One question that MANY fans care about.

[Inkompetent]

Why does PvP have to be shoebox DM? ArmA is HORRIBLE for shoebox fighting. It isn't meant for that. If one wants it there is both CoD and BF2 that does the job 100 times better, but on the contrary would be utter crap for fighting at distance.

Judging from the TvT maps running on public servers I understand if it isn't many playing it. Not a single person cooperates, communicates, or does anything logical at all for that matter. It's usually an on orgy in e-peen measuring where everyone want the biggest guns.

On the contrary I just now (after the release of ACE) started playing on the TacticalGamer server, where one of the missions is a random location TvT mission on Sahrani with just one infantry squad on each team fighting over a random objective. The combat zone isn't bigger than one square kilometer, but it's perfect for that scale of infantry combat.

This kind of TvT play is awesome. But if TvT has to mean "twitch-play in shoebox sized map where e-peen is more important than communication", then I'd rather not have TvT at all in ArmA.

[sbsmac]

If it wasn't so depressingly predictable, it would be amusing to see so many self-proclaimed Co-op players***coming out of the woodwork to comment on a form of play they shun. ***Worse, to hear so many ill-informed opinions from those players about why PvP isn't popular in ArmA .

As Q said, anybody who actually played OFP will know that PvP was a _huge_ success in that version of the game. ***Many players valued the 'one-shot, one-kill' model along with the floating iron-sights, semi-realistic ballistics etc. *** Unfortunately, ArmA had a less-than brilliant launch and also introduced a rather clumsy animation-transition model. ***Many of my team-mates (yes, PvP players do join teams and use teamwork) simply weren't willing to wait for the game to be patched up to playability. Personally, I stuck with it and was reasonably happy with the final state of the game but by then there simply wasn't the critical mass of players to get decent games going. ***
According to steam there were a maximum of 26 ArmA players online today.

To comment on the original request....

Yes, ArmA2 needs to have a couple of default CTF's and maybe a DM but the reality during OFP days was that you very rarely saw those maps getting any time amongst the huge variety of player-made content. ***There were many successful leagues which used maps created specially and it's interesting to note that these ranged all the way from 1v1 death-match right up to large-scale team matches with more 'realistic' rules and scenarios such as WGL. ***The beauty of OFP was always that it could incorporate such a wide range of casual fun through to hardcore simulation. ***PvP will not live or die based on the supply of 'official' maps but on the success of the game launch and the ability to build a critical mass of online players.

[The Masta]

According to steam there were a maximum of 26 ArmA players online today.

Steam only shows the players using the steam version, so there were 26 players online with their steam version of ArmA.

[sparks50]

Yup, I did a quick count rounding up to ten right now, and theres easily a lot more than 500 people

BTW while looking at the server list, its great to see how many servers are embracing the ACE mod.

Yes the animations has its issues, but it really isn't such a pain when you plan ahead instead of the usual run in a straight line until you find a enemy to shoot at.
And I can not see how that can be coop/militaristic tosser exclusive, because surely you want to stay alive and win the game?

[Inkompetent]

Yes, I can atm at http://stats.swec.se/server/list see there is 932 players online, so yeah...

But on the PvP again: Indeed, there were some fantastic CTF maps in OFP, and I can't really see why that wouldn't work in ArmA.


I do agree with Q though. Take popular maps that are made by the community and stick them into ArmA2. Even though ArmA comes with the lovely ability to download missions on the fly when connecting to a server, it doesn't hurt with a few different and good maps to start with, to give flavours of Warfare, CTF, TDM and alike.

[sbsmac]

>Steam only shows the players using the steam version, so there were 26 players online with their steam version of ArmA.

The server list at SWEC counts over 800 which is a pleasant surprise. I might have to reinstall my copy !

Interesting to see how relatively unsuccessful the steam version seems to have been although perhaps that's because it primarily served the US market and the stats are simply showing the fact that most of them are still at work or school.

[Dwarden]

STEAM version is fail mainly because ATARI failed to keep it up2date forcing users lived to 'comfort' of automated up2date game updates to manually update the game ...

in short ATARI (non)support for STEAM version is total disaster for end user ...

[POTS]

How about coop pvp?

[Inkompetent]

How about coop pvp?

What's that? Mission-oriented PvP?

[.kju [PvPscene]]

It always funny when people come and brang their non existing
KNOWLEDGE and EXPERIENCE how decent OFP and ArmA PvP
looks like. ***

So please do us all a favor, if you know only hexe and berzerk
stop to annoy us with your lack of understanding.

Have you ever played PvP maps from Zeus, ShackTactical?
Have you ever played in OFRA, IC or AToW league?
Have you ever played Celery's missions?
Have you ever played OFP in ANY PvP league?

No. Ok. Now continue to derail this thread and make yourself
laughable. ***

As said, it would be in BI's best interest to sell again 2+ million copies.

If YOU want to tell us OFP was a bad game, please
leave this place for the better. ***



Edit:
That said hexe and Berzerk are decent maps as well.
If you don't like them, don't play them. Simple eh.