Prefered gamemode

[bull_a 44]

Hi everyone, im currently looking to develop a new game mode to hopefully run alongside games like Domination and Invade and Annex

The game mode is going to be a mixture of MSO and Domination mixing together the best parts from both.

I was wondering whether people would prefer to play PvE (Players against AI) or PvP (players against players).

Please vote for the one you would prefer or the one you think would be better to run on a server, Im almost sure that PvE will gain a

higher percentage of votes but i wanted to make sure that the people were still interested in playing PvE and were not bored of it...

Thanks

Bull

[comp_uter15776 1]

So warfare, then? XD

I'd like to play PvE though, if forced to choose.

[Varanon 892]

Sigh... it's called Coop, not PvE

And yeah, I much prefer that over any PvP

[comp_uter15776 1]

Sigh... it's called Coop, not PvE

Semantics, really. You get the idea through colloquialism.

[pharoah 65]

If I wanted PvP, I'd go to BF3. ARMA works well in a human squad against loads of AI enemy.

[Varanon 892]

Semantics, really. You get the idea through colloquialism.

Maybe, but it just irks me that it's called PvE, like some MMO. Next thing is, we're going to aggro the mobs in the enemy base.

[bull_a 44]

Sigh... it's called Coop, not PvE

And yeah, I much prefer that over any PvP

Sigh...Oh im sorry i didnt realise that players versus AI where players do not have to work co-operatively is actually called co-op. My bad, even

though players can work together they dont have to, they can lone wolf it if they feel that is the best way, however the difference between co-op and PvE is negilagable

(i.e. no f***ing difference). Please do not troll only constructive discussion is accepted here (please abide by this - YOU'VE BEEN WARNED)

Ill give you all some more info about the mission:

Basically there are some areas on the map where AI bases are positioned. The main objective is to take out these bases. However these bases are heavily defended

and the attackers are weak to begin with. The OPFOR have a major tech advantage over the players. However by completing side objectives such as destroying a

vehicle depot the players can gain access to more equipment and weaken the enemy forces at the same time. There will also be further side missions such as setting

up patrols to seek and eliminate AI weapon teams (much like in MSO) and logistics operations (such as providing CSAR for friendly AI units at different bases)

I will hopefully be developing a new respawn system to work with the mission and game (i.e. a modular respawn system that can be used in most gametypes) however

in the first iteration i will not be using this as it is a long process to develop a gametype and a new game system solo.

Please try to stay on topic

The key issue i wish to address is whether players prefer PvE (players versus AI) or PvP (players versus players)

thanks

Bull

Edited August 22, 2013 by Bull_A

[viraL187 10]

Vastly prefer PVP over PVE.. any day of the week.

I know I'm going to be in the minority here.. and I understand that. If you look at the Arma3 servers, mostly everyone is playing Coop. A small percentage is playing Stratis Life or some other RPG (not for me). Some are playing wasteland (the biggest PvP mod right now). There are even fewer playing Sector Control or anything else PvP.

There's just something very rewarding about killing other humans in a video game. I just don't get the same thrill from shooting some computer controlled opfor, no matter how much you teach them to simulate human behavior. The combined arms is cool, working together against a common enemy is cool, but I prefer to do it in a PvP manner than PvE. For me it's all about the challenge. PvE brings many OpFor, your challenge is overcome your number disadvantage, and work together to overcome a common enemy. In PvE it's all about outsmarting your thinking opponents. They are no longer static enemy in a village, or patrolling along a route. They are making active decisions and trying to counter your decisions. For me that is a thousand times more immersive than any AI crapshoot will ever be.

What I really think is lacking right now; is cohesion and teamwork in the PvP scene. Arma2 PR was probably the best shot Arma had at a public gamemode directed towards teammwork - but unfortunately the playerbase was very centralized and small, mostly because the PR team had a much different thought process towards sharing work than everyone else.. but that's neither here nor there.

Personally, I think that if you want people to appreciate your work you need to create something new. Something that drives players to work together in one way or another, would be vastly appreciated by many. Right now the players that are playing PvE are drawn towards it mostly because of the teammwork value. The thrill you get from coordinating some choppers, attack helis, APCs and infantry all together against a common enemy. What if that PvE element could be applied in the PvP scene? I think it would drastically change peoples opinion on PvP, as mostly I just see PvErs looking down on it like it's counterstrike or BF3; something to quickly hop in, get a few kills, and hop out.

I think the main thing lacking in the PvP scene is a mod dedicated to coordinating players and enforcing teamwork. If this element can be integrated successfully I 100% believe that it will have a lasting player base, and be very rewarding.

If you're strictly asking : what do people prefer? You don't even need to make a vote. People prefer PvE in ARMA, just look at what the servers are playing and how they are populated. You will find your answer very fast.

[spamurai 3]

PvE is a more consistent, more reliable experience. I think you only need to look at the Server list to see that it is more popular. Players like it because they can just jump into it and play at their own pace, without the experience of having to rely on certain natural prerequisites... like having enough of the right kinds of player to make the scenario work properly.

PvP is more demanding. On everything. However, the rewards are equally greater in their potential too. When all the pieces come together of course. My saying goes;

"The best thing about multiplayer games is you play them with other human beings. The worst thing about multiplayer games is that you play them with other human beings".

There are plenty of valid reasons why a player would prefer to play PvE. One of the variables that greatly influences those reasons typical revolves around the Other Human Beings playing the game. I call it the OHB Factor. When you listen to people explain why PvP isn't fun, it typically sums up with a negative OHB factor and PvE allows them to minimize that effect on their game experience.

When i first started playing ArmA, I loved Domination. I hosted my own version of it on my server and I had a group of friends to play it with. We played it a lot, I tweaked it and modded it to suit our preferences and it was fun. However, it got old and played out. I really liked Warfare, still do, and I hosted and tweak out my own version of it. However, it again... just doesn't scratch the itch where it burns most anymore.

I've also played PvP games of ArmA that were vastly more "intense" then any game of Warfare or Domination... the kind that have a physical effect on you. you are physically nervous with more anxiety, your concentration is totally absorbed into the environment and atmosphere of the game; you perspire more, your adrenaline is up, heart is pounding and your hands shake afterwards. It's a thrill ride when the conditions are as they should be. However, I've also experienced far more games of PvP that were anything but... games that build up too much negative emotion, makes you feel foul inside to have to rely on these completely anonymous other human beings for an any worthwhile play experience and instead of inspiring you to play more, you are left wondering why you play at all.

So I get it. I know why people choose one over the other. I currently prefer PvP, but I find ArmA 3 to be a dry desert at the moment and PvE is just so... predictable that doesn't inspire me to play it.

[bull_a 44]

Ahhh its a tie atm 7-7 looks like is going to maybe be a mixture of both, i will try and put it 2 playable side BLUFOR and INDEPENDENT which can decide to work for or against each other. I think thats probably the best thign to do

[progamer 14]

Why not let a few players onto the AI team mabey one of them having commander mode? Would make it a lot more interesting for playing against the AI.

[spamurai 3]

Pure PvP is less demanding on the server and network. AI chew up a lot more resources. You need more scripting to deal with them. However, Pure PvP means your scenario will be depend more on maintaining enough players to actually play it which is hard to predict when it comes to the fickle nature of human beings. Plus the atmosphere of your scenario is influenced more by the actual players playing it, since it needs them to play their parts appropriately (or inappropriately) to create the environment. Everyone's actions essentially "vote" on how the game plays out. AI are more predictable and can be expected to play their part, the same, every time.

[bull_a 44]

Heres a few vids to show what I have been working on

WARGAME Progress Bar:

http://youtu.be/Jg1rC1wSUuo

WARGAME Gear Selector:

http://youtu.be/fA-QU1hdUtc

[zukov 490]

is there "pvp mode" made by BiS in Arma 3? hahahahahahahah

[Alwarren 2767]

Sigh...Oh im sorry i didnt realise that players versus AI where players do not have to work co-operatively is actually called co-op. My bad, even

though players can work together they dont have to, they can lone wolf it if they feel that is the best way, however the difference between co-op and PvE is negilagable

(i.e. no f***ing difference). Please do not troll only constructive discussion is accepted here (please abide by this - YOU'VE BEEN WARNED)

In that case, I am not quite sure what you want to find out with the question. I think the classification is a bit too broad to be answerable. For example, I prefer Coop, which is PvE, but what you describe there (PvE where players do not cooperate) doesn't sound appealing at all and n that case I would very much prefer PvP like e,g, Battlefield 3, which asks players to cooperate against another team.

Likewise, I hate free-for-all PvP (Deathmatch) but things like Project Reality are interesting to me.

So, feel free to consider me trolling here, but I think that a binary choice with such broad categories isn't answerable.

Edited August 24, 2013 by Alwarren
Corrected spelling

[fragmachine 12]

PvP of course. Can't stand playing against the AI. You say that PvE is Coop while PvP can't be Coop? Arguments please. It is all in mission design. Personally I find PvP much more interesting (only if it is not a Wasteland or deatchmach).

[Alwarren 2767]

while PvP can't be Coop? Arguments please.

Nobody said PvP can't be coop.

[bull_a 44]

Again, stop making this thread about the differences of PvE/PvP with CoOp, that is not the point of this thread. I wish to find out what players thoughts are for a PvE or PvP gamemode.

At the moment development on wargame is that the gamestyle will be more like PvPvE. With players from the BLUFOR and INDEPENDENT (both player sides) sides battling it out or working together to control the region and take down the OPFOR (AI only)

[comp_uter15776 1]

Nobody said PvP can't be coop.

You just said PvE was coop so by definition if PvP was also coop then the whole idea about not calling it "PvE" falls flat purely because if the author decided to not ask for PvE or PvP preference and instead said something like coop or PvP, then they'd be the same thing?

[un_fumeta 10]

I prefer coop game mode. Insurgency, for example, had some opfor playing with AI I think, but was mostly coop. I really enjoyed that mission.

[spanishsurfer 58]

The ultimate challenge is PVP....

I read a post that said most people are playing PVE, really? What about Wasteland, deathmatch missions, and the holy grail of game modes...Capture the Island.

[bull_a 44]

Ok looks like its going to be a mixture of PvE and PvP

The wya im going to do it is with the use of the Trident System

OPFOR will always be enemy with BLUFOR

BLUFOR start as friend with INDEPENDENT

INDEPENDENT can make OPFOR friend by attacking BLUFOR

BLUFOR consists of only Players

OPFOR consists of only AI

INDEPENDENT consists of both AI (as main force) and Players (for commanding AI)

UPDATE:

New base defence scripts and log in systems are almost finalised

(trying to make mission persistant - creates a local database of your kills and operation logs on your own computer

- i realise this is open to hacking, but for hardcore gamers this will be a really nice thing to put in - i really cannot be bothered with hackers anymore)

See you all soon

[Llano 11]

I prefer pvp. I find it boring to play vs AI, because they are both stupid, and over-powered.

[John_Lennon 10]

I also prefer pvp. I enjoyed some of the big battles like CTI and some big C&H maps.. I would love to see some smaller battles aswell like CTF - Maps 10v10 for smaller Clans to start some clanwars.. I enjoyed the good old Clanwars on OFP... CTF Saint Pierre, CTF Everon, ... ;)

[Robertqx 10]

Hi everyone, im currently looking to develop a new game mode to hopefully run alongside games like Domination and Invade and Annex

The game mode is going to be a mixture of MSO and Domination mixing together the best parts from both.

I was wondering whether people would prefer to play PvE (Players against AI) or PvP (players against players).

Please vote for the one you would prefer or the one you think would be better to run on a server, Im almost sure that PvE will gain a

higher percentage of votes but i wanted to make sure that the people were still interested in playing PvE and were not bored of it...

Thanks

Bull

Highly prefer PvP

I'd really like an Invade and Annex mode where you are playing against other human players doing capture and destroy type missions.