tHa_KhAn

Bezerk is probably the worst example of ArmA. They're good missions if you are into that but Bezerk is an attempt at BF2 with the ArmA engine. Evolution is also not all that is ArmA. The squad system in Evo is not actually part of the game, it's some fancy scripting so it does have some bugs. Play a few "old school" coop missions and you'll have a much more well rounded opinion of the game.

__________________

Taxi

Just to remarks about the lack of need to have more rigid squad functionality

1 That some people are able to do coordinated teamwork doesn't mean that everyone one a server is. A more rigid squad functionality will help more people on more servers to be able to perform in coordinated teamwork and be proficient.

2 Often a certain level of teamwork is good enough in coop, where speed, coordination and thus effectiveness of enemy manoeuvres is limited, thus putting less strain on the level of coordination. In TvT with an opponent effectively using teamwork themselves the more casual level of teamwork that still worked in coop will get outmanoeuvred. It requires a more rigid squad functionality to get EVERYONE on that side to get to the level of coordination required to be able to compete.

I often read the complaint about TvT that it turns into a snipe fest. Well it turns into snipe fest because people are allowed to turn it into one. On an organized server where orders are given and a better squad system makes not following orders have consequences, such snipe fests would not occur.

jex

I've played Bezerk as well and if what ur looking for in arma is BF2 then I think you'll be disappointed. It seems that there are a lot of BF2 quotes going around here but people need to realise that this is not BF2:Armed Assault

Bezerk for instance is crap on the public servers. I like the idea of taking the towns (A little like Joint Ops) but since the ingame voip doesn't work, you can't talk to anyone. Nobody at TG plays bezerk and not having played Proj. Rea. I cannot say but are you saying that all PR servers are all tactically played with no R&G? You're judging a game based on one map on public servers and I agree, in those places you won't get much fun unless that is your thing.

TG was built on the ethics of tactical, team based gameplay specifically to give a home for those kind of players that do not like the kind of thing you describe on the bezerk servers. However, there are a lot of communities like TG that have sprang up that like to play a bit more tactically (thankfully).

AA is a much slower game. The map is many times bigger than what you get in BF (for instance, I had to airlift some guys off an island over 10km away the other day). It's more realistic than BF (though i cannot comment on PR) and you need to plan your approach in, get ur squad together, kit up, etc. All this can take 5 or 10 minutes and you haven't seen any action yet. To me I'm still playing the game whether i'm loading up, giving a briefing, ingressing to the target or engaging enemies.

Squadding up is different too and bezerk doesn't because everyone is a SL right? Normally, the way i think AA was intended, was to have the mission maker put in the fire teams and the SL'ers (there is also a position marker over the FTL or SL if u press escape twice). Now IF voip was working, you'd join up the squad, and then communicate via group chat to your squad. This is impossible at the moment and I think had this been working initially, AA may be more popular online.

We still don't know what Arma 2 will be like but I highly doubt it will be anything like BF and if you're just playing bezerk, my advice is to leave it and get on the TG servers and see what it's like.

As for Mortars - They will be modded by the community and put in. You can mod pretty much anything you want in AA. Think of something and I'm pretty sure it can be modded - even nukes

__________________
Jex

Gogeta

seriously I just spewed water thru my nose ...


Ok enough... back on topic. Lets not continue this BFx business, and actually work on a game that has a promising future... not comparing it to a game that has a limited and repetitious future..

__________________
|TG-4th| Gogeta

Tobruk

Well it seems I have unintentionally stirred up a rats nest .

First off, I was drawn to PR through TG. That's where I learned about it. Moreover, I enlisted with TG because of the desire to have a more thorough gaming experience rather than the typical rambo run and gun play.

Fortunately TG's PR servers deliver this most of the time.

Unlike most, I gravitated from Opflash/ARMA to BF2/PR because of the difficulty in finding coordinated "casual" play.

Despite what has been suggested, I don't play EVO because I find it repetitive and dull. I have tried play ARMA on the TG servers but one is always EVO and the other is usually empty. So I have yet to have a good TG ARMA experience.


Sarc posted here suggesting that keeping squad formation was fairly easy just by keeping your position relative to the other members of your squad. While that may be true in theory, but I think the simplicity is quickly lost when another sqaud springs an ambush or a gunship comes in and everyone has too scatter for cover. Reassembling can be difficult particularly if several of the unit has had to respawn away from the immediate action.

This is in part what I don't like about coop in ARMA, the AI is too predictable in their movements (though I wish they weren't all deadeye crack shots ). I don't think the AI offers the challenges that human players offer and thus it may be easier to play in a coordinated fashion when playing AI coop.

Again this is why I play Berzerk ARMA over EVO. I would play others but most of the servers don't seem to offer much else in choice. I was so hoping for a persistant (24 hours or more) TvsT battle that required taking the whole two Islands--but it has yet to happen.

But lets get back to real purpose of this thread about what we should see in ARMA2.

As a long time Opflash player, I really want to see ARMA 2 be sucessful. Thus far I would have to say that ARMA has not been successful. I judge this by the number of empty servers night after night.

Why is ARMA not catching on? Sure it was laggy and buggy but most those issues have been addressed. So why has it not caught on they way other game cough cough BF2 have?

Most likely because it is too much of simulator (which is a good thing IMO). I would love to have it even more immersive.

I suggested limited radio coms directed through a radio coms officer for instance. I would also love to see predators with video feeds uploaded to a forward or rear Combat controller who uses a military notebook computer in the game (I would recommend reading "Roberts Ridge" by Malcolm Macpherson here).

However, having an incredibly realistic simulator will only be of limited appeal if it requires hours of learning. Now I take for granted that everyone linked with TG enjoys the investment required in learning tactical play and has great gaming experiences on their private server squad nights. But just keep in mind that while your server is full a couple of nights a week, there are dozens of other servers that are empty.

In order for ARMA2 to be truly successful, it will have to bridge the gap between hardcore and casual. My suggestions were an attempt to bring was I perceive as the best features of both PR and ARMA in order to make ARMA2 have more appeal.

jex

I think Arma 2 is going to employ CTI - Capture the Island. This was a mod from OFP and it basically involves capturing towns for resources, those resources are used to build your base (to make troops, vehicles and other stuff - so a little RTS thrown in). Yo spawned in randomly and each town was held by resistance who were hostile to both east and west. This could be played either coop or tvt and was an excellent game type to play. However, OFP did not have join in progress and games could last for hours, so u had to be at the start. Now of course that has been addressed, and it would be great to see it in Arma but it looks as though it may appear in arma II.

__________________
Jex

boudreux

This is actually included as a stock "mode" or map for ArmA. CTI -60.

__________________

jex

It's included but isn't the same. In the OFP CTI your spawn was random with one mobile command unit and a 5 tonne truck. The primary objective was to destroy the MCU. On spawn, you had to look for a place to set up camp and one player was designated as commander.

Once you had found a suitable location for your base, the commander would then go about building assets. Barracks would allow the purchase of troops (and different types could be made i.e. spec ops, anti air, etc, hangers would supply aircraft, factories for light and heavy armour, a salvaging unit to pick up destroyed vehicles, and a few other building for miscellaneous stuff. You also had to employ workers to build these structures - the more workers, the quicker it was built. All these things cost money and base construction needed to be well thought out, defendable and accessible.

Money was made by capturing towns and holding them with troops. Each player could cammand AI and each town was held my independant army. As you made your way across the map, at some point you would meet the Opfor. Sometimes the Opfor would send a wave of units to attack your base (this is in coop mode), other times they would counter attack a town you had captured.

As you progressed across the map you could relocate your main base and also set up defences in towns you had taken. Success came when you found the enemy base and destroyed all assets there.

This game type had RTS in the form of the commander (who could satelite cam any unit) and build the base - a bit like natural selection) and ground warfare - the other players and it could be played TvT or coop. The version that came with Arma looks like a scaled down version and I think the version I just described is what BIS want to add to Arma 2.

__________________
Jex

Tobruk

Well there is that TvT CTI game (mod) in ARMA that uses a resource system that rewards the team who caps more objectives with more hardware. I wish I could remember its name.

It works fairly well but I find it a bit buggy, with regular CTDs.

Also what I don't like about it is that all players basically create their own AI squads (from the resource list) and operate independently. From what I have seen their is very little tactically play. Also because everyone is operating with independent AI squads friendly fire from aircraft is an issue.

This game would be perfect if: 1. It had an overall commander who issued resources and
2. It required players to join squads with a spawn in leader or station setting. (Playing on the whole island can make respawn very time consuming if you have a central spawn).

Anyone remember the name of this map?

I don't see it up on servers much anymore.

Gillespie

Tobrul, play with the guys in our TacticalGamer.com servers. The examples you're using from your pubplay experiences don't apply here.

Adding things from the Battlefield series of games into ArmA would ruin the flavor of the game for me. Ghost Recon gets away with "dumbing the experience down" with HUD icons and what-not because it's using future Warfighter tech the military scientists are developing. We don't have any Land Warrior stuff modeled into ArmA, so seeing HUD icons everywhere would make my eyeballs bleed.

I do understand what you're suggesting with your comments, Tobrul. You're wanting to sacrifice aspects of the simulation for the sake of gameplay and for the sake of shaving away some of the learning curve's steepness to attract new players.

It already has some "gamey" non-simulation aspects, namely in the way of the magic map that acts like a pull-out-your-ass FBCB2 system, showing locations of other units around the island.

All it takes for an ArmA match on a TG server to come together is someone willing to take command.

__________________
<ArmA Information/SOPs> <ArmA Admin Team> <TG Req. Reading>

Tobruk

Thanks, for the invite Gllespie, I'll keep a look out for you. I actually played a bit of Domination last night and experienced a bit of what you guys are talking about. They guys on my round last night were all tight and it was pretty cool, but after taking 2 or 3 towns it became quite predictable as the AI always reacts in the same fashion.

I wish we could get some really tight TvT games going.

Perhaps ARMA 2 will have better AI--we can only hope.

Tobruk

I thought of a new feature that might be good for ARMA2.

Call it a "set perimeter command"

Say you want to cover a large area (LZ, field base or whatever) and none of the formations will do because they are too tight.

Set perimeter and have your squad take of positions in various intervals such that you have a circle of defense.

The perimeter could have a radius scale to set at 50 m, 100m, 150m.

This would be much fast than manually setting each member.

Long Bow

Ok I read all the replies here and found some ideas that could possibly benefit Arma 2. I appologize if these are already mentioned or in game.

1. In game map - the current map is great but it lacks some functionality. First the ability to draw lines and line segments to dictacte routes for the squad. A better interface for accessing map markers and changing there colours. Addition of arrow markers that can be placed and then rotated in 1 deg. increments as well as stretched.

1.1 Players on map - Im not suggesting players show up at all times on the map but if there was a command or button to "report in" it would auto mark on the map your current position. That way if you SL says report in, it is up to the player to do so and the SL to check the locations via the map. It would be a nice addition as most of us do this already so a quicker interface would be helpfull.

2. GPS - Adjustable scale so you can see more ground when needed. Perhaps also make the looking at the GPS a bit less like a mini map and more distracting. I like that you can use it on the move but it should take up a bit more screen space or reduce your focus. It's hard to explain but basically if you are concentrating on your GPS screen you can't spot that squad 600 m out from you as easily.

3. Enemy A.I. - It is very good but also very bad and seeing as how it tends to play a large role in most missions it needs improvements. I don't like how they "see", you can be spotted through bushes etc. which is my biggest annoyance. Concealment should be equal for everyone. Another issue with the A.I. is the instant accurate locating and returning fire. If I fire a single shot from a concealed location it should not lead to an instant known location. Some kind of exponential awarness would be nice. If I fire one shot they now my general direction (between north and east) then I start engaging with a few more shots and they quickly start to home in on me (this could be represented in % ie. 1 shot = 33%, 2 shots = 66%, 3 shots = 90% 3+ shots = 99%). This may only take 3- 5 seconds but it is enough time to engage without fear of insta head shots. Currently the element of surprise lasts for 1 second. Obviously if some one opens up with an MG the time to locate will be ramp up very quickly.

4. Server settings - Some people have suggested including more "gamey" elements to Arma 2, something I'm not in favour of. However there may be some options that are a necessary evil in order to make the game more accesible to the masses. If there was an easy interface to quickly set options for the server and everyone would be aware of them upon joining it could lead to a better experince. That way when you join TG you would see that there is no mini-map, difficulty settings for the A.I., friendly fire on etc. This should lead to Arma2 having hardcore servers and servers that are a little friendlier to new players.


Just a note on the BF2/PR suggestions. BF2's squad system and voip is a constant complaint in the PR community. Squads are to small, can't be structured based on equipment and can only communicate within. The voip between squads has to be handled by relaying through the commander and then down to the squad. This is not a good system at all when trying to co-ordinate attacks or defence. The PR team has been working very hard to make BF2 into a much more tactical and realistic game, basically Arma. They have done a great job but their hands are tied by the BF2 engine.

Anyway just some of my thoughts on Arma 2.

*spacecadett*

i see these as the most vital gameplay improvments that would be nice if implemented!
as both have a positive effect to the element of reaism in the game.


PS. i heard of a script beeing worked on that would allow you to draw on the map a while back, not just sure on how it turned out.

Edit: not sure of how usefull it might be but hand signals would be nice and add to the role play and i mean more then saluting. maybe halt ect might be usefull.

loyalguard

There is indeed! See the part in bold in the quote below from the OFPEC forums. I am eagerly awaiting it:

__________________
|TG| LoyalGuard