ArmA 3: E-sport ready?

[Grezvany13 64]

I would like to start a discussion about ArmA 3 and e-sports (professional gaming), and how ArmA 3 might be able to become the next title which is played at LAN's and competitions.

The reason of this post is that I had a great discussion within the clan I play at (Double Dutch Clan, Dutch multi-gaming clan with 650+ active members) and the E-sport sister Double Dutch Dragons.

We discussed about different games and how they fit e-sports, and of course about the ArmA series. Especially after DayZ and the upcoming ArmA 3 this game got it's attention by a lot of players who normally play Call of Duty, Battlefield and other e-sport shooters. However, for some reason we all knew that, based on our experience with ArmA 2, that ArmA isn't really a game for competitive gaming; or are we wrong?

The new ArmA 3 seems to become more "arcade" then before, but in a good way. Even though we still need 3 keyboards to have enough buttons for every single option and requires days of training to understand the basic machanics of the engine, it becomes easier to learn and it all starts to make sense, without having to worry about breaking your legs while crawling through a doorway.

The new stance system, the better net-code and of course the power of community modding and mission making should make it possible to create a game which can be played by both milsim communities, but also e-sport groups!

So, to start the discussion, I would like to know from you:

- do you think ArmA 3 can be used for e-sports?

- if not, how can both BIS and the community make it e-sports ready?

- do you think you would play ArmA 3 as a competitive game?

- would you watch live-streams / recordings of e-sport matches?

[keefehb 0]

No to all your points.

My experience of e-sports is wholly negative, my experience of the two dudebro twitch shooters you mentioned is wholly negative.

Nothing good can come from attracting this bollocks, streaming is one thing, changing parts of the game to make it a competitive e-sport is insane.

Kill it with fire.

[rundll.exe 12]

There is (and was) quite a lot of competetive (per team) tournaments for OFP/A1/A2 already. Think about 3 hour CTI games or quick CTF missions. It's already possible, and not much needs to be changed to the game.

[Alabatross 1]

e-sport games are generally arcade games, not realistic.

I don't think Arma 3 is more arcade at all. I think its better overall. I wish a dev could have seen me on my first time playing Arma II free. What a joke. It was the reason I never bought it.

[Sneakson 1]

No. Not suitable.

[celery 8]

The Arma series doesn't really make for a good eSport because:

• There are too many variables outside the players' control that can affect the outcome of the game such as physics, the unusual net code, anything AI-related, animation transitions, randomness of damage and the controls in general.
  
• The way Arma renders the environment is bad for pvp: grass fades away at a certain distance leaving further-away players exposed, the long-distance grass emulation can completely hide an otherwise not-very-hidden player, different LODs can unfairly hide or reveal a player, etc.
  
• Since projectiles shoot from the weapon's muzzle and not an abstract location near the eyes, Arma's aiming animations will favor peeking from right-side corners (dubbed the "right rule" in OFP times), a problem which was at its worst in Operation Flashpoint where only a corner camper's fingers were exposed to the enemies. Incidentally, peeking from a left-side corner is suicide.
  
• The combination of accurate weapons and fragile, slow-moving players means that certain tactics, some of which may be considered cheap, unsporting or even detrimental to the game mode being played, are very effective and will definitely be used in a tournament with money prizes.
  
• Assets and large environments are very hard to balance, and even if the sides are switched during a match, the points of imbalance will be subject to meta-level tactics and exploitation.
  

Another big issue is choosing a game mode suitable for eSports gameplay, i.e. one where there can be no question of who had the most skill and made the best decisions with as little luck factor as possible.

That said, Arma is awesome for competitive gaming in general – it's just not conductive to competitive gaming with monetary incentive to win at all costs.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Celery

[felthat 1]

i wonder how u would like to cast/stream/watch those matches

biggest e-sport titles are easy clear to spectate

[tremanarch 6]

starctraft / dota are esports titles or counterstrike.. but anything else is just too small.

but if you create a mission without grass vehicles etc and a small map - then arma could be played as a deathmatch aswell. of course the strength doesnt lie herein. but its possible.

[Grezvany13 64]

No to all your points.

My experience of e-sports is wholly negative, my experience of the two dudebro twitch shooters you mentioned is wholly negative.

Nothing good can come from attracting this bollocks, streaming is one thing, changing parts of the game to make it a competitive e-sport is insane.

Kill it with fire.

I think this is because of the terrible support of the developers (BF3 doesn't even have a battlerecorder...), and the missing marketing within Europe. If I look at South Korea, Japan and China, e-sports is a billion dollar/euro/pound business. In Europe, and a little better in the US, e-sports is considered "bad" because people don't understand it.

For me; playing games for a profession (= making enough money for a living) is just like playing soccer or poker. It takes training and skill to do it, so why not getting rewarded for it. If you're too bad to play at that level, it doesn't mean you don't like watching it ;)

I do agree that the gameplay should never be changed, since that's the core of the ArmA series; however I do think that adding features (like a battlerecorder or spectator mode) could help a lot.

There is (and was) quite a lot of competetive (per team) tournaments for OFP/A1/A2 already. Think about 3 hour CTI games or quick CTF missions. It's already possible, and not much needs to be changed to the game.

I'm aware of these tournaments, however a 3 hour game is not really doable at a 48-hour LAN-party (where you also need to sleep, eat and relax). To have a "real" competition usable for e-sports each match should take 30 minutes or less, be PVP/TVT and every map/gamemode should be 100% balanced.

There are already some good PVP/TVT maps available, but at ArmA 2 I never felt it was ready for PVP/TVT. With ArmA 3 this is becoming better and better, so I hope that missionmakers will create more missions to support it.

However, just like I said earlier, a battlerecorder or spectator mode would be great to monitor and/or record matches for competitive matches.

e-sport games are generally arcade games, not realistic.

I don't think Arma 3 is more arcade at all. I think its better overall. I wish a dev could have seen me on my first time playing Arma II free. What a joke. It was the reason I never bought it.

I think the word arcade isn't the correct one, since it's getting more realistic at every patch. But the fact that it gets easier to learn and play, even when more features are available (eg 9 different stances, but only requires 1 key) does mean that BIS has been thinking about new players. This also means that it's faster (as in fluid and responsive) and by the end of the beta I hope we can expect real CQB without all the problems like in ArmA 2, where you couldn't walk sideways through a door opening or had to jump over a 15cm high log.

And I agree that currently all e-sport games are very arcade-like, but I also know that the e-sport scene (at least in west Europe) would love to see a more serious game like ArmA. Less Run&Gun and more tactical.

No. Not suitable.

Any reason why you think that?

The Arma series doesn't really make for a good eSport because:

• There are too many variables outside the players' control that can affect the outcome of the game such as physics, the unusual net code, anything AI-related, animation transitions, randomness of damage and the controls in general.
  
• The way Arma renders the environment is bad for pvp: grass fades away at a certain distance leaving further-away players exposed, the long-distance grass emulation can completely hide an otherwise not-very-hidden player, different LODs can unfairly hide or reveal a player, etc.
  
• Since projectiles shoot from the weapon's muzzle and not an abstract location near the eyes, Arma's aiming animations will favor peeking from right-side corners (dubbed the "right rule" in OFP times), a problem which was at its worst in Operation Flashpoint where only a corner camper's fingers were exposed to the enemies. Incidentally, peeking from a left-side corner is suicide.
  
• The combination of accurate weapons and fragile, slow-moving players means that certain tactics, some of which may be considered cheap, unsporting or even detrimental to the game mode being played, are very effective and will definitely be used in a tournament with money prizes.
  
• Assets and large environments are very hard to balance, and even if the sides are switched during a match, the points of imbalance will be subject to meta-level tactics and exploitation.
  

Another big issue is choosing a game mode suitable for eSports gameplay, i.e. one where there can be no question of who had the most skill and made the best decisions with as little luck factor as possible.

That said, Arma is awesome for competitive gaming in general – it's just not conductive to competitive gaming with monetary incentive to win at all costs.

To be honest; all of your points are also problems in current e-sport titles, so I don't see how this only effects ArmA. The fact that ArmA is different from arcade shooters (since a real milsim wouldn't be usable) also makes it more interesting.

The fact that (team)tactics are more important then individual skills, and luck is almost nihil makes it perfect for e-sports.

I do agree that ArmA is a lot slower, but that's why it's a game which would make a perfect candidate; most games are too fast.

i wonder how u would like to cast/stream/watch those matches

biggest e-sport titles are easy clear to spectate

This is one of the changes that are needed to make it fully e-sports ready; either a battlerecorder or a spectator mode (which in some way is possible already) should be added.

But for example Battlefield 3 don't have these, and it's still an e-sports title.

Streaming will always be possible, just look at the amount of YT video's of ArmA 2, DayZ and other populair mods, and those are being watched thousands of times even though it's from a single persons perspective.

[mdmrzk 1]

Arma 3 is not good for E-Sport, because :

A3 is a good game and exciting, but it will be boring to see each team seeking each other. Also, the game haven't been design for.

[sqb-sma 66]

I think Arma has some very solid player control that (to me) means the game could be very good for city wide "paintball style" higher paced action. 2 squads per team, 32 player totals for example, would be pretty good in an urban environment with additional cover added in. The stance adjust and shooting mechanics make the game interesting, rather than snap shooting being important there's a lot more complexity to aiming.

I don't think A3 is esport ready, whether we want it to be an esport or not, regardless, but I think it has potential for competitive infantry shooting.

However the vehicle interplay etc etc introduces so many variables I don't think anyone would want to play this professionally, no guarantee on skill vs income being matched well. The game would have to be obsessively balanced for this, but that would ruin the vast majority of Arma players.

[scrim 1]

- do you think ArmA 3 can be used for e-sports?

- if not, how can both BIS and the community make it e-sports ready?

- do you think you would play ArmA 3 as a competitive game?

- would you watch live-streams / recordings of e-sport matches?

1, No.

2, They better not.

3, No.

4, No. I have better things to do with my life than to waste it spectating people with no life, social or otherwise, playing a game (someone deny that's what E-"sports" are. I'm not a sport jock, but seriously).

I'd rather have Arma be that semi obscure game that people don't automatically know of when mentioned, than sort of feeling obliged to explain that I'm not one of those waste of space people who couldn't find anything better to do than play video games and call it a sport. Seriously, doing that to Arma would be a crushing blow to just the publicity of it (yes, there is bad publicity), not to mention how many players would leave due to the altered gameplay.

Edited July 9, 2013 by scrim

[progamer 14]

You can create or use a mod which would make the game e-sports ready. Kju makes pvp scene which could be what you seek.

[dunedain 48]

Operation Flashpoint had some cool tournaments, it was only CTF though. It was so inconsistent and full of exploits, when my clan moved to CounterStrikeSource in 2004 right after its release it seemed to us it was a very reliable game while it was barely worth to be named a beta... :D

[tremanarch 6]

yeah I could see some future in the same way like Americas Army did it. some solid small Urban Infantry maps! and good tactical features. the many camera and modding options are a great plus for ArmA. but someone has to start it and build a mission! I am sure if there is something we can play and comment more people with great experience in modding / creating missions could help aswell to refine such an e-sport mission.

and this paintball style - why not - even colour on walls etc.. maybe this would attract some new players to arma aswell.

[BlackLord 0]

Look, I'm glad you recently discovered this series, but please don't expect it to turn into something it isn't.

The OFP/ArmA series is different from other games, that is the point. Turning it into another mainstream shooter, sponsored by energy drinks, would ruin it.

Why do you want every game to be exactly the same homogenized crap, with all the "cool" tacked on gimmicks?

[tremanarch 6]

I dont know if its possible to design such a small map for arma, but for a start I think it was great!

it was small, but nevertheless great fun, and a good starting point / benchmark to experiment from and to mod!

http://www.futuregamez.net/ps2games/aarmy/aarmy2.jpg

[St. Jimmy 272]

Basically any game that doesn't depend too much about luck can be very competitive so I don't see why Arma couldn't be in e-sports. Does it always need to be adhd bwubbwubbwub game to be competitive? The thing is you need mission maker(s) and modder(s) to make it suit in a competitive way and e-sports can't just use some mods without a permission from modders because they are making money from the events.

[.kju 3244]

All the hate and cluelessness - the great unwashed masses. :)

Check out: http://www.pvpscene.org and https://www.youtube.com/user/PvPsceneAcc

The core problems are:

# BI has no clue about MP (PvP) and does not care

# BI does not promote the PvP potential of the game

# Too few clans left

[Grezvany13 64]

I think Arma has some very solid player control that (to me) means the game could be very good for city wide "paintball style" higher paced action. 2 squads per team, 32 player totals for example, would be pretty good in an urban environment with additional cover added in. The stance adjust and shooting mechanics make the game interesting, rather than snap shooting being important there's a lot more complexity to aiming.

I don't think A3 is esport ready, whether we want it to be an esport or not, regardless, but I think it has potential for competitive infantry shooting.

However the vehicle interplay etc etc introduces so many variables I don't think anyone would want to play this professionally, no guarantee on skill vs income being matched well. The game would have to be obsessively balanced for this, but that would ruin the vast majority of Arma players.

Currently most vehicles are balanced throughout the factions, however I agree with you that infantery based matches would be more logical. I do think that a 4 vs 4 to 10 vs 10 would be the perfect setting, where as 16 vs 16 (or larger) would become too large for fast paced action (and even then it's slow compared to CoD and CS).

Of course; e-sports is a very high step, especially from it's current state, but competitive gameplay shouldn't become a problem without many modifications.

1, No.

2, They better not.

3, No.

4, No. I have better things to do with my life than to waste it spectating people with no life, social or otherwise, playing a game (someone deny that's what E-"sports" are. I'm not a sport jock, but seriously).

I'd rather have Arma be that semi obscure game that people don't automatically know of when mentioned, than sort of feeling obliged to explain that I'm not one of those waste of space people who couldn't find anything better to do than play video games and call it a sport. Seriously, doing that to Arma would be a crushing blow to just the publicity of it (yes, there is bad publicity), not to mention how many players would leave due to the altered gameplay.

I never said ArmA should change gameplay just so it can be competitive; I only asked how either BIS or the community could create addons to make it more usable for competitive gameplay (eg scoreboard system, spectator slots, etc.) and creation of PVP/TVT missions which are balanced enough to make it fair for both teams.

And the fact that you don't like watching other people playing computer games, doesn't mean others don't like it either...

The fact that everything is possible with ArmA by mods and missions give me/us the idea to make it more competitive and even at e-sport level.

Look, I'm glad you recently discovered this series, but please don't expect it to turn into something it isn't.

The OFP/ArmA series is different from other games, that is the point. Turning it into another mainstream shooter, sponsored by energy drinks, would ruin it.

Why do you want every game to be exactly the same homogenized crap, with all the "cool" tacked on gimmicks?

I've been playing the OFP/ArmA series from the beginning, however I also play other games which I do use as a reference.

As I already explained; the e-sport scene (at least in west Europe) is getting bored of fast-paced arcade shooters and is looking for a more tactical game, which ArmA is. The fact that it's not a mainstream game (with killstreaks and instant revives) makes it even more interesting for a lot of players.

In the end; nothing about ArmA or it's gameplay needs to be modified, otherwise it wouldn't be the same game. However I do think that it's possible, with just a couple of additions (non-gameplay related) it would be a great game for competitive gaming and even e-sports.

I dont know if its possible to design such a small map for arma, but for a start I think it was great!

it was small, but nevertheless great fun, and a good starting point / benchmark to experiment from and to mod!

http://www.futuregamez.net/ps2games/aarmy/aarmy2.jpg

One of the maps which I played since the Alpha launch is a TDM at Agia Marina, made by Sacha Ligthart

http://www.armaholic.com/datas/users/tdnl_dm40_agia_marina_carnage_1_4.jpg (506 kB)

It's small enough for fast-paced action, but still large enough to meet the "ArmA standard" of mid-range combat. And depending on the assets available the battleground could be larger or smaller.

[felthat 1]

@Grezvany13

what i meant is, of course u can stream and spectate arma, but is it fun and entertaining to watch? no

dont gimme example of dayz or some arma videos, esport isnt some solo funny videos, spectators want to watch whole 2 teams fighting at the same time

[tremanarch 6]

looks great - and blitzkrieg is total fun also. I guess the first 50 hours in ArmA III I played Blitzkrieg only - cause there were so many servers around.

There also was a map in MArina where 3 partys had to conquer / defend points. But I dont know if a 3 party mission makes sense in a competitive way... (maybe the party that controls more points has to defend more aswell and will ose others.. dunno didnt play it for too long.

[celery 8]

To be honest; all of your points are also problems in current e-sport titles, so I don't see how this only effects ArmA.

No, my points are quite specific to Arma. You might want to re-read what I wrote there and then proceed to present specific counterarguments.

The fact that ArmA is different from arcade shooters (since a real milsim wouldn't be usable) also makes it more interesting.

A game may be interesting, but it doesn't necessarily make it a good eSports title.

The fact that (team)tactics are more important then individual skills

Almost any team-based eSports game requires flawless teamwork in addition to individual skill that is the basic prerequisite of even being in a professional team. The notion of Arma being more teamwork-based stems from the predominant coop/milsim culture. If anything, pvp matches (even big ones) in OFP and Arma 1 and 2 could easily be decided by one player's overpowering performance or lucky streak.

and luck is almost nihil makes it perfect for e-sports.

I have to heavily disagree with you here. Gameplay in the Arma series is dependent on so many unknown and uncontrollable variables (e.g. most of the time you can only guess where the enemy might be and what he's trying to do in a big scenario with lots of cover, and the enemy has the same problem) that luck is indeed a greater factor than in established eSports titles. It can be mitigated by using very isolated, compact and restricted mission areas with minimal plant coverage and a clear-cut, action-enforcing objective, but that's not exactly where Arma normally shines.

I do agree that ArmA is a lot slower, but that's why it's a game which would make a perfect candidate; most games are too fast.

The reason fps games in eSports are fast is because the players are fast. If actual eSports teams take on Arma in a serious way, the game would eventually be "solved" and since the distances are great, the soldiers are slow, the environment is relatively open compared to other games and the weapons are accurate and powerful, it will most likely result in very passive action for the wrong reasons: move out of cover and anyone worth their salt will mow you down. What I'm trying to say is that a slow game makes sufficiently fast/skilled players "cap" at the same performance level which isn't good for finding out who truly is the best.

There has already been a precedent for the above in the Flashpoint era in the form of a few pro-level players who could indeed completely "own the game", making their opponents' normally beneficial milsim tactics and maneuvers nearly pointless. All the high-level pvp teams had exactly the same tactics involving corner camping (using the "right rule" I mentioned earlier), passive but deliberate covering of key areas such as spawn borders and bottlenecks, and moving in the open in an elusive manner which we called "bullet dancing".

I'd like to add that I support the notion of eSports and I especially find watching Starcraft matches very entertaining, and some of the reasons for the eSports hate in this thread are borderline insane and at the very least misinformed. I just don't see any title in the Arma series to be good eSports material. That said, I'd probably take part in a professional Arma competition if such a thing was held by virtue of that I was part of the competitive pvp scene in Flashpoint and I've managed to grab first prize in a sponsored Arma competition before.

[St. Jimmy 272]

@Grezvany13

what i meant is, of course u can stream and spectate arma, but is it fun and entertaining to watch? no

dont gimme example of dayz or some arma videos, esport isnt some solo funny videos, spectators want to watch whole 2 teams fighting at the same time

Spectator tools and you can watch whole two teams fighting. I could watch and enjoy some competitive Arma videos if someone streams those.

[Smurf 12]

Arma is good in medium-large scenarios. For that you need a bunch of players and time for prep, manouvers and all that.

For small scale, where Arma doesn't shines, there are better options.