mad rabbit

Perhaps this poll needs to differentiate between what people do play and what they'd like to play. i.e. I'd prefer any PvP but have to settle for Co-op.

Yep excellent work and great reply Dr. Eyeball! Most of my comments were just suggestions but your replies shown you've really thought all of this through. Reply 8a: I think restricting container transport whilst FOB is deployed is a good short-term...if not long-term solution. Reply 9: If the FOB = a team spawn point with armaments and the Rally Point (RP) = a group spawn point, then on the scale you've currently got the maps there's no real need for the RPs in my opinion. - I'm relating this back to my (evil?) Project Reality side. - Perhaps make the RP an ammo dump as opposed to respawn? Respawn, which in-effect is teleport, is a very powerful commodity to have multiple ways of utilizing i.e. FOB 'and' RP That said, one of the major gripes I'm seeing in my 'Why aren't there more PvP games?' campaign thread is that people hate walking. ...CoD/CS/BF2 player gripes aside ...if your going to exclude revive then = more spawn points BUT ...if your going to include revive then = less spawn points Reply 10: Agree completely. Again keep up the good work!

Pretty good theory in my opinion. I forget that it's not only the players but also PvP map makers that are in their infancy.

I'd like to think that ArmA2 doesn't attract players that care more about their points than enjoying the gameplay. I've also always questioned why people cheat in games at all. What IS the point?! This really eludes me. What your talking about sounds more like a 'griefer' than 'cheater' per say. i.e. someone who is there to ruin everyone else fun for their own (perverse) amusement as opposed to winning at all costs At least the latter have a somewhat slanted motive! I remember seeing YouTube videos of these $%&holes who used to do this with Berserk maps back in early ArmA1 days by spawning 50 LGB over the playing area. Father issues. Seriously.

I started this poll to determine why CO-OP games dominated the ArmA2 multiplayer scene. And indeed if the first option of the poll, "no-one likes PvP' was dominating the poll the would agree with your comments. However as you can see by the poll results and the comments in this thread, I don't believe this is the case. I will however concede that this poll my be biased by people upset with the lack of PvP and attracted by the title. This however is unavoidable. As for map makers finding CO-OP maps more interesting to make, I'd have to agree. Perhaps they are. Nothing like 'making a sandbox and seeing ants run around in it'! However I believe this diverges from the topic a little and you also haven't considered the a fact that PvP maps are, in my experience, harder to make. In terms of the 'if you don't like it, don't play ArmA2' approach. I don't think this is a productive attitude and as I have stated I believe there is room in ArmA2 for all gameplay types, both of which I enjoy. Perhaps Tetris is more PvP and doesn't offer CO-OP, but that's not the game I'm talking about nro want to play. This is indeed the problem I find as well, but I believe patience in this respect is required as: 1) More arcade type FPS players will soon become bored with game and leave the scene. - This is unfortunate but as we can see by the poll, those wanting PvP maps do not fear complexity so perhaps this is a good thing. 2) It takes a while to learn to a map. - New players to ArmA2 are having problems adjusting to CO-OP maps such as Dom/Evo and PvP maps such as AASv2 alike. They need time to learn and through that find the enjoyment in this game we all see. - Patience and 'gentle' guidance from the veteran players who have been in this game since OFP is required. I remembered back in OFP when I got lost a couple of times with only a map and compass to guide me. Now I think less of myself if I use GPS. -However if the 13 year-old CS player with 4 satchels ruins the game then kick+ban by al means! I also like the combination of PvP maps played like CO-OP! Great idea and concept but hard to execute. Requires lots of factors in (interface, suitable maps, etc.) and outside (clan + server organisation, forum discussion, etc.) which may be beyond this threads scope. Again I'm just interested in why PvP games are in the minority...whatever the reason may be even if I don't like it i.e. no-one likes PvP. Excellent points. However, having some limited experience trying to make a modified CTI map back in the days of OFP I can say it's hard to let go of your baby i.e. your vision of a map. Case-and-point. - Some excellent map makers have been asked to decrease their concept to a smaller scale but refuse to do so. But who is right? - Major mod makers are asked on occasion to release single addons from their mod pack to the community to use in another context but also refuse to do so. But again who is right? Perhaps the answers are luck and time. Luck that some talented map maker will make that perfect map were all seeking. And time that we all seek, for him to make the map and us to play it. Perhaps it won't do anything but the poll does seem to be disagreeing with your conclusions i.e. no-one likes PvP. And if no-one did then why all the posts about the lack of it in the first place. We can't all be CS-noobs looking for are ego to be stroked by stating are grand intentions of killing you and everyone?! I'm certainly not! It's also a contradiction to say that the only reason you play CO-OP is because of the griefing/attitude in PvP...but not the gameplay. Does that mean that PvP is fine but it's the people? Perhaps this is right and I do agree with some your points about PvP repetition. But I'm sure I'm not alone in liking both types of gameplay and believing that there's more that one PvP gametype. I will have to strongly disagree with CO-OP maps being LESS repetitive than PvP maps. That's just simply not true. And if you believe it is...then you obviously have the talent to address this ;-) I only just realised now that you made Dom maps! I should say (yet) again that I enjoy CO-OP and Domination, which is NOT a 'bastard' mission. Nothing like parachuting into a town with a laser designator and a good pilot in TS. However I hope we see this PvP map your thinking of making soon. Also consider that your a map maker and that you visited this thread. As such hopefully this has had some impact then... Couldn't agree more. And for those of you who don't know Celery's excellent PvP maps from ArmA1 your truly missing out on serious fun. VODKA! Well I believe this thread was started because of your first sentence above which contradicts your last statement?! That aside, I believe I also showed from initial post to start this thread that: a) I had done my research b) That I wish to highlight issue and identify the reason but I enjoy both gametypes c) A poll of this sort did not already exist Hell I had no idea what the poll result would look like let alone if this was only a local (Australian) issue. It could have just as easily been dominated by 'no-one likes PvP' and that would be that. Then again perhaps it still will?! Excellent points. I very much agree that Dom *tips hat to Xeno* did keep ArmA1 alive. I just hope that this bias...and it is a bias... towards CO-OP wouldn't continue into ArmA2. Hence the reason for starting this thread. But there's room for all gametypes here in ArmA2 land. The problem I guess map makers will encounter is do they: a) Have no restrictions and more structured gameplay i.e. limited weapon loadouts, same capture points OR b) Have restricted weapons but less structured gameplay i.e. ACOG M203 with a Javelin and Laser Designator going up against a guy in a UAZ Personally I prefer the former than the latter, but that's MY bias. If I have to shoot another AI soldier lying down in the open I'm going to go nuts! By the same token, getting into any APC or tank when 'every man and his dog' has a Javelin also seems pointless and I'd just as rather walk than avoid that death-trap. Hmm... Perhaps a CO-OP map, like Domination with: 1) the majority of player as BLUFOR 2) a small Guerrilla force of players who 'aide' the OPFOR but start with limited weapons and can only keep what they raid from BLUFOR 3) a OPFOR 'game-master'/General who has overall control of the whole OPFOR movements but has limited assets to put into play. I guess this is what popularised 'Dungeons and Dragons' type games i.e. chance + real-time player controlled opposition. Just a thought...

I agree. But still, I think statistically, we need more votes to make sure that this is indeed the problem.

As am I which is why I created the poll. And as you can see two main reasons are starting to appear. 1) Severs are dominated by CO-OP. 2) Good PvP maps don't exist. Perhaps the latter is a reason for the former... I totally agree but... Which is a good point as well and I believe falls under the 'no-one wants to play PvP' poll option. Perhaps...and I'd like to agree but I saw the following post in another thread: PVP, TVT Gaming (good post) -> This post actually highlights the PvP gametypes very well! This perhaps falls under the 'complexity' option in the poll but I thought it was a good point i.e. that extra freedom in a game can sometimes be as detrimental to a game as it is beneficial. --- Walker (above) also stated the following: I just want to point out that: a) Although I do play other games as well, I have been playing OFP since...well...the demo! b) I like CO-OP...just a bit sick of it at the moment is all. c) My aim with this thread, as I stated in my first post, was to make everyone aware of this issue that has becoming more and more prevalent since OFP. Interestingly I believe that back in OFP days CO-OP was UNDER-represented. I'd like to finish this post on a final quote: Regardless of your gameplay type, there's no reason that ArmA2 and it's servers can't accommodate for both. My concern before posting this poll was that no-one wanted to play CO-OP. The current results from the poll are not supporting this fear. However 50 people is hardly representative of the ArmA2 gaming community. So com'on ArmA2 peoples! Don't even make a post! VOTE!

I really like this idea! The only problem I see: 1) Scripting this may be an equivalent task to a CTI 2) How would you translate each sides score/position/capture points from a street level to a city level when more players join? KOTH is awesome! I remember this type of game mode from the original Ghost Recon. As long as it's only infantry based it's heaps of fun. Indirect fire may kill this type of gameplay i.e. whoever has the artillery wins...much like most ArmA1 Warfare games... I agree to some degree. I love Dr. Eyeball's conversion of Advance-and-Secure maps to Devastation i.e. version 2: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=77709 However they are currently too big for the current small ArmA2 PvP community at the moment IMHO. This is why I really like Defunkt's idea! Again these are just my opinions. I really just wanted to start people talking about this like we are now, as it seems most report of this issue are just single posts that get lost in the mix without identifying the reasons. I should also point-out that I think ArmA2 is an excellent game, and if not, well on it's way to being excellent through the support BIS provides this community. This thread is not about the making of ArmA2 and the developers but the people playing it i.e. primarily us. As the BIS can only do so much to get to start playing PvP in my opinion. In actual fact I think the whole CO-OP domination (pardon the pun!) of the multiplayer scene is a 'carry-over' effect from ArmA1 that will hopefully even out with time. Looking at the poll currently...this would appear to be the case.

How about if your a client/player i.e. non-admin or access to server config? Surely there's a way to get someone elses PlayerID?! This especially needed on an admin-less server.

+1 for more PvP servers, especially in Australia! I just found a 'No Evo/Dom' GamingSA server last night...but sadly no players on late at night. I'm also petitioning OGN to get a dedicated Devastation: Advance-and-Secure v2 (Gamespace is running v1 at the moment) going: http://forums.ogn.com.au/showthread.php?p=788185#post788185 DEATH TO EVO AND DOM!

I agree. 1) Can anybody confirm if there is a command to obtain a PlayerIDs? This would be handy, especially late night when there is not admin on and you want to record a *************** PlayerID for reporting. 2) In addition, from those rare times when I have been admin, there is no command/GUI to determine a PlayerID AFTER they disconnect. These two things REALLY need to be addressed. The only improvement on the multiplayer side that BIS have made to this game since OFP is Join-in Progress. I player OFP/ArmA1/ArmA2 for the gameplay. Keep your detailed shadows/shading/Crysis worthy stuff or later updates. Fix the gameplay BIS!

Just realised I had commented on AAS and not AASv2 in my previous post. I have updated it: http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1346521&postcount=28

Yeah I've tried setting this to HIGH and got no noticeable improvement either. Then again when does Windows ever do anything you want i.e. User: please stop accessing my USB drive so I can disconnect it. Vista: No.

I would say definitely increase the polling rate if you can. I also had a problem with my Microsoft/Razer Habu mouse and stuttering/etch-a-sketch/jaggered/pixelated mouse movement. I fond INCREASING the DPI and DECREASING the sensitivity helped. But my problem was due to precision. Yours sounds due to mouse lag i.e. mouse signal to computer = polling rate.

Can anybody confirm or refute that when you disable post-processing, this also applies to iron sight view on weapons with a scope? I get about 25-35FPS which is maintained when I switch to CCO/Aimpoint/Cobra optics. But when I switch to ACOG/other long-range sights this drops down to 10-15FPS. EDIT: My system specs: Alienware m15x Laptop 15' monitor with 1920x1200 native resolution Intel® Core2 Duo CPU T9300 @ 2.50GHz NVIDIA GeForce 8800M GTX @ 800Mhz Mem/500Mhz Core (186.03 Drivers) -> OC to 950 MeM/550 Core 4GB DDR2 RAM @ 667Mhz Windows Vista SP1 (yuk! but necessary unfortunately for the m15x) ArmA1 runs fairly well @ 30+ FPS but without Anti-aliasing. ArmA2 funs okay with peak 28fps and sometimes down to 15. I'm running everything Normal to Low with No AA @ 1920x1200.

@BR PP + too muhc head-bob gives me motion sickness....and I NEVER get that in games. That and the FPS increase from disabling PP is definitely worth it. I would have also thought that although the LOD is increased at 1000m due to the zoom it's not increasing the LOD on everything 'up' to 1000m. In addition the Field of View is smaller as you agree and therefore even if the LOD is increased the Field of View is smaller = less to render. I'm sure your right...I just feel like I'm on crazy pills. @leckig Although a lot of people gripe about the m15x having a 15' monitor with a native res of 1920x1200, I find it great. The images are really crystal clear and I can fit 2 A4 pages on the screen when I'm editing documents at work. ...and again maybe I'm still on crazy pills but... If I was to get a 19' monitor wouldn't I still have the same FPS as the output resolution is still the same as on my current laptop 15' monitor? i.e. it's a 1920x1200 load on the computer regardless of the monitor size?!

Hi Snowwhite, Thanks for the reply! What is DOF? Degrees of Freedom? That's exactly what I'm saying. but only with long range scopes as I've specified above. Not with CQB scopes like the M4 CCO and/or the AKM Cobra optics. Again just trying to find out if it's me or if it's a bug. It would seem to me that you would take LESS of a FPS hit with a long range scope as there is less to render in that small Field of Vision, right?

Just tried to rally support for you Dr. Eyeball to get it on OGN! http://forums.ogn.com.au/showthread.php?p=787294#post787294 EDIT 12/07/09: I realised I had been talking about the base version AAS and not your new version AASv2. I tired your beta on my comp last night. Excellent work! Things I really like: - The thin outline around the capture points so you can still see the markers. I hate too much shading on my map. Perhaps a little red shading on the centre capture zone (closest to flag) could be nice though... - Armament limitations. Yes I am also (and guility of too) everyone carrying an RPG/AT/Nuke. - Replacement of the ArmA2 score menu with one that's more game relevant. A couple of minor bugs/suggested improvements: Bugs: - Makarov SD pistol image in Armament GUI is too large for he display box - East FOB marker is blue coloured on map when all other map markings for the east side are red. Suggestions: - The FOB setup direction is related to the Supply Crate orientation if I'm correct? a) How do you tell which way the Supply Crate is 'facing' anyway? It's a square box with very similar textures on all it's surfaces. b) I see the need for being able to orientate the supply crate but the FOB is not logically placed in relation to it's orientation. e.g. Supply crate 'faces' North = FOB opening faces East. - A preview then place feature would be nice for setting-up these assets e.g. client-side moveable object that moves with players orientation. Upon final placement moveable object becomes server side = perfect placement. This requires a 'looping' script so it may add to the script lag but it was a nice feature in the initial crCTI for constructing good bases. - FOBs really need some sandbagged areas. - If an infinite number of FOBs can be setup from the one Supply Crate in different locations, then: a) What is the point of supply crate in the first place? FOB numbers should be limited to one per supply crate. b) What is the point of being able to 'friendly' destroy a supply crate? - Squad rally points should be able to be deployed closer to the capture zones than FOBs but NOT too close to the capture zones. = Progressive but diminishing respawn points from Initial spawn->FOB->Rally Point - Eliminate rally points all together and implement a revive system?! Make it more complex then just an action but include a diagnosis such as used in America's Army 3 i.e. diagnose->revive e.g. nose trumpet/CPR/saline bag -> address bleeding ...this may be an addon in itself that's needed for ArmA2 though - Sandbag cover for deployable assets esp. MGs. Otherwise people will be too reluctat to use them if they're so easily sniped from them = pointless. - I don't know if anybody will setup the Counter Sniper System unless it can be carried on person. Driving it in is not worth the time nor is it discrete. But squads progressively setting one up as the move from capture point-to-point makes sense. It is just radio/sound triangulation anyway right? - Perhaps locking-off of zone recapture if all 4 zones in a pair e.g. Delta + Echo, inner + outer are captured = more pressure and avoids stalemates? - The ICE system action menu item selection seems to override the default ArmA2 action e.g. Steering wheel icon = Get-in as driver, if you use the keyboard to 'Perform action' i.e. instead of getting in as the driver of a vehicle without the action menu visible to scroll through the ICE menu will come up. The weird thing is this does not happen when you use a mouse button to ' Perform action'?! This may be an ArmA2 related thing though...

I'm also having the same problem with my very black colour dominated custom face. I'm also using a NVIDIA 8800M GTX card so it's not an ATI issue. Perhaps this is something to do with Alpha Blending i.e. transparent texture setup?! Can anyone confirm/fix this?

Received this email today 22/06/09: Ordered 05/06/09 for AUD$51. Others who play on the OGN server also got this email today. Hope this helps! :-)

I've got the same system Olasee except for 4GB DDR2 instead of 2.5GB. My ArmA2 order just got dispatched today and I was concerned I'd invested in a game I wouldn't be able to run, so thankyou for your post!

Hey System Spec Gurus, Any opinions on how the game will run on my system: Alienware m15x Laptop 1920x1200 native resolution, 15inch montior Intel® Core2 Duo CPU T9300 @ 2.50GHz NVIDIA GeForce 8800M GTX @ 800Mhz Mem/500Mhz Core (180.7 Drivers) 4GB DDR2 RAM @ 667Mhz Windows Vista SP1 ArmA1 runs fairly well on high settings, 2500m view distance and 1920x1200 @ 30+ FPS but without Anti-aliasing. I can also try lower resolutions that fit 16:10 but would like to keep it 1920x1200: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16/10 I'm pretty sure my laptop upgradablility is limited, except for possibly the GFX card. Haven't got the game yet but just trying to get a 'feel' for how it will run.

Hi Eyeball, Thanks for all the hard work and responding to the requests. It's a pity your removing the 24 player maps as I've found them the most frequently used in terms of OGN. Â This could however be a problem with the number of available players on OGN. Nice work with the artillery! Â I would prefer to see troop carried and assembled mortars like back inthe good ol' days of WGL 5.1 with the white phos. Â However this took both the WGL team and the CoC team to get up and running, and is beyond the scope of your map i.e. *cough* someone rip/make the addon *cough, cough* please *cough* In terms of the bunkers and having previewed placement of assets. Â You could for now have the sand bag corners automatically built on each corner of the bunker for now...just a thought. Here are some other suggestions following the previous two night v1.2 testing and last nights v1.3 testing: 7) Make the armament interface more intuitive Had to explain it to 5 people on the night. The little preview button, let alone the word preview, is misleading. Also and explanation of the request button would be nice...I don't know what it does. 8) Yellow flags for enemy in territory under contest This is in Bezerk maps and a radio message appears in Project Reality maps. Distinguishes enemy in zone trying to be captured from map bug. 9) Lockable vehicles Less discouraging for a side that's lost it's primary spawn and ammo vehicles to enemy hands. Need some easier way from them to retrieve their vehicles Again keep up the good work and let me know if you need a hand! EDIT: Possible bug I noticed. If the ammo truck is detroyed just after bunker placement or during bunker construction, it becomes a spawnable point but you cannot obtain armaments. Therefore, 10) Abort bunker construction if ammo truck destroyed or out of range prior to bunker completion That way if your squad isn't around to help you build and protect to the bunker then your team doesn't benefit. Also prevents mass and sporadic bunker building. i.e. bunkers have to be carefully planned out and built. Too easy to get the 'mobile spawn+arming factories' in place at the moment.

BEZERK SUCKS! Played this last night in a 10vs10 on OGN and it was very impressive to say the least. Â Really streamlined interface, no bugs or script errors came up, and there was something in it for everyone I felt: - be you a SpecOps trying to destroy and enemy bunker - base builder setting-up defensible spawn points for your team - sniper overwatch on capture-points - regular infantry with some nice CQB I also think the ICE system has been really well integrated. Â The personal waypoint is a nice touch to say the least and I found designating a sniper with a map-click very easy to do once I figured it out initially. The weapon restrictions were a nice touch as well, it really promoted teamplay. Â For instance a APC crossed our paths whislt trying to take a CP and everyone started asking around who had AT = more cohesion within the team. I really would like to see more of this played on the server! I thought I might mention a couple of things I'd like to see though: 1) A more thorough in-game manual AND/OR PDF version I found most stuff through trial-and-error. Â This may scare a lot of people off in the initial stages of getting people into the game. Â I think it best to flesh out the Notes section with brief bullet points on how to use stuff, supplemented by a downloadable PDF with instructive images for people who want a more detailed instruction. 2) 3MB a bit hefty a dowload. I don't mind, hell my CTI back in the day were getting to 5MB mode. Â maybe you can cut this down a bit? Â Are you sourcing the images for the 'Armaments' dialog from the BIS addons directly or coupling them with the map as JPEGs? Â Otherwise I don't see why the file would be so map file size would be so large unless you have more scripts in there then initially obvious. 3) More precise placement of stationary assets e.g. AT, MG, bunkers I really like the progressive building of the bunkers. Â It thought that was great and adds another layer of tactics to bunker building c.f. just spawning a building. Â However at the moment the buker and other stationary assests such as the snadbags and MGs are just placed behind the ammo truck/vehicle. Â Taking page out of the crCTI/Warfare book with a 'preview then place' method would allow for more useful and effective forward base building. e.g. I built sandbags near the bunker but couldn't place the the MG accurately behind them. Â In addition the MG/AT were not facing the direction I wanted either. 4) Infantry operated artillery. I know I've said this before but I'd really like to see some of this in game Perhaps: http://www.armedassault.info/index.php?cat=news&id=1172 ? 5) Smaller infantry focussed maps. I know AAS is made for larger groups of players but you gotta start small to get the crowds going. Â Even Project Reality for BF2 did this in addition to large maps. Â Just strip out a lot of the vehicles and make the CP closer together and more urban. Â Dolores is great for this! 6) Restrict silenced weapons and satchels to the SpecOps Like the scenario I described above with the AT and the APC encounter, this creates a requirement for this class and promotes more team cohesion in my opinion. Just a thought though. Keep up the good work Eyeball!

Just had a 1 hour game of WARFARE on a server called TacticalGamerin the US with a ping of 240 and a frame rate of about 20... and it still was pretty damn fun! I give the WARFARE map 7/10. -1 because it feels a bit BF2-ish e.g. progress bars EDIT: could use flag going up pole animation instead? -1 because there are still some bugs with the JIP e.g. Markers not showing up for some players etc. -1 just because I see little bits here and there that could be improved e.g. being able to pick the base start site, more camera controls/angles during building layout Aside from that: +1 accessibility. very easy to pick-up and get into especially if your a CTI fan. +1 for VoN/VoIP. Works great now even with my ping being what it was. Everyone could hear me and I them +1 GUI. the interface is very easy to use +1 markers. new markers make the map very easy to understand +1 HUD. Nice little progress bar to show how long before you capture a camp/supply depot +1 Artillery. Based on D-30 which have direct fire as well. Every group leader can have their own artillery group +1 balancing. It seems they've got the prices for the items correct as the game progressed nicely into a small skirmishes to only a few helos and tanks, despite being everyones first time playing ----------------------- Also my ArmA is definitely running a lot better and I can actually fly a plane in the mission editor without lagging out or crashing due to the previously bad control system. Thanks to all you hard working folks at BIS!