it. Wish this addon had versions for other islands as well, as even some islands that aren't a full out "grass hell" have certain areas where some grass cropping would've been nice.

[Slyder73 10]

I tend to agree with grass off in PvP, I can easily live with it on... but I would love the extra fps... or like galzohar said allow SAP Clutter to be an allowed addon for ArmAcalyspe, I've used it many times and its very good, terrain still looks great but little obstruction and big increase in fps :)

.

I think part of the issue (at least with me as FPS is not an issue) is to do with how the grass is used in the missions. On Namalsk (I think this is the one), the grass is very tall, but there are also heavy tree covers on the hillsides. Now with grass on or off, you are still visible at distance, however if the grass is used where there is already cover from distant viewers, snipers etc, such as on the heavily tree'd hillsides, then it really adds an immersive, extra element to the combat. This is the way I'd like to play Arma2, and find with grass completely off the game looks and feels like a game far too old for the system I paid good money to use. Even Soldier of Fortune II had tall grass. The only issue with the grass that I have is that it obstructs my view and yet I'm visible from a distance. I think if the mission is well made, that can be remedied. (I'm also assuming grass can be placed specifically and isn't a blanket on or off?)

The other day, a persistent sniper and I had some good stalking matches up in the trees, in the high grass, obscured from being distantly spotted by the tree cover yet able to use the grass for cover with both of us on equal visibility footing. Some of the most fun PvP situations I've had yet in Arma2, and quite tense when you can hear the footsteps close or rustling and can't see exactly where the person is.

Perhaps if the grass was able to be placed in particular areas and mission makers took more account of the cover around the grassy areas it wouldn't be such an issue.

[LJF 0]

I'd have to go for grass on.

Now they have the grass thingy too, so in the distance the grass is still "working" to a certain extent.

[Taxman 10]

Shall we get back on topic now :)

IS PvP still Alive..... pop into www.armaleague.com to find out

Boy! do I take every opportunity to advertise :)

[galzohar 31]

To be honest, on European prime times I could not find any populated PvP server other than warfare servers, and US servers are not an option for me for both ping and timezone reasons.

[Taxman 10]

Ours is full on Sun, Tues and Thurs (thats our gaming days) from around 7:30 GMT +1 (BST)

[nkenny 1057]

Real challenge is finding one without a password. As an ardent fan of 'grass on', I found Galzohar's presentation immensely persuasive.

Frankly running with grass on on any scenario aside from ultra CQB ones are pretty much out of the question for any REAL PvP environment. This is a shame -- I wonder if increasing the height of the distance-grass-layer would fix things. Yes, that would make prone players (hidden in grass) at a distance for all intents and purposes invisible. At least until they fired their weapon. Is that really such a bad thing?

-k

Edited April 27, 2010 by NkEnNy

[Taxman 10]

Yes, that would make prone players (hidden in grass) at a distance for all intents and purposes invisible. At least until they fired their weapon. Is that really such a bad thing?

-k

Thats what we ALL want buddy.. to be fair,, but at present its not.....

[galzohar 31]

To be invisible would be just as bad as being fully visible. Unfortunately, to get anything useful some more serious changes would have to be made to the game. Just seeing 1 pixel above the grass layer is sometime enough to kill someone, but if you see absolutely nothing yet he can see you, then that's messed up the other way around.

I really wish islands would resort to more "solid" forms of cover (either actual solid (rocks etc), or at least ones that stay rendered even at long distances like bushes), rather than just put grass everywhere while keeping the actual terrain as smooth as a tilted (and occasionally curved) airfield. "Fixing" this would help both coop and PvP.

[jw custom 56]

I prefere grass on only for the visual, it looks so dead without it :p

My main problem with grass is that your view when proning is placed too low, it's like your head is laying on the ground and then you can't see anything.

[BCA Cat Toaster 10]

Honestly this is the only and first place I see people complaining about grass. It´s not really an AAS issue by the way, its the Hosts decision.

Not even Tournaments like AGW and their members have problems with grass after two complete seasons. Personally I´ve no problem with grass, as it works the same for everyone, so I can´t see what the problem is. If it works the same for all players I can deal with it, I try to hide myself behind real objects like trees, rocks, wreckages and not in the plain grass areas. Without the clutter ArmA2 looks like crap. I never thougt a second that removing grass would be an option for me, it´s not and never. ´

I really wonder how much energy some people can waste on a topic like "grass". Maybe some should start smoking it to get a bit more relaxed. ;-)

[DDB 10]

It would be nice to see the grass vary more in height, so that you could just strafe to the left or right to find a low spot to help you see the enemy. One thing that people seem to misunderstand in the sample pictures shown the grass is maybe a foot and a half or so tall. So in real life go out into a horse field with thick grass that tall, go prone lay your chin on the ground and see how well you can see 40m in front of you.:j: Maybe there should be a golf course map or something with nice low grass for those who dont care for realism and request the lawn crew trim all the bushes up too:p.. Also in the example the standing target should have the advantage since he has the high ground.But I can see the points of both arguments. The equiptment you use to play is always going to have an impact when playing most modern PC games online. I recently went from an old pentium 4 system with a x1600 card to an i7 machine with a vapor x5770 and my kill ratios have drastically improved on every game I play from CSS, BF2 to Arma2. Most games your FPS does affect shot reg and obviously the more frames the better. I play Arma2 with almost everything maxed and get an avg of 75 fps. I suggest console gaming for those who want an even playing field. Remember this is a sim not an arcade version.

[Taxman 10]

One thing that people seem to misunderstand in the sample pictures shown the grass is maybe a foot and a half or so tall. So in real life go out into a horse field with thick grass that tall, go prone lay your chin on the ground and see how well you can see 40m in front of you

This is where you are missing the point........... IF you were to go out into your make believe field and stick your head in the nearest cow pat, YES you couldnt see,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, BUT THE POINT IS that someone 40m Away couldnt see you !

Maybe there should be a golf course map or something with nice low grass for those who dont care for realism and request the lawn crew trim all the bushes up too:p.. .

Maybe you should keep your sarcasm for a post that required it. Edited May 1, 2010 by Taxman

[gossamersolid 155]

for all those PvP lovers, I've been working on a new gamemode that is purely PvP. My friends and I were alpha testing it last night so we can iron out all the bugs and issues before release.

I won't tell you much about it right now since a lot of stuff can still change, but it's similar to the Battlefield series' conquest mode, but with a nice beautiful aroma of ArmA 2 :)

Maps will have support for 16, 32 or 64 players. When it's ready for some more testing and you guys wanna try it out, I'll make another post here.

It was really fun when we tested with 8 players so 64 would be epic.

[DDB 10]

This is where you are missing the point........... IF you were to go out into your make believe field and stick your head in the nearest cow pat, YES you couldnt see,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, BUT THE POINT IS that someone 40m Away couldnt see you !

Maybe you should keep your sarcasm for a post that required it.

In the sample the standing guy is on the high ground , guy in field has low ground lying in grass. Who do you think would see who the best? The guy above looking into bowl below should have an advantage. And at the same time the standing guy's silhouette should expose him a bit too. But if theres 1.5 ft tall grass in your face what can you see?Grass... ...

Stick to taxes debating is not your thing..I said I saw both points..:cool:

[Pulverizer 1]

You seem to be missing the point that the grass in Arma2 becomes invisible at a distance, revealing anyone hiding in it much too easily.

[jblackrupert 14]

You seem to be missing the point that the grass in Arma2 becomes invisible at a distance, revealing anyone hiding in it much too easily.

Then hide behind trees, rocks bushes and the old walls that litter the hills.

Use your head instead of your entire body to scan the area. [ALT key]

Roll or slide forward over the grass that is blocking your view, it'll get pressed down. [Q and E in the prone position]