View Full Version : One question that MANY fans care about.
TwentyFourSeven
Mar 2 2009, 21:55
I really dont like PvP, I find most times its over inflated ego's of pwnd Lol lol lol. your moma in your face kinda ppl. Which I admit is not how eveyone is and in no way am I generalising. I think it takes a few bad experiences to put you off PvP. I do however like the ideas of GroupvGroup PvP style matches. where a set objective of capturing or holding areas. Those require team coop vs team coop. The outcome isnt decided by who has relfexes or a cat and dexerity of an octopus, Which sadly i dont possess at all lol..
I was briefly however involved in with a PvP clan, who had training and were in OFP1 leagues. I did get to see the otherside of how its done and that egos are not always the rulers of the server.
I love CTI, but find even in those games theres often rambo solo artists that dont share the ideal of teamwork..
Id love to see Arma2 come out with great action scenerio PvP elements. Where teamwork is the deciding factor and the winner.
HellToupee
Mar 3 2009, 00:56
Some prefer the challenge of a human opponent to dumb bots.
Teamwork usually is the deciding factor in all team games when player skill levels are matched. To encourage teamwork in pvp requires class based system, instead of now where nearly every single person picks a rocket launcher and a sniper rifle.
Then you have people fighting and TK'ing for the pilot spots, sniper spots, etc
I have played PvP in ArmA and had a blast, but it was a tightly regulated server with a very specific mission and rule set. Playing against human intelligence is always more challenging and more immersive than playing against AI.
As far as regular pubbing, to control the behavior is one thing, coordination is another. Coordination 16+ players per side is a headache.
Back in OFP PvP worked well because, for many, it was their first experience in more than Unreal Tournament. Now, everyone has played several games and everyone feels as if their idea is the best way to tackle the mission. Teamplay tends to go off to the wayside in lieu of pride.
I wish I could say differently, but it's the sad truth of today's gaming state.
Clan organized gameplay in PvP is still alot of fun, but that's generally by invite only since the servers are locked to keep the "I just wanna shoot and fly stuff" pubbers out.
the OP has no imagination...
any mission can be players or ai.. why do the devs need to have special coding, they give US the freedom to do what we want..
the great thing about these games is that your NOT stuck to horrid "game modes" that hinder gameplay..
the point is to have organized PvP matches between teams, clans you name it. Public servers are never a challenge of expirienced players, also to play in public servers you have to trust in good faith and skill of other players in order to avoid TK and noobism or whatever anyone would call it.
I personaly don't really care about public PvP its always boring, and noone follows the objective they only go for the kills so you see tank campers etc, only if there where a ranking system it might have a little intrest but still it would be just public.
the point is to have organized PvP matches between teams, clans you name it. Public servers are never a challenge of expirienced players, also to play in public servers you have to trust in good faith and skill of other players in order to avoid TK and noobism or whatever anyone would call it.
I personaly don't really care about public PvP its always boring, and noone follows the objective they only go for the kills so you see tank campers etc, only if there where a ranking system it might have a little intrest but still it would be just public.
I read this to be about the missions themselves.. not the server.
you telling me you cant have two clans doing real world missions on a private server? we did it many times.
Steakslim
Mar 3 2009, 23:25
Also a ranking system is not a good idea. You complain about people playing to get kills, that's exactly what a ranking system will create, see BF2/2142, and CoD4.
Also a ranking system is not a good idea. You complain about people playing to get kills, that's exactly what a ranking system will create, see BF2/2142, and CoD4.
and this is one of the multitude of reasons that has made OFP/ARMA great.
leave the bf/cod crap to ofp2.. we want to keep our ofp/arma.
Steakslim
Mar 4 2009, 02:42
Also a ranking system is not a good idea. You complain about people playing to get kills, that's exactly what a ranking system will create, see BF2/2142, and CoD4.
and this is one of the multitude of reasons that has made OFP/ARMA great.
leave the bf/cod crap to ofp2.. we want to keep our ofp/arma.
Not to mention the unlocks in BF2 were a joke. I remember finally getting the barrett, only to have my heart broken when it took 2 shots to the chest to kill someone. This thing can be used to disable vehicles IRL, and I see infantry walking off a direct hit to the chest. Even if your body armor would prevent penetration, the impact would still KILL you.
Salvatore_Lee
Mar 4 2009, 11:22
Also a ranking system is not a good idea. You complain about people playing to get kills, that's exactly what a ranking system will create, see BF2/2142, and CoD4.
and this is one of the multitude of reasons that has made OFP/ARMA great.
leave the bf/cod crap to ofp2.. we want to keep our ofp/arma.
Not to mention the unlocks in BF2 were a joke. I remember finally getting the barrett, only to have my heart broken when it took 2 shots to the chest to kill someone. This thing can be used to disable vehicles IRL, and I see infantry walking off a direct hit to the chest. Even if your body armor would prevent penetration, the impact would still KILL you.
Remember kids, BF2 is NOT the sim you want. ArmA is ! http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
has ANYBODY here EVER played a CLANMATCH in ANY game? Or you just come here to post your random BS?
has ANYBODY here EVER played a CLANMATCH in ANY game? Or you just come here to post your random BS?
OFP was ripe with clanwars and they didn't need official missions. All tournaments have their own needs and make the missions to match them.
It's not like in CoD or BF games where you're stuck with premade levels and the amateur ones are always of lesser quality because of the effort it takes to model the level. In BIS' games scripting and location choices are in the main role and they are significantly easier to manage, thus the community can and has made missions far better than the official ones.
TheReddog
Mar 6 2009, 15:13
My clan and I were playing in a tournament with missions made by the admins for each match, that is until the other teams all dropped off and it imploded.
I can't see the harm of Arma2 having some dedicated PVP modes, in the end it is only going to increase the scope of people this game will attract. Some of you guys saying that PVP game modes are automatically unrealistic need to takes your heads out of your gaping pie holes.
has ANYBODY here EVER played a CLANMATCH in ANY game? Or you just come here to post your random BS?
Lol made me chuckle!
I've played matches in 'Enemy Down' Ladders and the other one for CoD4 and BF2 -yeah sry i was bored! http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rofl.gif
As well as back in the Ofp days! http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
as i sed i understand what your saying but we'll have to just wait and see what BI comes up with?
Commando84
Mar 9 2009, 23:33
Ithink the new version of warefare would be exiting to play in clan wars, just sad I live such a busy life to see that i would have time for anything else than the quicker 1-2 hour action trips once or twice a week. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif
Steakslim
Mar 10 2009, 00:25
has ANYBODY here EVER played a CLANMATCH in ANY game? Or you just come here to post your random BS?
You saying people don't have clan matches?
Edit: I will add that if I am correct, there are clan matches in ArmA, just not as frequent, and actually they don't often refere to themselves as clans. I know of some groups who occasionally have butted heads with one another.
has ANYBODY here EVER played a CLANMATCH in ANY game? Or you just come here to post your random BS?
You saying people don't have clan matches?
Edit: I will add that if I am correct, there are clan matches in ArmA, just not as frequent, and actually they don't often refere to themselves as clans. I know of some groups who occasionally have butted heads with one another.
still this is not a CM. What I mean is clan matches with standart maps in tourments cups etc..
Hi all
Leagues and ladders are so arbitrary and frankly boring.
Standard maps are just plane wrong headed and inevitably boring.
I am a great fan of the "Come and have a go, if you think your hard enough!" ethos.
I think challenge belts/cups are a better model.
The team that owns the cup sets up a map and the challenger makes another. Both teams play both sides of both maps. Points are assigned by the mission makers.
Either clan can use AI and spawn/JIP as they wish. The major advantage of this is that any team of any size can play any other team.
FA Cup, European cup, World Cup, Super Bowl, Wimbledon, the Olympics, Boxing, they are all challenge cup/medal/belt based.
Leagues and ladders are old hat.
ArmA II is new game and needs a new paradigm
Perhaps Territories/islands should be both the battleground and the prize; heck why not make players/and attached assets such as MOD teams the prize.
Kind Regards walker
Edit I have posted this as a seperate thread here:
http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....t=77679 (http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard311/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=56;t=77679)
still this is not a CM. What I mean is clan matches with standart maps in tourments cups etc..
Why do you want tournaments to play officially made missions? You've been explained already that "maps" aren't made like in other games: you have a premade world where you place units and scripts and there is no magic touch that the developers can deliver into a pvp mission that a normal community member can't.
Akira BAADAKKU
Mar 15 2009, 21:08
As to the issue at hand, if BIS don't include enough PvP then why not make your own? The editor is advanced enough, the game engine is complex enough to make all kinds of PvP that you can desire, if there aren't enough servers hosting PvP then get together with your friends and start up a PvP only server, if you build it they will come as the movie said http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
I thought about what Marek said and it remind me one question, why nobody tryied to remade an OFP animations addons for Armed Assault, as some modders modified some animations DATA of the OFP game ?
IF necessary for ArmAII, I suppose it's never late to make one to suit with it.
Michael_Wittman
Mar 15 2009, 21:25
Ok so lets setup the perfect kit for PvP:
- First of all lets be fair...not everyone out there has the same computer so lets set viewdistance for those with lower rigs .... say 1000m
- Then as you only have the money to play bandwildth for a 32 players server lets shave the map and make it 1.000mx1.000m .... that itself trows choppers and MBT out of the battle.
- Now change animations so you can switch weapons as it was unrealtournament
- Make it more interesting and put some hollow poorly modelled buildings so people can make strongholds ... this is starting to make it more likely stalingrad WOHOOO.
Now ... this is it ... the ultimate game... I´m just shitting my pants in excitement! how didnt I realize how cool this game could be in PvP???
JESUS! Shame on me http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/huh.gif
^^^
Epic failure at grasping a simple concept and understanding text written in this topic.
^^^
Epic failure at grasping a simple concept and understanding text written in this topic.
Yes. But he at least tried, bit like crippled tries to run... You have to give him (small) applause for that.
Akira BAADAKKU
Mar 15 2009, 22:57
- Now change animations so you can switch weapons as it was unrealtournament
The switching of weapons in OFP is exactly the same than in ArmA, so your sentence looks like a litlle bit...shabby...doesn't it ? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/whistle.gif
Nobody tends to make some dellusional neccessity to compare with Unreal or whatever you could name, it's even so absurd from you to dare to think of it when everybody here came from OFP and ArmA.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Now, to go back about what I said, I just would to hear what other "open minded" players (I suppose I must precise it to avoid any "gna gna gna PvP is fucked up" posting, so don't even answer to my post if you feel like saying something like that).
Lot of players who share the same point of view as Frantic, I, Celery (??), find that ArmA's body movements was a part of the failure this game has known, even thought I and a lot of players played it with good fun on CTF, Berzerk, until people quit the game pretty fast.
So I try to figure out, is there so few of Modders in ArmA in comparaison with OFP to still not have tryied such modifications, did they quit so earlier the game, or they just didn't think about doing it ?
I don't know anything about modding and making addons, but what could have prevented modders to try them, especially those who were fan of OFP ??
Michael_Wittman
Mar 15 2009, 23:12
Just warming your little corner...most people allready spoke... Its sad that you still dont see the pink elephant.
Who cares..
whisper
Mar 16 2009, 16:21
As to the issue at hand, if BIS don't include enough PvP then why not make your own? The editor is advanced enough, the game engine is complex enough to make all kinds of PvP that you can desire, if there aren't enough servers hosting PvP then get together with your friends and start up a PvP only server, if you build it they will come as the movie said http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
I thought about what Marek said and it remind me one question, why nobody tryied to remade an OFP animations addons for Armed Assault, as some modders modified some animations DATA of the OFP game ?
IF necessary for ArmAII, I suppose it's never late to make one to suit with it.
Because of public playing and the impossibility to download addons on the fly when connecting on a modded server
OK this is dedicated to all of those who saying that ArmA players prefer coop than PvP and that there is a very little PvP population.Enjoy
http://img12.imageshack.us/my.php?image=capture193200965349.jpg
Lol Guys you still arguing about pvp in arma - arma2, I can tell you bis have no plans to improve it for pvp and they never will cross your fingers for ofp2 it has more hope and looks better aswell.
To many co-op players on these forums killed this game with there so called "realistic game"
Do yourselves a favour when it comes out get the game by other means to test. If its any good buy it but I guarantee you it will be the same slow, buggy piece of crap it is today.
It would be interesting to see if the amount of units of arma vs arma 2 they sell drops because they pissed so many people off!
They lost 10 poeple I know of so theres -10 units.
Balschoiw
Mar 19 2009, 17:57
Quote[/b] ]To many co-op players on these forums killed this game with there so called "realistic game"
It´s what kept OFP and Arma alive. A community dedicated to a realistic gaming approach and I guess most people are here for that very reason. If it´s not your game, it´s not your game.
Quote[/b] ]Do yourselves a favour when it comes out get the game by other means to test. If its any good buy it but I guarantee you it will be the same slow, buggy piece of crap it is today.
Is this an open call for software privacy ? Smart move.
Noone knows how Arma 2 will be, afaik BIS tries to take it to a high level wich is much appreciated by a lot of people here. Bad-mouthing from single users will have little to no effect for people who are confident that BIS will do their best to deliver a game that they can be proud of. Using THEIR forum to throw dirt into their direction is a no-go.
Quote[/b] ]It would be interesting to see if the amount of units of arma vs arma 2 they sell drops because they pissed so many people off!
Prepare to be surprised.
Quote[/b] ]They lost 10 poeple I know of so theres -10 units.
If they all share your personal spirit and attitude, I´d say it´s not a big loss.
ck-claw
Mar 19 2009, 23:19
slow, buggy piece of crap it is today.
But i love my slow, buggy piece of crap! http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/nener.gif
BeerHunter
Mar 22 2009, 12:48
To many co-op players on these forums killed this game with there so called "realistic game"
Players like you are the exact reason I prefer SP most of the time.
I prefer the slow, methodical, planned, realistic approach vs just joining a server to blow things up and shoot anything that moves. God only knows there's enough games out there that offer THAT choice.
Steakslim
Mar 22 2009, 17:14
Honestly folks, what is wrong with either game modes? I would love more than anything to see a good PvP going on in this game. I don't mean run and gun PvP like CoD4 or other arcade shooters, I mean PvP where the players play as if they were doing coop...only in this instance it isn't AI that either side will be facing. Think of the tactics that could be deployed against one another. The AI is fun and all, but I always enjoy having something human on the other end trying to kill me, because they are not always so easily shaken off as some AI can be, let alone so blindly dumb in many situations. (unless the player is a 15 year old kid going ZERG RUSH KEKEKEKEKEKE REAL MEN HULL TANK! )
To many co-op players on these forums killed this game with there so called "realistic game"
Players like you are the exact reason I prefer SP most of the time.
I prefer the slow, methodical, planned, realistic approach vs just joining a server to blow things up and shoot anything that moves. God only knows there's enough games out there that offer THAT choice.
Join the army
Also if you read the posts you would see what we ask.
ante kai gamisou.
Dont think that most of ArmAs community wants fast paced, instant respawn PvP matches.
I see ArmAs community wanting simulated real life battles and warfare was a good start. I hope we get a a modified version of the warfare map with ArmAII.
whisper
Mar 31 2009, 12:12
I see a multifaceted ArmA II community that accept many different types of gaming.
Looks like I'm a dreamer, sadly
Frantic
Mar 31 2009, 13:32
I see a multifaceted ArmA II community that accept many different types of gaming.
Looks like I'm a dreamer, sadly
http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/icon_rolleyes.gif i have the same dream http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/icon_rolleyes.gif
It would be just great to be able to enjoy every game-mode in ArmAII!
In OFP are nearly all possible game-modes available and fun, on the contrary has ArmA only a few game-modes which are highly frequented and nothing else, so lets hope ArmAII will find back to the greatness of good old OFP with all the wide variety in game-modes with many people enjoying them.
The potential is there and we will have the chance to find out soon, if ArmAII is just another ArmA or the real successor of OFP. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
In OFP are nearly all possible game-modes available and fun, on the contrary has ArmA only a few game-modes which are highly frequented and nothing else
I just don't get it that how things turned into this. What happened? Did old MP-community just fade to other games or to private servers... Did it degenerate or advance to "higher" step of MP-gaming?
As far as i can see this is common trend in MP-gaming overall. People like to play regular maps to which they have got used to. Why is this? Because they want to perform well, because they want to play it safe (=eat pizza always with onion, kebab and pepperoni) or because they have nice memories of them?
I don't understand the reasons, but i sure would like to know answer.
Ps. Am i only one who is in impåression that at start Arma served quite selection of various missions in MP, but soon at least public servers started to run just same few missions.
sparks50
Apr 1 2009, 12:49
I think its partly because many of the casual players in OFP walked out of Arma because of its buggyness upon release, and higher system requirements.
"One question that MANY fans care about"
Don't really think so. A few maybe.
If you want PvP ... there's tons of them out there , from DoD through BF2 up to CoD5 to name but a few.
If you want good co-op , there are very few that offer the opportunity.
Don't understand why you would be so concerned about PvP with ArmedA since that would degrade it to a CoD clone and IMO , the ONLY fascination with PvP is to see how many kills you can rack up before you go down.
Co-op OTH , offers the opportunity to work as a team with friends to complete a mission by supporting and assisting rather than running aorund blowing things up.
Besides, PvP servers for the most part are simply [unenjoyable].
We (the gamers in our family) agree. We have played PvP tournament games and are completely uninterested in PvP play anymore. We now play with a team of strictly like-minded coop players.
We note that high-speed internet connections and high-end computers are absolutely critical to be competitive in PvP play.
There are other games for PvP - SOCOM Confrontation, CoD WaW, and BF2, to name a few. If PVP players really want their play style in ArmA, they should consider using the mission editor tools to develop missions for their community. We prefer that the Bohemia Interactive developers remain focused on their strengths - great cooperative play against the most challenging AI in the FPS industry.
This is, of course, strictly our preference. The value of a gaming community is voicing all opinions for developers and publishers to see what their customers want.
Edit: No, coop players are not as a group hostile towards PVP players. No, coop players do not as a group try to assert that pvp players should not play ArmA. Such claims are strictly contra hominem (personal) attacks aimed at trying to discredit people rather than engage in reasoned discussion.
The coop players posting in this thread do consistently agree that there are several other games already that cater to pvp play styles. Furthermore, if pvp players really want their play styles in ArmA, the mission editor is readily available for their use. Therefore, it seems logical that Bohemia Interactive should not divert their development resources to support a niche customer base inconsistent with BI's strengths and prior product focus.
...
Exactly.
I have NEVER played PvP in ArmA where people truly co-operated with their team to accomplish the objective.
And the *current* engine simply does not excel in CQC, in which many PvPs take place. I have played a few PvP games, and it truly degrades to a crappy wannabe CoD.
If you want CoD - or BF2 - go play either one of those. I am a CoD player. And I love it, it is brilliant for some quick fun. But don't try turning ArmA into CoD or BF, and certainly don't turn it into a competition. This is the only game of its kind which the public can readily access. Don't degrade from its sim qualities.
Hi all
There are lots of PvP gameforms.
Some like the points based paint ball style. The enclosed CTF, Death Match etc. And I like the occasional half hour of hexenkessel though it is now less than once a month.
Others like the Open CTF style and many prefer the C&H such as Berzerk for which BIS's OFP 1 and ArmA are more suited.
Others prefer the large scale CTI missions such as Warfare.
Others still prfer the realistic PvP Coops like Presense Patrol where sides are not equal the warfare is realistic and asymetric. Where the win concepts are complex and even convoluted.
I must admit those are the PvP form I prefer. I am not against twitch play, I began with it one and a half decades ago with Doom, Quake and Duke Nukem. It is just I prefer the the cerebrel forms where twitch is just as aspect. As I pointed out I like complex game forms.
The thing about BIS's OFP 1 and ArmA is that it is the only game that allows them all in the same mission.
Kind Regards walker
TurkeyBurgers
Apr 14 2009, 19:34
So this game IS NOT a PVP game? I myself have ZERO interest in fighting against bots. I thought this games MAIN focus was on PVP? No? Ugh. I don't know where you guys have been but PVP is 100 times better than fighting against some bots. Humans are VERY unpredictable. There is a GREAT sense of pride in knowing some guy is throwing his keyboard against the wall at the other end of the internet connection compared with BOT number 72 has died. I thought this game was going to be like
Project Reality Xtimes 1000. Bots are really designed for people that lack the skill to take on a human competitor. Basically noobs (no offense to anyone not capable of handling the challenge of human opponents).
sparks50
Apr 14 2009, 19:55
It has both the option of PVP and coop. So what is there to argue about?
So this game IS NOT a PVP game? I myself have ZERO interest in fighting against bots. I thought this games MAIN focus was on PVP? No? Ugh. I don't know where you guys have been but PVP is 100 times better than fighting against some bots. Humans are VERY unpredictable. There is a GREAT sense of pride in knowing some guy is throwing his keyboard against the wall at the other end of the internet connection compared with BOT number 72 has died. I thought this game was going to be like
Project Reality Xtimes 1000. Bots are really designed for people that lack the skill to take on a human competitor. Basically noobs (no offense to anyone not capable of handling the challenge of human opponents).
WTF u even played CTI or EvolutionBlue ?
U cant play without Bots.
And boths Gamemods are the best
Zerst0ren
Apr 14 2009, 20:12
WTF u even played CTI or EvolutionBlue ?
U cant play without Bots.
And boths Gamemods are the best
Well, analyzing his text and number of posts, I'd say he's a BF2 faggot. (no offence)
ArmA PvP is awesome. To bad 97.3% of the servers are coop... :confused:
Well, analyzing his text and number of posts, I'd say he's a BF2 faggot. (no offence)
Judging by your reply and your number of posts I suggest you quickly read and understand our forum rules you accepted as you signed up.
We do not tolerate any namecalling here, no matter if you add "no offence" to it or not.
I don't care about the story in ArmA2.. I'm only looking for a nice multiplayer platform. And i have big concerns about the quality of the multiplayer.
PvP is the most important part of multiplayer. And creation of a nicely balanced PvP game is a really difficult job. Look at Left 4 Dead. Absolutely best multiplayer of 2008 and the engine is a slightly modded Source ;))) Valve made an exelent job with LOTS of testing and balancing.
Too bad BIS don't have Valve's experience and resourses..
Steakslim
Apr 14 2009, 20:43
I got to play some interesting PvP in ArmA the last few days. One thing I think is that the usual set of game modes can almost seem uninteresting. Capturing flagpoints and such is so overdone that it becomes boring quickly in a map as big as ArmA's, especially when the capture points are only in a small portion of the island. Really in a game like this there needs to be larger more complex objectives to have, which I'm sure some mission makers have done, I just don't think they've been circulated very much.
Johnnie_Walker
Apr 14 2009, 20:57
Basically noobs (no offense to anyone not capable of handling the challenge of human opponents).
That's a funny statement.
You're wrong, these "noobs" just like diff kind of gameplay, it is not they aren't capable of, they just don't want/don't like to.
I think you pretty much missed the point, ArmA is a good game for PvP battles, just the game is even more suitable for people looking for a strategic and slow paced gameplay which involves cooperation and tactics.
I haven't played a coop game for ages (not sp games also), but I am pretty sure you will not like the way you "control the soldier" aka controls&animations, because that's the reason a lot of the Operation Flashpoint gamers didn't like ArmA (along with the bugged realease ofc).
Hi TurkeyBurgers
As I pointed out ArmA runs to all forms of PvP and not just the twitch forms of CTF and Death Match but also the slower paced C&H and PvP Coop (You may have played something like that in BF) and yes it plays Coop too.
You can, just play confined paintball style CTF missions in ArmA if you want, the mission editor is second to none so making whatever you like is easy and many people create such missions so there will be 100s to download, but that is a little like taking a Bugatti Veyron for a tootle to the corner shop; you might look good doing it to some people but really if that is all you do, the people who count will think you are a numptie.
I do not think you should equate ArmA AI with anything you have seen in any other game. The litany of former BF/COD4/CS players who made the assumption ArmA AI was stupid and then got their Leet backsides kicked from one, end of mission, to the other because they did not learn basic TTP, is endless.
And the amount of them that then come and whine on the forums because the dumb AI beat them is amazing. I would be ashamed to admit a dumb AI beat me, being beat by an intelligent AI on the other hand...
If you are not good enough to beat the ArmA AI, at least some of the time, it is obvious you will not last a second in ArmA PvP against the people who can. That said ArmA clans are always looking for Leet/Noobs they can batter into shape. Assuming you are going to beat everyone in ArmA because you are Leet in BF project reality is only going to embarrass you.
One thing you may not be aware of, is the number of real soldiers who play ArmA. They do so because of all the FPS games ArmA is closest to reality. That is also why its pro version VBS has become the "De-Facto simulator" for NATO. Those people who you see one day playing the coops in ArmA and another the PvP ArmA games are often serving or former special forces guys in their day job.
Kind Regards walker
MadDogX
Apr 14 2009, 22:18
I don't know if this has been said before (didn't bother reading the entire 30+ page "threadnought"), but whether or not ArmA (or ArmA2 for that matter) was/is "made for PvP" is beside the point. The community runs the servers, the community makes the majority of the maps, the community decides which maps are popular and which aren't - so people crying "moar PvP!!" and "coop is for noobz!!" might aswell be shouting at a brick wall. All you're really saying is, "I don't like the way everybody else is playing this game. Play it differently!".
That's just not going to work. Even if BIS makes a vast array of PvP missions, mission makers will still be making their own - many of which will be coop, and some will still be very high quality. Fact is, if the majority of players prefer to play coop, they will play coop (*gasp*). It's not like BIS can start dictating which missions are to be hosted and played on third party servers anyway. At the end of the day, if PvP is still unpopular in ArmA2, there's nothing anyone can do about it - except if you want to try creating and promoting extremely high quality PvP missions and host them (exclusively) on a couple of high performance servers.
That's a funny statement.
You're wrong, these "noobs" just like diff kind of gameplay, it is not they aren't capable of, they just don't want/don't like to.
I think you pretty much missed the point, ArmA is a good game for PvP battles, just the game is even more suitable for people looking for a strategic and slow paced gameplay which involves cooperation and tactics.
...
Exactly.
Hi TurkeyBurgers
As I pointed out ArmA runs to all forms of PvP and not just the twitch forms of CTF and Death Match but also the slower paced C&H and PvP Coop (You may have played something like that in BF) and yes it plays Coop too.
You can, just play confined paintball style CTF missions in ArmA if you want, the mission editor is second to none so making whatever you like is easy and many people create such missions so there will be 100s to download, but that is a little like taking a Bugatti Veyron for a tootle to the corner shop; you might look good doing it to some people but really if that is all you do, the people who count will think you are a numptie.
I do not think you should equate ArmA AI with anything you have seen in any other game. The litany of former BF/COD4/CS players who made the assumption ArmA AI was stupid and then got their Leet backsides kicked from one, end of mission, to the other because they did not learn basic TTP, is endless.
And the amount of them that then come and whine on the forums because the dumb AI beat them is amazing. I would be ashamed to admit a dumb AI beat me, being beat by an intelligent AI on the other hand...
If you are not good enough to beat the ArmA AI, at least some of the time, it is obvious you will not last a second in ArmA PvP against the people who can. That said ArmA clans are always looking for Leet/Noobs they can batter into shape. Assuming you are going to beat everyone in ArmA because you are Leet in BF project reality is only going to embarrass you.
One thing you may not be aware of, is the number of real soldiers who play ArmA. They do so because of all the FPS games ArmA is closest to reality. That is also why its pro version VBS has become the "De-Facto simulator" for NATO. Those people who you see one day playing the coops in ArmA and another the PvP ArmA games are often serving or former special forces guys in their day job.
Kind Regards walker
Very well said.
whisper
Apr 16 2009, 14:08
1) Imho you'll see that many PvP addicts or, as Coop noobs like to call them, Twitch Kiddies (after all, if we are going to only post brainless generalizations, then let's do it in true style form) are not really agreeing with OP's idea to force BI to make PvP "maps" (simply because the OFP/ArmA mission editor and mission download system makes it a moot point)
2) BUT (and this has nothing to do with the OP), they'd like to have a fun and playable form of somewhat twitchy PvP (not asking for Quake, here, mind you), something ArmA failed to deliver, unlike OFP. Because of bugs, performance and animations, things that were fine (or fine enough) in OFP.
If you really think such demand (point 2) is irrational, plz answer this : What necessary ArmA feature destroyed the fun that Twitch Kiddies had in OFP? I see none, so I don't see any drawback in making both Coop Noobs and Twitch Kiddies happy of the ArmA2 product.
Stop acting like the 2 communities (is there really 2?) can't coexist, they did in OFP
1) Imho you'll see that many PvP addicts or, as Coop noobs like to call them, Twitch Kiddies (after all, if we are going to only post brainless generalizations, then let's do it in true style form) are not really agreeing with OP's idea to force BI to make PvP "maps" (simply because the OFP/ArmA mission editor and mission download system makes it a moot point)
2) BUT (and this has nothing to do with the OP), they'd like to have a fun and playable form of somewhat twitchy PvP (not asking for Quake, here, mind you), something ArmA failed to deliver, unlike OFP. Because of bugs, performance and animations, things that were fine (or fine enough) in OFP.
If you really think such demand (point 2) is irrational, plz answer this : What necessary ArmA feature destroyed the fun that Twitch Kiddies had in OFP? I see none, so I don't see any drawback in making both Coop Noobs and Twitch Kiddies happy of the ArmA2 product.
Stop acting like the 2 communities (is there really 2?) can't coexist, they did in OFP
+1
orthrough i dont like being marked as "Coop noobs":D
Nigelwow
Apr 17 2009, 13:14
the evolution maps in ArmA are great and i played it every time again
the evolution maps in ArmA are great and i played it every time again
evolution maps don't really stress coop really, and if you ask me, is one of the worst thing that happened to public servers in arma.
even so, this whole thread is pretty much useless. Throwing words at each other rather than finding a solution (in most cases), not to say that requesting PvP to work similar to other PvP games out there is idiotic since arma is on the other end of the game spectrum
but hell, everyone has the right to post whatever he wants as long as it stays within bis rules
-Total-
Apr 17 2009, 15:41
As I stated earlier in this thread, I made several missions using the AAS template. From urban infantry only to infantry w/ tanks, and all out war using infantry, armor, and air assets.
So, if I take Domination off of my server (which keeps it populated nightly I might add) and replace it with PvP missions that utilize the communication, strategic, and tactical requirements ArmA employs then my server should be expected to fill up over the following week with the hordes of PvP seekers right?
If they are out there waiting, then why didn't this happen the last 5 times I uploaded PvP missions from AAS to Berzerk, to whatever Pvp mission I downloaded at armaholic and advertised it here that a PvP server was up?
The answer: Cuz those same PvP players came up with every reason in the world as to why PvP cannot work in ArmA. The simple fact of the matter is that PvP in ArmA takes too much coordination and strategic sense as an entire team for most random pubbers.
Does CTI count as PvP? Because I remember that being very popular on OFP, and obviously couldn't have been further away from arcade style fps?
I'm new to this debate so forgive me. But I played OFP and skipped ARMA and now I want in again on ARMA 2. I'd be sad and confused if there were no CTI style matches going on in ARMA 2, of course making small little maps and CTF like Hexenkessel holds not alot of appeal to me, it's like using an F-22 to settle a bar dispute, but do people believe there wont be large scale PvP like CTI on arma 2? :confused:
Hi, the main problem that i see on the PvP games are the number of players that can play
on the same map (area) without take down the performance; you can't place 50 vs 50 human
players on the same map without ruin the game's performance. Also, where do you think that
you gonna find 100 players to play ones versus others?, not only in a serious way, just that
want to play; and PvP on which conditions? an assault to take one possition?, a hill? a valley?
a bridge? or a part of a city?. Because the people refuse to play let's say... a defend the
base mission; with the internal guard patrols, the exterior patrols, sniper teams arround the
base, posibility of use the base's ground and air vehicles, people assigned to the defend of
certain vital structures of that base or FARP; where you think that you gonna find people
with the patience, will, time and disciplyne to do all that as they should?.
What the people want it's quick fun, something not that limited and where they've a good
ammount of "rambo style" freedom of movement/action. No one whant to play something
like that; half of the players on booth teams go "rambo style" while the other half becomes
defenseless because half of the vehicles and men go at their own while they try to follow
the orders with half of the resources for the attack or the defense. A serious PvP mission
it's impossible with the engine, the players and the computers that we've. The serious PvP
it's more for a Squad/Squads based PvP VBS2 (training engine) than for this one. Let's C ya
Frantic
Apr 17 2009, 18:58
...A serious PvP mission it's impossible with the engine, the players and the computers that we've. The serious PvP it's more for a Squad/Squads based PvP VBS2 (training engine) than for this one. Let's C ya
Sorry, but i have to disagree on that one.
The engine offers nearly everything what many PvP players like me are looking for.
I can create a lot of different styles of PvP game-modes with the mission-scripting language and i can create a lot of missions with different scenarios with the missions-editor.
Furthermore, ArmA already offered great player numbers possible on a good server, so i dont think that ArmAII will suddenly have lower numbers possible.
In addition, clan PvP matches are really a different story compared to public PvP action.
In OFP we had clan sizes of max 15 players online and ready for a match and normally the maximum of players were just something around 7vs7.
In ArmA we can have double as much players possible on a normal server without having a lag-party and therefor im really curious how many players will be possible on a standard server at ArmAII.
However, for clan PvP matches like in CTF are player numbers of 10vs10 big enough, but if you wanna play C&H more than 15vs15 are definitely better and i see a great potential for nice C&H action in ArmAII.
Many old PvP players from OFP days fear that ArmAII will be just a better looking ArmA with more weapons and vehicles and no changes at the animations, movements and controls of the infantry units.
Personally, I just wanna have that great feeling back from OFP where i really thought that im running over that field or sneaking through a forest and not that robotic feeling of ArmA where i always think that i control a robot.
Many PvP players just wanna have fluid movements and instant controls in ArmAII for the infantry units because thats missing in ArmA compared to OFP!
The rest of the great features of OFP is still available in ArmA and will be in ArmAII, like a whole world to move on without borders every few meters and the freedom of doing whatever you want on that world or with the engine! ;)
RasdenFasden
Apr 21 2009, 11:09
Hi, the main problem that i see on the PvP games are the number of players that can play
on the same map (area) without take down the performance; you can't place 50 vs 50 human
players on the same map without ruin the game's performance. Also, where do you think that
you gonna find 100 players to play ones versus others?, not only in a serious way, just that
want to play; and PvP on which conditions? an assault to take one possition?, a hill? a valley?
a bridge? or a part of a city?. Because the people refuse to play let's say... a defend the
base mission; with the internal guard patrols, the exterior patrols, sniper teams arround the
base, posibility of use the base's ground and air vehicles, people assigned to the defend of
certain vital structures of that base or FARP; where you think that you gonna find people
with the patience, will, time and disciplyne to do all that as they should?.
What the people want it's quick fun, something not that limited and where they've a good
ammount of "rambo style" freedom of movement/action. No one whant to play something
like that; half of the players on booth teams go "rambo style" while the other half becomes
defenseless because half of the vehicles and men go at their own while they try to follow
the orders with half of the resources for the attack or the defense. A serious PvP mission
it's impossible with the engine, the players and the computers that we've. The serious PvP
it's more for a Squad/Squads based PvP VBS2 (training engine) than for this one. Let's C ya
What you basically did with this post is say something that's been done before in ArmA very often is impossible.
Really. Look into the numerous PvP tournaments.
...
Exactly.
I have NEVER played PvP in ArmA where people truly co-operated with their team to accomplish the objective.
And the *current* engine simply does not excel in CQC, in which many PvPs take place. I have played a few PvP games, and it truly degrades to a crappy wannabe CoD.
If you want CoD - or BF2 - go play either one of those. I am a CoD player. And I love it, it is brilliant for some quick fun. But don't try turning ArmA into CoD or BF, and certainly don't turn it into a competition. This is the only game of its kind which the public can readily access. Don't degrade from its sim qualities.
How can you declare your ignorance about the things you talk about and still keep a straight face? If you have NEVER played pvp in ArmA, I suggest that you don't talk about it because you look quite stupid that way. Pvp in OFP was lots of fun and it's very fun in ArmA as well if you don't let the animations get to you, so don't try to tell that the engine isn't good enough when it's better than in Call of Duty or Unreal Tournament.
"Go play game X" is the epitome of the lack of understanding around here, congratulations. Why would I want to play Call of Duty or Battlefield 2 when I want to play Armed Assault against other humans? How is it difficult to understand that they are completely different games? The only thing that's the same is that you can play against fellow humans in all of them, and in all of them it's still radically different.
guerilla [MCY]
Apr 21 2009, 19:55
somehow it's funny how the same discussion goes on 'n on since years without a comment by BIS. well no comment is also a comment. i just checked the latest demo vids by some Hungarian ArmA 2 Preview and i'm still seeing the same controls. it seems like moving over a pdf file with the hand sign instead of having this old ofp1985 feeling, to be in the action. i guess we have to bare in mind, that this same engine is used for vbs, where those control bugs (i call it so, sorry) seem to be wished for a proper sim, even doh you should be able to take full control over your equipment with experience, what's actually not possible like in arma1 and arma2 as it looks. well actually i don't care anymore as i gonna buy both games anyway and i guess i'll end up in ofp2 as they try make a game simulating war instead of a simulator which simulates a game -> fun?.
I have played PvP in ArmA. I thought that was clear. My point was, that hardly anyone actually worked as a team! Don't counter with a "but you are not playing in a clan" argument. There is more teamwork in public servers in BF and CoD.
I've seen numerous geometry problems, as well as difficult handling in close quarters. I'm sure everyone here has gotten stuck while navigating through a house. ArmA just does not excel at being a twitch game.
For a game that I just want to play out of the box, without the hassle of clans, BF and CoD seem far superior.
Binkowski
Apr 22 2009, 01:11
I enjoyed PvP in ArmA however, my heart's with the classic co-ops that are SUPER realistic, down the the right load outs, no weapon crates where you can magically change your weapon. Etc etc.
S!fkaIaC
Apr 22 2009, 12:22
I was reading through a lot of posts in this thread, it is obvious that we all have different understanding what PvP is about. What are the characteristics? Once this is common, we could finally start to struggle.
PvP missions must have IMHO:
- no respawn
- no AI
- utilization of realistic mods like WGL/ACE
If you think I am wrong, slap me.
Hi all
Everyone has their opinion of what PvP is.
They are all valid.
I must admit I too am not much of a fan of the paintball forms such as DM and CTF.
I do not think they are the forms of PvP that MANY fans care about.
True PvP for me has to be realism based. I want complexity not simplicity. If I want simplicity I will play space invaders.
Kind Regards walker
I was reading through a lot of posts in this thread, it is obvious that we all have different understanding what PvP is about. What are the characteristics? Once this is common, we could finally start to struggle.
PvP missions must have IMHO:
- no respawn
- no AI
- utilization of realistic mods like WGL/ACE
If you think I am wrong, slap me.
The only requirement for a pvp mission is that a player fights against another player. Everything else is details up to personal preference, pvp is a category containing almost every multiplayer game mode that isn't coop. Pvp in ArmA is simply ArmA against other players instead of AI, the game is the same.
Call of Duty pvp = Playing Call of Duty against other people
ArmA pvp = Playing Armed Assault against other people
There is a difference.
Crazyfox
Apr 23 2009, 11:26
So who will set up a TvT server for arma2 then?
A server with mandatory team play, containing only TvT missions with no respawn.
Ive never seen such server on Arma.
Plz set one up for Arma2 and I'll play there all the time. :292:
MadDogX
Apr 23 2009, 12:16
ArmA just does not excel at being a twitch game.
That's one point I agree with.
Other than that, looking at the last few posts, there seems to be some disagreement over the actual definition of PvP. I tend to agree with Celery, i.e. PvP simply means playing a game against other players. Any further definitions are just subsets of the general concept. For example:
- no AI = "Pure PvP"
- no respawn = "Ultra-Realistic PvP"
- mission based PvP (i.e. attack/defend) = "Counter Coop"
etc.
All of those are variations on PvP and are perfectly possible in the ArmA engine.
I think that the current type of PvP games mostly used by other games are not suited for ARMA(2), But this doesn’t mean it cannot not be done, they have to come up with new type of PvP, that will make teamwork and cautious(not sure I spelled it correct), the most fun way to play. Without making it boring.
They have to use the things that make this game different.
Use the big world, by given pvp objectives that follow each other up. This make traveling important, but will concentrated most players toward 1 point.
You could place some NPC’s at the objectives so that rushing is out of the question.
Make respawn only available but only if your helped by one of your teammates.
There are tons of possibilities, and I think that PVP can be a lot of fun in ARMA2
MadDogX
Apr 23 2009, 12:36
Use the big world, by given pvp objectives that follow each other up. This make traveling important, but will concentrated most players toward 1 point.
You could place some NPC’s at the objectives so that rushing is out of the question.
Make respawn only available but only if your helped by one of your teammates.
What you are suggesting sounds a bit like a mixture of ArmA Warfare and Enemy Territory Quake Wars. Could be a lot of fun if done properly. ;)
There are tons of possibilities
Correction: the possibilities are almost infinite. With a lot of scripting and (in some cases) a bit of modding, you can turn ArmA into almost any game you want. With a forced camera view, a bunch of dialogs and some fancy scripting you could even emulate Command & Conquer.
I should elaborate, my experience with PvP in ArmA has only been a disorganised one.
Horrible mission designers placing tonnes of obstacles and objects just to "spruce" it up, which is really what ArmA is not about or should really be about.
Today I had a brilliant PvP experience. Today I took on a friend in a scenario where we both had a squad of five people, four computer controlled units and one human. The town of Pesto was being contested. Through superior placing of each of my units, I was able to conquer the city and destroy his squad. I can only imagine how much fun this would be with other players in my squad.
But mission designers tend to think otherwise. They spam useless objects, repeating the same ruined buildings/water towers/barrels/walls over and over, making gameplay extremely sluggish and unrealistic.
Deathmatches quickly degrade to CoD 4 run and gun gameplay, and to repeat myself, ArmA is not twitch friendly.
I should have elaborated more on my experiences with PvP earlier, and to summarise my point, most are simple deathmatches with horrendous object placing, which the game does not handle well.
Crazyfox
Apr 23 2009, 13:29
Having respawn in PvP missions automaticly makes it into a run n' gun game. Even if you have some respawning time or the respawn points are placed far away from the action this happends.
If you play without respawn, as soon as you enforce a little bit of team play you get an advantage.
BI should add some sort of round feature for Arma2. Something that could restart the mission fast when a mission is over. All this to lower waiting time for dead players which is the main reason people don't play without respawn.
Also if you play it right there isn't any long waiting. If you stay in your team, you either die with your team or kill the other team.
Ai can surely be used in PvP. They can add some flavour to the mission, like blocking some paths for one of the sides. But the main purpose shouldn't be to fight Ai when there are human players around.
Since some people here seems to long for some good PvP i hope we get some PvP servers for Arma2.
So who will set up a TvT server for arma2 then?
A server with mandatory team play, containing only TvT missions with no respawn.
Ive never seen such server on Arma.
Plz set one up for Arma2 and I'll play there all the time. :292:
I've been on a server like that in Armed Assault and it's really not as exciting as it might sound like. The problem with no-respawn pvp such as Attack & Defend is that people don't act like AI, there is no safe mode for players who know with 100% certainty that another human team is coming to blow up the objective. That results in a very slow-paced stakeout on both sides with defenders dug in ambush positions far from the actual objective and the attackers advancing 10 meters per minute trying to snipe any defenders they see. Then the last guy hides somewhere until he's found and killed, making the wait for the dead players simply boring. It's like Counter-Strike but 100x slower.
Crazyfox
Apr 23 2009, 15:00
I've been on a server like that in Armed Assault and it's really not as exciting as it might sound like. The problem with no-respawn pvp such as Attack & Defend is that people don't act like AI, there is no safe mode for players who know with 100% certainty that another human team is coming to blow up the objective. That results in a very slow-paced stakeout on both sides with defenders dug in ambush positions far from the actual objective and the attackers advancing 10 meters per minute trying to snipe any defenders they see. Then the last guy hides somewhere until he's found and killed, making the wait for the dead players simply boring. It's like Counter-Strike but 100x slower.
"don't act like AI"? I don't see why you would want players to be like that?:p
No, honestly I know what you mean. Ai soldiers are the best targets for an ambush. But if you don't have a too short timelimit you can acually do a suprise attack. I know i have.
What you describe though just sounds like a poorly made mission.
Were there only open ground, making it ideal for snipers? And were there only one way to get to the objective, since it sounds like the defenders knew where to wait for the attackers? And I think the last guy wouldn't be so hard to find if there is an objective he is supposed to defend.
I've played several Team vs team games, and I think they beat all the other gameplays. But unfortunatly these servers have coop missions as well and people who prefer coop is usually the majority.
Frantic
Apr 23 2009, 15:10
...Since some people here seems to long for some good PvP i hope we get some PvP servers for Arma2.
If ArmAII wont be such a bug-party like ArmA was then MCY will be happy to get a nice public PvP ArmAII server up!
You can be sure that the first custom missions on our server will be a DM mission and a CTF mission made by the MCY-mission-makers.
Now you will maybe think, "why DM and CTF?!?"
-because DM is just fun, is a good training for movements and is a very nice and fast way to get used to the different kind of handguns and rifles.
-because CTF was and still is the best teamplay experience i and many others had so far and that was OFP:RES CTF...
After having at least one good DM and CTF mission on the server, you can be sure that we will try to bring more game-modes into ArmAII. Which game-modes depends on the gameplay of ArmAII and the interests of our mission-makers.
About the PvP missions without respawns...
Im really not sure how a mission without respawn should be fun...i was even bored of CSS because of the waiting times...:o...so there needs to be at least a time-limit for a round otherwise the server ends up with just 2 guys left on it searching each other on whole Chernarus for hours...lol
Nah...i will try to think about a way to have a mission without respawns and to have fun with it at the same time...wish me luck! :D
Crazyfox
Apr 23 2009, 15:53
About the PvP missions without respawns...
Im really not sure how a mission without respawn should be fun...i was even bored of CSS because of the waiting times...:o...so there needs to be at least a time-limit for a round otherwise the server ends up with just 2 guys left on it searching each other on whole Chernarus for hours...lol
Nah...i will try to think about a way to have a mission without respawns and to have fun with it at the same time...wish me luck! :D
Yeah, a timelimit or an admin is alway good to have. ;)
DM is not my cup of tea, but here are some suggestions if you wanna do some no respawn missions:
One team drives a convoy one team ambushes, and tries to kill something of importance.
One team try to rescue someone while the other team try to assasinate the same.
Then there is the usual Attack/Defend something/someone.
As long as you don't make an "wipe out the whole other team" mission or make the missions to advanced there shoulden't be any long waiting times.
You could also respawn dead people on an remote island and let them shoot each other there until the main mission ends.
Hope you manage to get something nice up. :)
sparks50
Apr 23 2009, 16:13
I find pvp no-respawn tactical missions the most exiting. Theres not as much tight packed "action" and shooting, but a LOT more tension and excitement. Unlike coop scenarios where the AI wouldn't even scare a rabbit.
There are many different styles in FPS play. Some like co-op play for its emphasis on teamwork with no explicit need for someone to "lose." We (the players in our home and team) definitely fall in this camp.
Anyone who says that AI is incapable of posing a challenge has clearly not experienced AI smartly using cover, suppressing fire, and flanking maneuvers in executing the Sixth Sense mod and hunter scripts.
Others like the challenge of PvP and Team Vs. Team play. Having played in tournament PvP team competition games ourselves, we understand the attraction of this style even if we do not share such a preference anymore.
Hopefully we can all clink our glasses together in toast when all is said and done and, whether we like "lite," lagers, pilsners, ales, or stouts, we can all agree that ArmA and beers are wonderful in variety without any put-downs of one preference or another.
I find pvp no-respawn tactical missions the most exiting. Theres not as much tight packed "action" and shooting, but a LOT more tension and excitement. Unlike coop scenarios where the AI wouldn't even scare a rabbit.
It doesnt really matter if you respawn or not it only matters if the game will actually have any mp at all. Finnaly no-respawn games like Counter-Strike etc have a timer limit of each round at 1:45 for 2 reasons:
1. Tactical emphasys: plant the bomb within 1:42 seconds (3 sec to plant it).
2. User friendly AFK time, when you die you are dead, you wait the round to finnish so you can play again so there has to be some fast round action in order to have something like that.
I made a few maps myself of this type and test with my clan put in order to complete the mission need at least 15 minutes the scenario of that missions were CSAR. Put a time of 20mins but the fact that if you die you have to wait the most 18 minutes (left 2 minutes for tactical positioning) makes it tiering for the "loosers". From what my ex-clan said there were generaly good great suspense, but still there was the death issue: one team has to rescure a PLAYER pilot and lead him to a helo in their guard post so he can leave and a SEAL team has to either destroy the helicopter (only with satchels) or assasinate the pilot, all this in the middle of the night under a storm that can "blind" the sniper of the SEALS.
MAP of that:
ISLA DE VICOTRIA extraction point and guard post of opfor
Pilots position with spawn radious of 1000m at Cabo Santa Lucia
Porto de Perolas some 150m in Blufr sniper team in boat
Mataredo Ground Blufor team insertion with parachute random at 300m
6 on 6
ESL C&H is ideal if you ask me AGIAN :D
Crazyfox
Apr 25 2009, 15:51
I made a few maps myself of this type and test with my clan put in order to complete the mission need at least 15 minutes the scenario of that missions were CSAR. Put a time of 20mins but the fact that if you die you have to wait the most 18 minutes (left 2 minutes for tactical positioning) makes it tiering for the "loosers". From what my ex-clan said there were generaly good great suspense, but still there was the death issue: one team has to rescure a PLAYER pilot and lead him to a helo in their guard post so he can leave and a SEAL team has to either destroy the helicopter (only with satchels) or assasinate the pilot, all this in the middle of the night under a storm that can "blind" the sniper of the SEALS.
Good post.
Are you saying that in your mission, if you are the first one to get shot you can have to wait up 15 minutes?
Splitting one side up in two squads, and advanced no respawn missions does in fact make longer waiting times.
I don't really have a problem waiting becouse i think there are more pro's than con's with no respawn.
One solution to this problem is to put the respawning point at a remote location and let the dead guys have a small firefight while waiting.
Good post.
Are you saying that in your mission, if you are the first one to get shot you can have to wait up 15 minutes?
Splitting one side up in two squads, and advanced no respawn missions does in fact make longer waiting times.
I don't really have a problem waiting becouse i think there are more pro's than con's with no respawn.
One solution to this problem is to put the respawning point at a remote location and let the dead guys have a small firefight while waiting.
Yes that what I am saying if you die you are dead, you have to wait a whole 15 minutes either one side wins or the timer to end so the result is the assasins team to win.
The nature of this type of missions does not allow respawn... It makes no sense to manage killing the sniper team and then let them to come back as the player who plays the pilot dies only once. I tried using the ressurect system but it was giving that suspense :)
On C&H maps of the ESL pack when you die y wait 30seconds and the you respawn at base or choose to to respawn at the mobile respawn vehicle.
I've only made it half way through the thread here, but I'd like a response to this question, if possible.
What _exactly_ is clunky about the ArmA infantry animations?
This is an honest question, as I have yet to see a real answer to it. People who have an issue with it rarely explain it further. The most I've heard is that some animations take too long to finish (ie: going to binoculars from AT), or some animations are missing transitions.
Anyone care to explain further what they mean?
sparks50
Apr 27 2009, 02:01
Well first of all, you cannot abort animations, and this is a serious issue because many animations takes a long time before they are finished. Theres little weight and inertia in some of the animations.
You cannot move while reloading.
Weapons do not clip, neither are they pulled back when you turn to a wall. This results in difficulties in navigating indoors, because the player needs so much space around him to move.
The standing-crouch-prone position does often not relate well to what you are taking cover behind. Some covers may be too high for you to shoot from crouch, and exposing you far too much when standing etc.
Vietcong solved this with by making you rise just above the cover you are standing behind, when looking in the ironsight.
Its somehow illustrated in this image that I stole from dslyecxi.com.
http://dslyecxi.com/images/bestoftactical/vc_prone_is_peek.jpg
Thats my issues anyway. In general I think the true first person movement system is very good, and has a lot of nice restrictions and possibilities in it.
It only needs some more smoothening and detail.
@<hidden>
If you ask me, nothing really
As sparks explained, once an animation is started, you cannot abort it.
That means, if you shoot a man who is switching from rifle to AT just as he starts, you have to wait for him to crouch, mount his rifle and pull out the AT launcher (at least, I think it plays the full AT sequence without stopping at crouch).
Its really disrupting in CQC, and its difficult to tell whether or not they are dead.
Movement is realistic, but its quite sluggish and slow. Its very difficult to move with any sort of precision.
whisper
Apr 27 2009, 11:57
Not only that. It's also happening very often that your character take as much as 4 more steps AFTER you stopped pushing the forward key.
Transitions for micro movements (crouch/stand up) are imho a bit too long
Same for direction change transitions (very problematic when reaching cover)
Like said, when turning around indoor, your gun will get stuck everywhere, preventing you from moving correctly.
Too many glitches for people who also like the shooting aspect of a FPS
It's really annoying to have a new threat pop up right in the middle of reloading or switching weapons. The player is completely helpless with no way to abort.
Equally annoying is the "switch to pistol or binoculars" dance without ever choosing either.
The whole reloading of an AT4 (M136) animation is completely bogus. The AT4 tubes are single shot disposable, not reloadable like a bazooka. That animation is really annoying - especially getting shot while in the reload animation for a weapon that in reality is simply a matter of throwing away an empty tube and grabbing a new one.
Another animation that is sadly lacking is the complete absence of the ability to duck behind cover, pop up and fire off a few rounds, and then duck back down easily. The PS3 game "Uncharted - Drake's Fortune" does this very well with a simple key combination. Every FPS game should have this ability.
However, this mini-thread about animations seems off topic. This topic has to do with the needs and wants of the part of our ArmA community who like PvP play.
I suggest moving animation comments and criticisms of ArmA with suggestions for fixes in ArmA2 to this topic:
http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=72353
or this topic:
http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=69535
My post is on topic, referring to PvP missions/maps.
As an avid BF2/PR player & a Arma Player, you can say I have my cake and eat it too, I enjoy the best of both worlds and yes these games are different, have different players with different ideas of how & why they play the games they play.
But I do agree that PvP in ARMA2 is going to be awesome. There are already loads of communities for Arma that do this & have been doing it for some time, plus loads of missions that can be downloaded for PvP play. All of these gaming communities and many more that will spring up will be playing PvP and/or Co-op games in ARMA2.
I currently serve as a TA on AGW (http://agw.interactivetournaments.com), which is a PvP Arma/ARMA2 Tournament community. We use custom missions that can be Co-op or PvP. They are designed for tournament style play in mind, which does have many similar characteristics of BF2/PR style of play.
Their called AAS (Assault And Secure). You must attack a given location, clear it out & then move to the next objective. This of course fits into the tournament frame work & our guys enjoy playing it. Going up against a real person is more demanding & exciting, providing the gamer with a much higher rush and skill performance needed. That's not to say that Co-op play is not fun or that it's not challenging, it is, just trying to state the difference and why these types of gamers like PvP.
The news that Arma content can be ported over to ARMA2 is very encouraging as all of the work that the modding community for Arma has done over the past 3 years, will work with the game, so nothing is lost.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.