Which do you play more? Huge PVP MP battles or small coop missions?

[Which do you play more? Huge PVP MP battles or small coop missions?]

Once you try real huge PvP battle there is no feeling which can beat that one. As real war veteran I can say it was most close to real live. All that Evo Domination things are not real at all repeats “not real at all†it is just more sophisticated training shooting range map especially how most of the people play it.

Good organized Coop like on some servers for example Zeus or Tactical Gamer is more real but AI is steel ‘tards and you can play one mission mostly two times after that is not interesting any more.

In PvP huge battle map newer is the same for example in ATOW tournament we fight 4 battles, every Sunday one battle long 3 hour, for just one objective “Tiberia Bridge†because it was entrance for capturing Cayo and there is above Corona hill which dominate the area. It was epic fight 4 battles just for that hill that was falling in one hand to other.

Such experience you will never have with AI or with retard Warfare which strategy level is more like you taking care on expenses when you shopping in some supermarket having nothing with real military strategy.

Unfortunately there is no proper PvP maps or mod for ArmA such is PR on BF2.

I don't know, I just think that ArmA is not a very good game to play as an individual infantryman.. much prefer commanding the AI squads or commanding entire platoons using the HC interface, humans are just too unpredictable to use on your own side.

All humans is just a waste of the use of ArmA in my opinion, better off playing battlefield where the infantry play is smoother.

[So few PvP serves?]

I kind of think that ArmA as a pure PvP game is quite clunky and that ArmA is at its best when AIs are used to supplement players, players command AI teams in company or platoon sized engagements, IMO.

[Evolution and the fate of multiplayer]

The trouble with large PvP where every unit on the map(or even every combat unit on the map) is human is that you need tons of people to do it on scenarios with any scope. I don't think ArmA is all that good at being a shoebox game and it shouldn't really even try to cater to 8v8 shoebox wars.

The future of PvP in ArmA is, in my opinion, going to come when the command engine gets the bugs out. Now, understandably it's not going to be a perfect solution but giving each player say a squad or a platoon to command immediately allows for a much larger scenario and a lot more room for individual achievement.

[Some ?s before I buy ArmA in U.S....]

The reason the AI avoids objects is so that it doesn't get stuck.

It is nearly impossible to create an AI behavior that finds cover and uses it without being told precisely where the cover is(which is what's done in most FPSs).

As with the OFP AI, the Arma AI is much, much better in the open than in any kind of city or village. From my experience leading AI squads and using AI in this game the worst thing you can do with the bots is use them as infantry in cities. It's better to keep them in vehicles where it's safe and they can scram.

This isn't to say they're totally useless. They do have good aim, particularly at the close ranges of CQB and decent reaction times.

In order to make them good at CQB you'd pretty much have to either pre-script them paths close to buildings, walls, and other cover or spend a LOT of cpu cycles trying to convince them to do it heuristically.