What happen to those 80 peep Team vs Team PvP servers?

[tacticalnuggets 24]

Oh, it's hardly the game's fault, that wasn't what I was implying. It's the fault of the people who play it online, but I won't get into that shit again...

Its not the people who play online, its arma2's outdated multiplayer engine and interface. Nobody is going to spend an hour of there time finding and downloading and setting up mods and addons to join an empty server to wait for more people to do the same. And please do join the multiplayer revolution. We need to fix this element of ArmA2 so everyone can enjoy such a great game.

[whisper 0]

Its not the people who play online, its arma2's outdated multiplayer engine and interface. Nobody is going to spend an hour of there time finding and downloading and setting up mods and addons to join an empty server to wait for more people to do the same. And please do join the multiplayer revolution. We need to fix this element of ArmA2 so everyone can enjoy such a great game.

:confused::confused::confused::confused:

What are you talking about? In current OA state, there's not enough mods out there "forcing" people to download things, etc.... to play. And it looks like BI is going to try sorting this with auto download and such (crossing fingers...)

So enjoy the current state if you don't like addons and mods, because we are currently exactly at the time everyone is enjoying vanilla.

Tbh, regarding the OP, I'm not really sure about the axiom of "more people == better game". It can be great, it can be bad.

I dislike saying bad of user made content, but anyway.... The big PvP Map in ArmA2 days is Berzerk. Many peeps on the server. And I don't like the result.

For the large majority of the games played, 1 team has every zone secured and is locking out the other team into their safe spawn, which is invariably located kms away from target zones, forcing into long transport times, right into the readied weapons of the soldiers having all zone and seeing attackers come from far, far away. Securing zones takes 10 minutes, after that it's 50 minutes of turkey shoot.

I may exagerate, but I don't think I'm too far from truth. The "lock out" situation happens too often, making for boring gameplay, if you ask me.

OTOH, I've seen 32 players PvP map (did some yesterday) far more focused, and which rarely will be too one sided (though it happened yesterday too :) ) and if this happens, the mission is basically stopped. Better design (mission was AAS, btw)

And they are designed for less people, there's more action going, even with a non full server.

Large games I think should be really organized, see what CF does, and other groups (like OFCRA in my sig). Or specifically designed with the concept of numbers from the get go, not just a BF adaptation "with shit loads of peeps!!"

[tacticalnuggets 24]

:confused::confused::confused::confused:

What are you talking about? In current OA state, there's not enough mods out there "forcing" people to download things, etc.... to play. And it looks like BI is going to try sorting this with auto download and such (crossing fingers...)

So enjoy the current state if you don't like addons and mods, because we are currently exactly at the time everyone is enjoying vanilla.

Tbh, regarding the OP, I'm not really sure about the axiom of "more people == better game". It can be great, it can be bad.

I dislike saying bad of user made content, but anyway.... The big PvP Map in ArmA2 days is Berzerk. Many peeps on the server. And I don't like the result.

For the large majority of the games played, 1 team has every zone secured and is locking out the other team into their safe spawn, which is invariably located kms away from target zones, forcing into long transport times, right into the readied weapons of the soldiers having all zone and seeing attackers come from far, far away. Securing zones takes 10 minutes, after that it's 50 minutes of turkey shoot.

I may exagerate, but I don't think I'm too far from truth. The "lock out" situation happens too often, making for boring gameplay, if you ask me.

OTOH, I've seen 32 players PvP map (did some yesterday) far more focused, and which rarely will be too one sided (though it happened yesterday too :) ) and if this happens, the mission is basically stopped. Better design (mission was AAS, btw)

And they are designed for less people, there's more action going, even with a non full server.

Large games I think should be really organized, see what CF does, and other groups (like OFCRA in my sig). Or specifically designed with the concept of numbers from the get go, not just a BF adaptation "with shit loads of peeps!!"

I just cant agree. I mean, smaller servers tend to work better together, but why not more servers with people on them? OA is our only hope in not screwing up again. So hopefully BIS will get to work on the mp engine asap.

[whisper 0]

I don't say "no" to more players in mission, but it has to be done with the main concept being "a gamemode with many people connected". Not simply "take game mode X and add more people"

[jack_oneill 0]

Yeah, I'm assuming a full server. Of course it wouldn't be fun with only a few people. It would be nice if a full server wasn't far too much to hope for. I dont imagine that bc2 or mw2 would be very much fun on an empty server either.

The long respawn thing would be an effort to make dying something to avoid. Revival or instant reinforcement at the base works for me. I just dont want people to be able to instantly respawn on their squad 10 seconds after they die so its as if they never died in the first place, like in BF.

Why throw in long respawn time? An integral part of the BF2/BC2 conquest mode is actually encountering enemies. Long respawn times on an all PvP server goes completely against this principle and IMO would destroy it. Think on it. Even with a "small" count of say 2 towns (compared to all island warfare), that's 40 peep per town if its an 80 peep server. 20 peep per team. Now, assume that not everyone is alive, 3/4 is effective in the zone. That's just 15 players fighting another 15 players over an entire town - in a rather perfect situation. All it takes is a couple of fully manned vehicle to reduce infantry count to far less than 10. Throw in "long respawn times" and you kill the gameplay, because there will be no one to fight. Dont even dare trying to use 3 towns, lol. If you want to implement features like wreck repair or resupply of friendly vehicles, that's even more players that are removed from combat.

Plus, it assumes an instantly full server. Remember, this all PvP mission have to scale well from 2-80 peeps. If its just say 20 in total... Ugh. I cant imagine what "long respawn times" would do to it. I'm not finding the idea of fighting ONE or maybe TWO other guys appealing, only to wait a long time if I die.

A much nicer idea - revival or instant reinforcement at base. Make the players decide whether to give up waiting. They do have brains. Well, a little.

[Murklor 10]

The long respawn thing would be an effort to make dying something to avoid. Revival or instant reinforcement at the base works for me. I just dont want people to be able to instantly respawn on their squad 10 seconds after they die so its as if they never died in the first place, like in BF.

Well that's why only respawn at base should be possible (in Domination, I dont even see the point of respawning at the MHQ). This base should be kilometers away from the objective and a smart designer place the spawn a little bit away from the possible teleports (could easy replace a pointless 15s timer that is in many missions). If you want long "respawn", then simply dont allow teleports of any kind. Realism solved without an artificial delay.

[jump artist 0]

Well so far the most fun PvP games I have played are the AAS maps on the "BASECAMP" server and Charlie Foxtrot's own PvP map which is an example of the map they run o their tournament battle day.

The best part about OA is that its the first ARMA interationt o be really fun playable out of the box with no mods. the features and optimizations that are currently in the game make it a joy to play with no mods.

(though I did try the ACE_SM today and OMFG that sound mod is fricken AWESOME)

But I can deal with less than perfect sounds for the quality of play I have been having on these servers.

[walker 0]

Hi all

There are several new Berzerk servers about.

I had a blast yesterday on 128 player server at about 60 people some realy hard fought battles we turned a couple of towns to ruins in the process.

Lots of smoke to cover assaults some of it was 2 feet away from each other as we CQBed.

Kind Regards walker

[Inkompetent 0]

I want to play TvT, but I sure as *beep* don't want it to be Berzerk. Even AAS is a stretch for me because even though I like the game mode I don't like the way people tend to play it.

I did however have the opportunity to play in the roughly 100-player TvT between TacticalGamer, ShackTac, and what more group it was (it was three communities) with organized and structured battles, and that was really awesome.

However it's kind'a hard to pull off on public servers without the presence of a very strict admin, so I understand that kind of mission doesn't get a lot of space, which is sad.

So at least on my part public TvT is dead (heck, public coop is too. Free-for-all domination servers or too-many-hour Warfare? Bleh.).

Communities. Communities. Communities. That's where ArmA lies :)