One question that MANY fans care about.

[Pulverizer]

BF adapation has already been made in OFP, called Battlefield1985, it evolved in map called Berzerk under ArmA.

Yup. I mentioned that in reply #1.

Berzerk is no good though. It must be official, made by BIS, delivered in the box and probably also really, really good to meet the standards for professional league play.

[whisper]

BF adapation has already been made in OFP, called Battlefield1985, it evolved in map called Berzerk under ArmA.

Yup. I mentioned that in reply #1.

Berzerk is no good though. It must be official, made by BIS, delivered in the box and probably also really, really good to meet the standards for professional league play.

Why MUST IT BE? :O


Knowing BI record for PvP map, the last thing I want is them doing it.

OTOH, I'd rather have them polish the animations to have them as fluid as possible, because THIS is what killed ArmA PvP, not the lack of "official PvP missions".

[EDcase]

What's the big problem with everyone saying ArmA should be this or that....

The reason why ArmA is better than all other combat games is because of its versatility.

You can have large scale warfare or CQB with Co-Op or PvP...

BIS has included some Co-Op and PvP missions that may not appeal to all but it gives an idea of whats possible. ***BIS's job is to make ArmA/II as good and stable as possible not create missions.

THATS WHY THERE'S A MISSION EDITOR!!!

As with OFP its the community that creates content that suits everyone.

[Max Power]

What the fucking hell happened here?

Cydon wants better pvp maps in ArmA out of the box and all of a sudden, out of nowhere comes this shit storm about hard coded bunny hopping. I have never seen such a parade of abject nonsense.

ArmA 2 needs better maps of all kinds out of the box. Noone plays the default ArmA maps. All of the popular maps are user generated. That Capture the Flag map in the demo was pretty good, though- a little one sided but pretty good. As far as I'm concerned it was the best map out of the three that were included.

I support a movement for better missions in general, even if it means having fewer in number at first.

[CyDoN]

ArmA 2 needs better maps of all kinds out of the box.

At last someone who has some basic communication skills.

[Jensen1]

I see what the problem is. There is a general hostility from coop players towards the PvP community of ArmA.

They for some reason try to prove that ArmA is not suited for this type of gameplay.

WTF?! We never said that, what we said is

"It is of so much ease to do this kind gameplay in this game that the ONLY thing stopping your self ARE yourselves!!!"

[CyDoN]

I see what the problem is. There is a general hostility from coop players towards the PvP community of ArmA.

They for some reason try to prove that ArmA is not suited for this type of gameplay.

WTF?! We never said that, what we said is

"It is of so much ease to do this kind gameplay in this game that the ONLY thing stopping your self ARE yourselves!!!"

Why then all say to go and play BF CoD or whaterver?

Come on man... Do you want me to quote them for you?

You still don't get the point of the conversation which is ArmA2 needs to include official pvp maps for competitve play in styles of C&H or something like that so PvPers can play and focus on those maps.

Not wait for the community to make them.

[sparks50]

CyDoN, surely there must be one pvp mission for Arma that you like? If not, how exactly would your dream mission differ from Berzerk?

As previously mentioned, according to BI the script language is pretty much the same in Arma 2, so porting a mission shouldn't be any harder than porting a mission to another island is today(with some class name changes etc. of course)

There would be little if any waiting time.

[Dr_Eyeball]

CyDoN, I fully support the idea of PvP in ArmA but you will need to give an example (even from another game) of the particular game-mode you have in mind.
I would support most of the game-modes found in BF2 Project Reality mod, like AAS2, Insurgency, Command and Control (CNC) & Counter-Attack (CA).

I've identified about 8 common groups for PvP game-modes. ***BIS's PvP designs fall into 2 or 3 of these groups.
Also, there are significant differences between designing missions suitable for public servers for regular nightly play versus private/competition servers played once a week.

The number one reason PvP is difficult to keep alive on a public server, is getting sufficient player numbers on at the same time. With coop, 1 player is sufficient to start any old mission and have more players slowly join over the following hours, (like with Warfare). But with PvP, if you don't have the required player numbers from the start, you have to just wait until sufficient players join.

As far as some of the PvP critic comments go in this threads, some are totally unwarranted and misguided and some are just forum agitators. Their reputations have now plummeted.

Devastation
There's also the Devastation PvP mission pack available too, which utilises the AAS2 game-mode design.

It has a few improvements over missions like Berzerk and similar game-modes, with changes to provide proper resource proportions & limits and a suitable balance to promote fair & regular play on public servers.

Quote[/b] ]<ul>[*]limited weapon availability (to prevent everyone having an MG, sniper or AT/AA weapon). Using specialist roles simplifies this issue.[*]utilises AAS2 game-mode (not AAS1) to focus the conflicts but still provide a choice of objectives and create a front-line concept[*]large spacing between zones (flags), encourages transport sharing and combined attacks[*]large zone capture areas (markers), reduces camping[*]provides better vehicle balance (like avoiding mixing tanks and jets and infantry haphazardously). Instead it uses &#39;Themes&#39; (like Sea/air vs land).[*]uses long capture times. There&#39;s nothing more boring than knowing a player can simply touch each flag or wait 10 seconds, then immediately move on to the next flag without any threat of opposition.
***- require the capturer to find a defensive position or seek out threats for the entire capture duration.
***- allows the defenders to react to the capture.[*]removed spawn points at flags. It is afterall the objective.[*]longer vehicle specific spawn durations (transport vehicles have low times, armour & attack aircraft are highest)[*]multiple spawn options & protected bases to prevent inescapable spawn camping and spamming[/list]

It also has extended functionality, not just improvements:

Quote[/b] ]<ul>[*]mobile respawn vehicles for remote spawning. This also acts as a task (to deploy and protect) and a secondary objective (to destroy by opposition).[*]deployable bunkers from trucks for armaments & spawning. This also acts as a task and a secondary objective.[*]deployable assets from trucks: MG, AT, crates, fuel, etc[*]airlifting cargo & vehicles (required for offshore island bases)[*]team status dialog to enable joining groups[*]field dressings concept[*]ladders on small town missions, to change the normal CQB scenario from purely 2D ground based combat to 3D.[*]minor features: CSS, artillery HUD, WP HUD, airlift HUD, HMD Heli HUD, mission HUD, laser designator HUD[*]if scoreboard is visible, adds bonuses for non-combat roles (eg: transport, etc) and penalties for TK&#39;s, etc.[*]menu system for: enemy spotting, common requests and squad command menus[*]air-drops for crates & 4x4 jeeps.[/list]

A new update is due soon, with further changes in future. It will be ported to ArmA2 fairly close to release.

[KorpeN]

CyDoN, I fully support the idea of PvP in ArmA but you will need to give an example (even from another game) of the particular game-mode you have in mind.
I would support most of the game-modes found in BF2 Project Reality mod, like AAS2, Insurgency, Command and Control (CNC) & Counter-Attack (CA).

I&#39;ve identified about 8 common groups for PvP game-modes. ***BIS&#39;s PvP designs fall into 2 or 3 of these groups.
Also, there are significant differences between designing missions suitable for public servers for regular nightly play versus private/competition servers played once a week.

The number one reason PvP is difficult to keep alive on a public server, is getting sufficient player numbers on at the same time. With coop, 1 player is sufficient to start any old mission and have more players slowly join over the following hours, (like with Warfare). But with PvP, if you don&#39;t have the required player numbers from the start, you have to just wait until sufficient players join.

As far as some of the PvP critic comments go in this threads, some are totally unwarranted and misguided and some are just forum agitators. Their reputations have now plummeted.

Devastation
There&#39;s also the Devastation PvP mission pack available too, which utilises the AAS2 game-mode design.

It has a few improvements over missions like Berzerk and similar game-modes, with changes to provide proper resource proportions & limits and a suitable balance to promote fair & regular play on public servers.

Quote[/b] ]<ul>[*]limited weapon availability (to prevent everyone having an MG, sniper or AT/AA weapon). Using specialist roles simplifies this issue.[*]utilises AAS2 game-mode (not AAS1) to focus the conflicts but still provide a choice of objectives and create a front-line concept[*]large spacing between zones (flags), encourages transport sharing and combined attacks[*]large zone capture areas (markers), reduces camping[*]provides better vehicle balance (like avoiding mixing tanks and jets and infantry haphazardously). Instead it uses &#39;Themes&#39; (like Sea/air vs land).[*]uses long capture times. There&#39;s nothing more boring than knowing a player can simply touch each flag or wait 10 seconds, then immediately move on to the next flag without any threat of opposition.
***- require the capturer to find a defensive position or seek out threats for the entire capture duration.
***- allows the defenders to react to the capture.[*]removed spawn points at flags. It is afterall the objective.[*]longer vehicle specific spawn durations (transport vehicles have low times, armour & attack aircraft are highest)[*]multiple spawn options & protected bases to prevent inescapable spawn camping and spamming[/list]

It also has extended functionality, not just improvements:

Quote[/b] ]<ul>[*]mobile respawn vehicles for remote spawning. This also acts as a task (to deploy and protect) and a secondary objective (to destroy by opposition).[*]deployable bunkers from trucks for armaments & spawning. This also acts as a task and a secondary objective.[*]deployable assets from trucks: MG, AT, crates, fuel, etc[*]airlifting cargo & vehicles (required for offshore island bases)[*]team status dialog to enable joining groups[*]field dressings concept[*]ladders on small town missions, to change the normal CQB scenario from purely 2D ground based combat to 3D.[*]minor features: CSS, artillery HUD, WP HUD, airlift HUD, HMD Heli HUD, mission HUD, laser designator HUD[*]if scoreboard is visible, adds bonuses for non-combat roles (eg: transport, etc) and penalties for TK&#39;s, etc.[*]menu system for: enemy spotting, common requests and squad command menus[*]air-drops for crates & 4x4 jeeps.[/list]

A new update is due soon, with further changes in future. It will be ported to ArmA2 fairly close to release.

Hey Dr_Eyeball hi..
I am pretty sure that CyDoN speaks about maps like the ones that use many leagues like ESL,ArmA Liga,VBL etc.
They are very nice optiized maps perfect for fights between teams of 5-6-7 players.

I wonder all of those ppl who hate the idea of official PvP tournament maps (not public) have ever
played once one of these maps?

Give them a try.