What's wrong with the official MP Missions?

[chortles 263]

Ah, it seems that I misunderstood the "global leaderboard" part. I thought OP was talking about obligatory stat tracking across all gamemodes/missions in Arma.

Pffft hell no none of us was looking for THAT, what he was addressing was End Game specifically, seeing as it's BI's only real TvT scenario in A3, and if he were tasked to make it more popular (which obviously isn't the same as making it good... because he already considered it compelling).

[fabio_chavez 103]

 

where on this timeline are we btw?​

[2nd ranger 282]

Huh? That shows how an Endgame match plays out. It's not a dev timeline.

[fabio_chavez 103]

Huh? That shows how an Endgame match plays out. It's not a dev timeline.

 

If what you say is true, all hope is gone. *sigh*

[MadocComadrin 12]

PvP (as we know it in 2015) is more about points, scoring, statistics and accumulation, than it is about actually competing against other players in a game.

 

The things successful PvP all have in common:

 

- Points / XP.

- Statistics ( K/D , etc)

- Leaderboards / Comparative Scoring.

- Competitive character optimization (Leveling, Weapon unlocks, Perks)

- Accumulation of objects/e-stats. (Persistence, Progression).

- Ego expression (A place to see other peoples numbers/score/stats/etc compared to your own). (Database)

I agree and disagree. The main issue I take is with your fourth point. Some successful PvP games do this, but many don't--it takes away from competition. MOBAs don't really do this (although sometimes Free-to-Play models requires unlocking characters, but you're generally expected to be comfortable with most if not all characters before doing any sort of ranked game). Some FPSs do this, but they aren't necessarily at the top of what people consider competitive (although they may be successful popularity-wise or monetarily). "Persistence and progression" isn't really that important either, as can be evidenced by Rocket League: unlocks (consmetic) don't take that much time and achievements are very easy to get.

 

You've also missed something very important: an interesting meta. An interesting meta is just balanced enough to be fair, has a well-shaped learning curve, provides some solid strategies for any familiar player, provides some great strategies for skilled players, provides for experimentation and emergence, can shift without outside/dev support (to stay fresh in-between changes/"seasons"), and can be shifted with careful developer support.

 

Another thing to consider is that many successful modern team PvP games have a competitive matches that require some set up/investment and casual/semi-casual "quick"/unranked matches that mimic the competitive matches. You may also see ranked matches for solo/non-full-team players as well. This creates a well layered approach that allows for people with varying interest in competition to play at a level that works for them.

 

It really comes down to what type of PvP do we want to see from ArmA 3? I would love to see a PvP mode that focuses around proper role usage, group and individual tactics, and situational awareness. I don't actually see Bohemia pulling that off with their current staff. They'd need to bring someone, if not a few people on to support a large-scale competitive PvP effort.

 

Also, more and more noticeable official servers please.

[Roach_ 52]

Are the official servers on DEV always offline? Never once saw one online. I really want to try out End Game.

[bis_iceman 7385]

Are the official servers on DEV always offline? Never once saw one online. I really want to try out End Game.

Hello,

official servers were offline due to system update and auto restart, they should appear online again very soon. Thanks for letting us know! Please note, though, that all official servers are running the Stable branch of the game. There are technical limitations preventing us from having a Dev branch server online all the time (mostly daily updates and unstable/experimental environment).

[major_barnes1987 33]

Because Altis Life, Exile, and Wasteland.

 

Personally, I'd love to see BIS bring back Warfare from Arma 2.

 

I couldn't agree with you more my friend.

About Warfare there are missions like Liberation witch is more classic Capture the whole island co op with other players against A.I.And EUTW PvP Warfare witch is faster than Liberation but still very

tactical.But yes i would also like an official Warfare mission from B.I. and a dedicated server or two for all of us good ol' fashioned tactical players out there.Who knows,maybe we'll get one soon.

The thing about co op missions you people say,well the new co op campaign may be the answer you're looking for.Just be patient... :)

[fn_Quiksilver 1633]

This in a nutshell.

 

Endgame alone is better than most of the crap that plagues the public servers. Why does no one use it? Because BIS apparently doesn't know how to make their own missions more known.

We should have official servers as the first thing you see in the server browser.

 

And yet despite 2000 people viewing this thread and hundreds more viewing its reddit counterpart, still 0 people played End Game in the past 48 hours  ;)

 

I think End Game was marketed well enough. There have been hundreds of public servers hosting it since it was released, more than enough for it to catch on. The most people playing it aside from during the livestream (mostly devs), was 16 people on a Spanish server back in April for one day.

 

I want to see it do well, I just think its missing a few important things to achieve popularity in 2015 game ecosystem.

[Mirek 166]

 

 

 I just think its missing a few important things to achieve popularity in 2015 game ecosystem.

And theese are?

[eriktrak 76]

And theese are?

 

In case not digging deep in Arma forums difficult to decide what type of experience offered by different game modes. (like persistency, how long a match will be, difficulty etc.)  

 

I spend too much time with Arma but sure does not even heard about modes which might be fun to play.

[fn_Quiksilver 1633]

And theese are?

 

Hi,

 

thought I elaborated on this in the edited section of the original post...

 

Cliffs of essentials for popular game in 2015

 

- For MP:

 

• Achievements
• competitive character optimization (perks, unlocks, etc)
• a number which goes up that the user can attach their ego to (visible to and comparable to other peoples number),
• an element of loss to punish the player for not playing (a number which goes down when not in-game, or a socially undesirable consequence for not playing, such as letting your e-friends down if you arent at the correct level),
• resource management (make the player worry about their character, even when not ingame)
• social expression. (lots of people want to play with friends, more than they want to just play)

 

- For SP:

• Collectibles,
• perfectionist/completionist expression.
• Facilitate hoarding of objects/numbers. Numbers less important than objects in SP since less ego attachment (generally no one else can see your number)

 

^ Of course you actually have to have a game somewhere in there, but evidence shows people will flock to and spend thousands of hours clicking a button/playing filth, with the correct reward and punishment schedule. Reference farmville.

 

:)

 

Feel free to poke holes, I'm just tossing my own thoughts up in the air.

 

And yes, ArmA does have a large niche audience (mil sim) which doesn't care for that stuff. But End Game is not appealing to milsim users, for IMO obvious reasons.

[inlesco 233]

Hi,

... lots of text...

Nice breakdown of the key elements, mate.

 

In essence, all of the mentioned combined provide what we should call 'a sense of progression'. Progression gives an ego boost. It's up to the person what he sees as progression.

Sure, there's always a percentage that plays for fun and fun only.

 

Since I'm mostly a SP gamer right now, I sometimes loves to take a look at the pure numbers. For instance, OFP had a nice table of all kills (friendly, enemy, etc.) covering the entire campaign.

 

I'd like to see it back to Arma. Or at least someone from the community make a temporary solution.

[Mirek 166]

Hi,

 

thought I elaborated on this in the edited section of the original post...

 

Cliffs of essentials for popular game in 2015

 

- For MP:

 

• Achievements
• competitive character optimization (perks, unlocks, etc)
• a number which goes up that the user can attach their ego to (visible to and comparable to other peoples number),
• an element of loss to punish the player for not playing (a number which goes down when not in-game, or a socially undesirable consequence for not playing, such as letting your e-friends down if you arent at the correct level),
• resource management (make the player worry about their character, even when not ingame)
• social expression. (lots of people want to play with friends, more than they want to just play)

 

- For SP:

• Collectibles,
• perfectionist/completionist expression.
• Facilitate hoarding of objects/numbers. Numbers less important than objects in SP since less ego attachment (generally no one else can see your number)

 

^ Of course you actually have to have a game somewhere in there, but evidence shows people will flock to and spend thousands of hours clicking a button/playing filth, with the correct reward and punishment schedule. Reference farmville.

 

:)

 

Feel free to poke holes, I'm just tossing my own thoughts up in the air.

 

And yes, ArmA does have a large niche audience (mil sim) which doesn't care for that stuff. But End Game is not appealing to milsim users, for IMO obvious reasons.

 

I agree in folowing.

 

Achievements. As long as those achievements are immersion friendly. Example: DCG has "civilian approval" wich depends on how do you solve each tasks, eg. not killing civilians, helping civilians etc.

I would be strongly against any type of achievement that would encourage nonteamplay (lonewolf) behaviour.

 

Resource management: Limited ammount of ammunition,  Long respawn timer or no respawn at all for destroyed/abandonned vehicles/equipment, or point los for lossing/abandonning vehicles, lifes and equipment resulting in gameower when points run out. Example: Arma 2 domination ticket system.

Social aspect: Its a multiplayer game what more social it can get?

 

Things iam against:

 

Percs, unlocks, Personal scoreboards, K/D ratios or other arcadeish nonsense. because it encourages lonewolfing, grinding and other stupid behaviour.

Punishing players for not playing (this is no freetoplay bulshit game, this is ARMA)

 

people playing arma should be either members of some milsim unit, or should be prepared to join any organised group of people currently playing on the server. Theyr goal shouldnt be some place on some scoreboard, but succes of entire side/faction/unit, and commanders/teammates approwal.

[eriktrak 76]

 

..... Theyr goal shouldnt be some place on some scoreboard, but succes of entire side/faction/unit, and commanders/teammates approwal.

 

Global ranking system but get points/ranks only on sessions which is admin controlled. Even I could imagine when no points are automatic added but only the session's admin could give points.

 

For this need trusted admins for sure.

[I give up 152]

So BIS next time you make anything like MANW then have a category like: COOP Mission/Campaign packet, for 2-6 players. Or better, make those by yourself. 5-10 pack of nice missions. That's the stuff how people can get in the game.

This.

Why?

Because ARMA is not about PvP. ARMA is all about COOP and was exactly COOP that made this game a success.

The main difference from ARMA 2 to ARMA 3 is that with 2 and OA there was nice and skilled mission makers building these COOP missions (remember Domination?), in fact BIS itself was supporting and helping them with these missions for ARMA 2.

With ARMA 3 these people went way they just gave up, dont know if it was because BIS decided to support some other type missions or something else, I know they are not here anymore and consequently everyone is losing.

For PvP there are some other games aimed exactly for this game type with which BIS should not be worried trying to compete.

Bring back COOP, bring back those people. If not, BIS should start to make decent COOP missions.

[chortles 263]

@Mirek: so you're basically against the very elements the OP said are essential for player count? Most crucially: "a number which goes up that the user can attach their ego to (visible to and comparable to other peoples number)"...

[fabio_chavez 103]

This.

Why?

Because ARMA is not about PvP. 

no harm intended but why are you generalizing?

speak for yourself if you dont like pvp but there is no reason to defend the status quo :/

its not like pvp and coop is a zero sum game...

[twisted 127]

id really like a pvp and coop game mode for arma 3 that is

 

1. easy to join and take part in no matter what addons you have

 

2. accessibility in joining  - not in dumbed down mechanics or game play but in ease of knowing the game objectives (ie capture a position) and getting in a nearby match.

 

3. ranks on official servers based on official server objectives. these ranks determine who leads, nothing more.

 

4. more detailed areas made specially for more unique pvp/ coop experiences .

[eriktrak 76]

 

3. ranks on official servers based on official server objectives. these ranks determine who leads, nothing more.

 

 

Based on ranks you could take team leader positon for example (highest ranking has higher priority). That would give trust towards team leaders and lead to cooperative gameplay.

[peegee 118]

Biggest killer of pvp in Arma is that it is Arma. Things such as looking through walls and clipping. And a nice fatigue system ruined by drunken weapon sway.
Turning around indoors might kill you or even toss you 100m in air. This might be somewhat fixed in dev build with the new much nicer system. Vaulting trough everything isn't fixed.

But still, I'm pretty sure I walked to ontop of a pine tree few days ago in CTI match.

E: Most of the time I play pvp and that is alot, bratwurste. Arma has both.

Also;  Most PC gamer-friends of mine laugh at Arma, just looking at it. They see some guy just plopped into wall. Getting stuck into clutter, all that clunkiness.
I'm not saying they should compete with other games, I'm saying theres big crowd keeping this game as a joke. And that something to worry about.

This is coming from a guy whos first experience in whole Arma series was placing a ladder on a field and then flied with the ladder, in a PVP match. :D
 

[Mirek 166]

@Mirek: so you're basically against the very elements the OP said are essential for player count? Most crucially: "a number which goes up that the user can attach their ego to (visible to and comparable to other peoples number)"

Exactly.

[fabio_chavez 103]

Also;  Most PC gamer-friends of mine laugh at Arma, just looking at it. They see some guy just plopped into wall. Getting stuck into clutter, all that clunkiness.

 

I have like 6 friends who bought Arma 3, opened the server browser, joined a server, quit the game, uinstalled. 

But i guess its the first part of the sentence that counts... :)

since i use to show them arma screenshots and videos from time to time, there is a general interest in the game though nothing that pushes it to the tipping point.

endgame will not do the job either.

[peegee 118]

I have like 6 friends who bought Arma 3, opened the server browser, joined a server, quit the game, uinstalled. 

But i guess its the first part of the sentence that counts... :)

since i use to show them arma screenshots and videos from time to time, there is a general interest in the game though nothing that pushes it to the tipping point.

endgame will not do the job either.

For them Arma sounds nice on paper, but it doesn't work at all.

Unfortunately they are bit right.

Not to say I hate this game, because I still play it.

It's just that this game is hopeless when it gets compared with basically any other game.

I mean c'mon. Give me one other title where it's pretty much franchise standard to have players going trough walls or getting stuck into rocks is basically a feature.

 

[bad benson 1733]

i think the notion that arma is just a coop game and especially that that's what made it successful is wrong or at least outdated. first of all. i had my best gameplay in arma 2 in PvP. and not exactly unpopular missions. Insurgency was being played daily by many people and back then there were servers who actually allowed Opfor slots. for some reason that feature has gone extinct now. it's a real shame because Insurgency did the coop plus PvP thing much better than Endgame since there wasn't this weird filler state of both teams fighting AI at different sides of the map but instead had everyone have the same point of interest more or less.

 

as for the success. the reason arma sales are what they are now is largly due to dayZ, which is a full on PvP experience (what it actually plays out to be and not what people wish it to be). all these dayZ clones and wasteland and especially battle royale show that not only that arma CAN do PvP but also that a large amount of its players ARE playing PvP.

 

so not only please speak for yourself but also consider the reality of things. arma is open. there will always be coop communities and servers. so no need to get scared of the competitive part and just deny it. arma has a lot of unused potential there still since it's one fo the few games that actually allows you to flank at will in its open terrains and gives much more interesting engagement ranges than most other games.

 

i'd love to get some engaging PvP concepts more or less inside the military scope, or let's say without loot and zombies, but more than the same old sector control stuff that just gets old and dry. how about some escort stuff. in alpha there was a period where some VIP escort missions had come out and they were played a lot. it was fantastic. but it just disappeared for some reason. probably because soem dayZ like thing came out and fludded the server browser. real shame.