ArmA 3: E-sport ready?

[Nexerius 10]

Honestly, SCREW E-Sports.

Its ruining games.

[celery 8]

Honestly, SCREW E-Sports.

Its ruining games.

How is it ruining games for you? Someone making you watch the matches or participate in tournaments? Did televised professional football, ice hockey or chess ruin them as well?

[MadocComadrin 12]

Didn't a football referee get beheaded in Brazil recently? Weren't there riots in Canada over hockey? And I'm pretty sure someone was killed over a professional chess match at least once. Calling anything a sport tends to attract loud degenerates that ruin pretty much everything.

[instagoat 133]

Shooting competitions E-Sports would be great. Why does everybody assume CS style adversarials. Arma can do -much- more. Also, no game ever was designed for E-sports.

I do not understand what everyone has against the suggestion of having Arma E-Sports.

[Smurf 12]

Didn't a football referee get beheaded in Brazil recently? Weren't there riots in Canada over hockey? And I'm pretty sure someone was killed over a professional chess match at least once. Calling anything a sport tends to attract loud degenerates that ruin pretty much everything.

People were killed over World of Warcraft and even Tibia, not related at all to the discussion in place here. It is about gameplay changes and tools to support the idea (which I don't like).

WiC was almost E-sport ready from the start and turned out to be a partial failure. Don't waste resources on that for Arma.

[celery 8]

Shooting competitions E-Sports would be great.

Except that when there's money involved, the mechanics will be rehearsed to death, making it less about who's the best and more about who's the first to screw up even a tiny bit. And if there's any randomness involved (and there is in the form of dispersion, animation transition timing and physics processing based on available cycles), the competition aspect becomes pointless and unfair.

Also, no game ever was designed for E-sports.

Quake 3, Starcraft 2 and Dota 2 definitely were with lots more being supported by developers as such, and some games simply are better for eSports than others because of mechanics that are compatible with high performance competition.

I do not understand what everyone has against the suggestion of having Arma E-Sports.

If you don't understand the reasoning in my previous posts, you're free to ask questions or present counterarguments.

Didn't a football referee get beheaded in Brazil recently? Weren't there riots in Canada over hockey? And I'm pretty sure someone was killed over a professional chess match at least once. Calling anything a sport tends to attract loud degenerates that ruin pretty much everything.

Are you saying that you're unable to enjoy playing any game that some people somewhere else play for a living and others watch it for entertainment and fulfillment?

[Leon86 13]

Call of Duty, Battlefield and other e-sport shooters.

Might want to elaborate on what you think is an e-sports shooter, on pc I've only seen well organised counterstrike events recently.

[Sneakson 1]

Also, no game ever was designed for E-sports.

100% wrong. Call of Duty, Counter Strike, Gears of War, Halo, StarCraft, Street Fighter and Warcraft-likes are all today designed for e-sports.

ARMAs vanilla gameplay is way too slow and uninteresting for e-sports. Not to mention controls are currently terrible so even if you were to design a suitable arena it still couldn’t play like the others. And modded ARMA is even more hardcore.

How is it ruining games for you? Someone making you watch the matches or participate in tournaments? Did televised professional football, ice hockey or chess ruin them as well?

E-sports ruined StarCraft II and even Diablo III because Blizzard completely started ignored making the game enjoyable for non-competitive players.

[Reuben5150 2]

The new ArmA 3 seems to become more "arcade" then before, but in a good way.

I came to ARMA to get away from arcade, you know one of the best things about it is not thinking about points, stats or kills non of which really matter.

---------- Post added at 18:38 ---------- Previous post was at 18:34 ----------

Might want to elaborate on what you think is an e-sports shooter, on pc I've only seen well organised counterstrike events recently.

I think EA is trying to get BF in there, with those suppression mechanics LOL what a joke.

[Dwarden 1125]

not to now

it might soon

yes it could be 'modded' for it, later after release

esports can be done right even for tactical games ... not just arcades

[Sneakson 1]

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)..

You know there's some money in e-sports right? And the players are popular with the ladies.

E-sports money awarded per year:

2000: $349’000

2001: $374’000

2002: $467’000

2003: $463’000

2004: $1’058’000

2005: $2’286’000

2006: $1’893’000

2007: $1’845’000

2008: $1’663’000

2009: $1’151’000

2010: $2’536’000

2011: $7’331’000

2012: $10’135’000

StarCraft II tournaments awarded $500'000 in 2010 (6 months), broke the $5'000'000 barrier one year ago and since then it's grown to $8'000'000... three years.

The SCII World Championships prize pool was $250’000 in 2012 and will be $1’600’000 in 2013… and that is just the World Championships tournament.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Sneakson

[celery 8]

E-sports ruined StarCraft II and even Diablo III because Blizzard completely started ignored making the game enjoyable for non-competitive players.

From what I've gathered, Starcraft 2's single player is passable albeit a bit on the easy side, just like in the first one which wasn't originally made for eSports, a very marginal phenomenon at the time. Is it the carefully designed competition-oriented balancing that's making your SP (or MP) experience bad?

As for Diablo 3... that has very little to do with eSports and all to do with lackluster design and monetizing the auction house. Where did you even get the notion that D3 is an eSports title or that eSports in general is in any way responsible for the game's shortcomings?

Granted, some games are specifically made to cater to competitive MP, but usually it's very apparent in the game's marketing and reviews.

[Sneakson 1]

From what I've gathered, Starcraft 2's single player is passable albeit a bit on the easy side, just like in the first one which wasn't originally made for eSports, a very marginal phenomenon at the time. Is it the carefully designed competition-oriented balancing that's making your SP (or MP) experience bad?

As for Diablo 3... that has very little to do with eSports and all to do with lackluster design and monetizing the auction house. Where did you even get the notion that D3 is an eSports title or that eSports in general is in any way responsible for the game's shortcomings?

Granted, some games are specifically made to cater to competitive MP, but usually it's very apparent in the game's marketing and reviews.

Diablo 3 isn't an e-sports title but StarCraft II was and definitely changed Blizzard's mindset for all time. Instead of having any surprises whatsoever I actually knew about exactly all content in D3 before the game was even released and there were already lists of all items in the game and so on and I wasn’t even following the game closely. They avoided any and all surprises and because they had to carefully balance absolutely everything for PvP (which they failed anyway) it ended up being extremely dull with weak skills and uninteresting items. And NO news.

StarCraft II had a very entertaining but short, unreplayable campaign with uninteresting story. They also changed the dark setting of StarCraft 1 to be a game for all ages and started adding crazy lore-breaking units like the Viking transformer or recent Viper that can sit still in the air while dragging a hundred ton tank with its tongue…

When I imagined StarCraft II back in the day I thought it would look like the CGI did in StarCraft 1 but instead the graphics were dangerously close to WarCraft 3 and Blizzard spent all their resources on e-sports instead of making a campaign that was more than just passable. And the HotS campaign is the worst strategy game I have ever played, no shit. Can’t imagine how it took them 3 years to make it. Easier than anything.

Blizzard were the Masters of the 90s with Diablo, StarCraft and WarCraft but I have no hope of them ever releasing a revolutionary game again though I will give them a last chance with WarCraft 4.

StarCraft II: WoL is still an 8-9/10 game in my book because it was such a step forward from StarCraft 1 but HotS is a 3-4/10 and Diablo 3 somewhere around 5/10.

Anyways... that's really why not all series should go the e-sport way or worry too much about the future of their meta-games in multiplayer, PvP and so on...

E-sports make devs pussies afraid of making any big changes that would risk their multimillion investments and that leads to very “safeâ€, uninteresting games and in the long run leads to downright boring games and leaves both the company, game and players with boring games that no one buys and everyone loses just like in any situation when devs play too safe, quite ironically.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Sneakson

[Shagulon 1]

I had a look at the PvP link Kju put up, and I'm afraid I really didn't like it. Lots of sprinting around and respawning... not my bag.

You may want to check out project reality, that was a great mod for human v human large scale battles. I played it a lot and can't wait for it to come to arma 3. There were only ever a couple of servers with people playing it though... wonder why?

I would like to see some clan v clan action, and would love to actually watch this on youtube.

Shame there isn't an integrated replay app built into the game that allows you to fly around and view wherever you like on the battlefield, perhaps using the map to navigate to points of interest. I suspect that would be a truly unique selling point if the arma series could pull that off.

The game really comes into its own with organisation, and clans are really the way forward. Clan v clan would be all about superior command and control instead of twitch fingered Rambo types.

[.kju 3244]

A3 alpha did not provide more than infantry essentially.

Nor does the beta as pretty much as the vehicle gameplay, due to locking, radar and other aspects, is not really usable in competitive play.

[metalcraze 290]

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.

Wrong. ArmA3 is more arcade than Battlefield 3.

BF3 doesn't allow you to carry half a car on your back, has turn speed limits, has suppression fire, has blinding sun etc etc. Can't also run forever, so people actually have to grab a transport. Also requires support class to resupply you with ammo. In ArmA3 you can carry as much ammo as you want. Also can't cheat by peeking around corners and walls using magical 3rd person view of ArmA.

Although BF3 ditched the need for medic too compared to a predecessor.

Edited July 9, 2013 by metalcraze

[mmaruda 20]

Theoretically, you could introduce a mod that standardises game-play for e-sport, but... The main problem here is that it would have to be really narrowed down to something on CS 1.6 level. If you look at BF3 for example, it's already a poor competitive platform, due to hit detection issues and general large scale of combat, making most matches a random mess. To put it short, the competitive PvP mode would have to be something like Red Orchestra. Now, RO is non-existent in e-sports. Why? Because it's boring to watch! Personally I think e-sports should be high-speed twitch shooters like Quake, because these games are fun to spectate - you can look at some good players dueling and say "wow, what a frag" when one guy launches another into the air with a well placed rocket and finished him off with a perfect railgun shot in split second.

Let me be graphical about it:

Now Arma:

A proper e-sport game cannot be realistic - it has to be easy to understand, have simple rules, but be hard to master with advanced techniques like trick-jumping, item timing control, map control and enemy movement prediction.

Arma is just not that type of game, it's a waste of time even to discuss it IMO.

[scrim 1]

You know there's some money in e-sports right? And the players are popular with the ladies.

And since when is that what dictates if something is a sport? I'm in horrible shape, don't watch sports much at all, but there is no way that I or anyone I know would sink so low as to call video games a sport. When you do that, it's quite likely you're just trying to persuade yourself that you shouldn't grow up and try to find something to do during the days other than sitting in front of your PC/console with just the occasional bathroom and snack break.

And I think you'll find that to be the very few ladies actually interested by it. Let's face it, telling anyone of any gender that you're involved in that without it being a bad joke, and you're likely to get laughed out, or viewed as a general failure at life and growing up beyond puberty.

Just to clarify,disagreeing with you, not insulting. Writing what I think of the people playing E-"sports".

[Smurf 12]

Also, no game ever was designed for E-sports.

Trackmania and the most recent Shootmania are prime examples of that.

Trackmania is fun though.

[Alistair 10]

I hate E-sports.

And no, Arma will never follow this model.:nono:

[Rolling 1]

Wrong. ArmA3 is more arcade than Battlefield 3.

BF3 doesn't allow you to carry half a car on your back, has turn speed limits, has suppression fire, has blinding sun etc etc. Can't also run forever, so people actually have to grab a transport. Also requires support class to resupply you with ammo. In ArmA3 you can carry as much ammo as you want. Also can't cheat by peeking around corners and walls using magical 3rd person view of ArmA.

Although BF3 ditched the need for medic too compared to a predecessor.

Unrealistic surpressive fire, unrealistic damages, artificial weapon spread, you CAN actually run FOREVER at very high speeds (you would know this if you actually played it) support has infinite ammo, you heal via proximity, you carry too little ammo often times, and have very little sway. Either you are a troll, or just flat out ignorant.

[Leon86 13]

Also, bf3 does have 3rd person if you're in a vehicle, bullets move in slow motion, and infantry certainly has no turn speed limit.

[metalcraze 290]

Unrealistic surpressive fire, unrealistic damages, artificial weapon spread, you CAN actually run FOREVER at very high speeds (you would know this if you actually played it) support has infinite ammo, you heal via proximity, you carry too little ammo often times, and have very little sway. Either you are a troll, or just flat out ignorant.

But that's the whole point. Even with all arcadishness and artificial solutions of BF3 it still has more gameplay depth than ArmA3.

In case of ArmA3 it's not the lack of arcade gameplay that prevents it from being "esports" or whatever since ArmA3 is very arcade.

Competitive team games make sure there is a class variety and that each class counters the limitations of another - dozens of examples of that. Teamwork is gone from ArmA3 apart from shooting enemies together. Every single soldier can be a one man army (medic, support, sniper, autorifleman - all in one at once) if a player would wish so - and why wouldn't he?

The only way to have a team based gameplay in A3 right now is to 'pretend' like you can't carry everything you want and have different roles in a team. But that's kinda... sad.

[Reuben5150 2]

Wrong. ArmA3 is more arcade than Battlefield 3.

BF3 doesn't allow you to carry half a car on your back, has turn speed limits, has suppression fire, has blinding sun etc etc. Can't also run forever, so people actually have to grab a transport. Also requires support class to resupply you with ammo. In ArmA3 you can carry as much ammo as you want. Also can't cheat by peeking around corners and walls using magical 3rd person view of ArmA.

Although BF3 ditched the need for medic too compared to a predecessor.

Arma can be fixed, the Bf series is dead in my eyes and we wont ever see the greatness of those older games again, bf3 is absolutely arcade to to the point of trying to be cod.

Also there is no way it would fit into esports in its current form, it would have to be modded an then re-learned by the players, ea is dreaming, not gonna happen.

If you create a game designed to try to ballance skill, how can you ever take that to a competitive level.

[Dwarden 1125]

metalcraze, you aware you can disable 3rd person by difficulty options server side ? ...

weight, fatigue, suppression, blidning w/e can be either tweaked, added later or modded (DIY or get ACE3)

btw. the supply class could supply himself last time i checked ;)

anyway the point is, if someone want to 'modify' Arma 3 toward this or that type of E-sport gameplay he can ...

forget about changing single dime of anything in BF3