walker 0 Posted March 12, 2009 Hi all I wrote this in the other PvP thread but I think it leads the thread in so radical a direction that it is worthy of a thorough debate on its own so I repeat it here to get the ball rolling. This comes from an idea I presented Marek a few years back. ArmA II is a ground breaking game so it needs a paradigm shift in the way it is played. Any ways here is the original post Quote[/b] ]Leagues and ladders are so arbitrary and frankly boring.Standard maps are just plane wrong headed and inevitably boring. I am a great fan of the "Come and have a go, if you think your hard enough!" ethos. I think challenge belts/cups are a better model. The team that owns the cup sets up a map and the challenger makes another. Both teams play both sides of both maps. Points are assigned by the mission makers. Either clan can use AI and spawn/JIP as they wish. The major advantage of this is that any team of any size can play any other team. FA Cup, European cup, World Cup, Super Bowl, Wimbledon, the Olympics, Boxing, they are all challenge cup/medal/belt based. Leagues and ladders are old hat. ArmA II is new game and needs a new paradigm Perhaps Territories/islands should be both the battleground and the prize; heck why not make players/and attached assets such as MOD teams the prize. That last part is the part is the part i need to flesh out in this thread and to be discussed and ideas batted about. Kind Regards walker Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.kju 3239 Posted March 12, 2009 > ArmA II is a ground breaking game so it needs a paradigm shift in the way it is played. To me all of this sounds pretty much plainly wrong. No one even knows right now if and how A2 gameplay will be different to A1 and OFP. While the engine offers large scale, hardly any addon/model maker, mission creator understand how to utilize this properly. Scale alone is nothing. The interest of the modding community seems rather limited to this as well. I mean most modders do rather disconnected efforts not linked to any tournament, gameplay goal etc. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
walker 0 Posted March 12, 2009 Hi Q Can you support your arguments? Why do you think a Cup/medal/belt PvP model will not work? It is after all a simpler project model than a league/ladder which requires tons of bureaucracy? As to the more radical concepts of making ArmA entities/players/assets/mod teams the prize; as I said this is a Paradigm shift such things are by their nature shocking and revolutionary, that does not mean they do not occur or are frightening for any other reason than they are new and unknown. The key factor behind paradigm shifts is that they can only happen when people percieve them as a better solution. Wheels v Rollers, Paper v clay tablets, Printing v Hand Written, Computers v Logrithmic tables and filing cabinets, PC's v mainframes, The internet v the standalone etc... To find out if it is a better solution you have to suck it to see. Kind Regards walker Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.kju 3239 Posted March 12, 2009 We tried a lot. As a matter of fact humans stick to what they know (and already like). There are many league systems out there that ease the job pretty much. You can do it even sorely forums based. In regards of gameplay. People like prepare to a known concept - more precisely mission setup. And people want to train the known mission area/setup. In terms of work. A truly dynamic system might be less work, yet hard to do. Especially as most competitive play is seen to have the same chances for both sides. In terms of AI. Well most PvP do not want to have AI in at all. For me giving them transport and recon duty would be okay. Yet again very touchy topic. Personally I am not convinced of these ideals, yet the fast majority is - at least to my experience from long years of OFP, ArmA and deep insights into many other competitive MP games. So again I would welcome parts of what you are saying (asymmetric setup, focus on terrain, no/very few preparation, some AI use, etc). Yet again we better wait what A2 will truly bring. So far we have seen foremost (G)FX videos and not gameplay or technology. Edit: Sorry.. both my posts are somewhat not perfectly fitting. Without having read the other discussion, I think your thread is missing some informations / not detailed enough  and on the other hand very radical / different suggestion to what most people are used to atm. So again sorry for the somewhat unfitting responses. Just got a better idea by reading it several times now.  Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
celery 8 Posted March 12, 2009 Unless there are dozens of other people with a vision like that, you're pretty much on your own to create a competition system like that. Personally I wouldn't want to play a match against AI soldiers. I don't care if some type of mission doesn't utilize the absolute full potential of the game as long as it's entertaining to play. You can't expect to see no traditional pvp games just because you think it's time for something else. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yoma 0 Posted March 12, 2009 I'm currently toying around with some idea's on multiplay/ladder/Clan cohesion. It would be very nice to have some kind of tab in my tool where clans looking for a fight could "advertise" themselves. Stuff like "Clan x is currently looking for a clan/players to fight them in TVT mission y", with a simple "import server and connect" button. However i don't know how viable that route would be and how much interest it would get. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
walker 0 Posted March 12, 2009 Hi all As I pointed out the problem with the old fashioned Ladder/League PvP model is that it is so bureaucratic and restrictive. Clans have to be a certain size, forms to fill in, tables to maintain boredom city. A Challenge Belt is as simple as issuing a challenge. Kind Regards walker Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Commando84 0 Posted March 13, 2009 whats the easiest to maintain way? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eda Mrcoch 0 Posted March 13, 2009 I have firm belief that simulation can not be played competitively, since competition has to be fair. You have to push back the realism - for me the reason for which I play the game. I am not bashing the idea, it seems interesting, but it would require either very strong rules for the missionmaking which would "dumb down" the gameplay to make it fair or make it NOT a competition per se with points and the ladder. Even if both teams play both maps on both sides, you can design your mission so you have advantages on either side if you know where to look (reductio ad absurdum: Blue side gets point every second if it camps near that one pine tree in sector AG27, Redfor two points every time they shot their ammocrate in respawn zone). So you have to have some prescriptions for awarding points, authority that reviews every mission in detail and even then one squad would make helicopter mission since they are 100% TrackIr and specialize in air combat and the other guys would make sniperfest which they mastered and love -> End score 2:2 Also the "we don't want to play your mission, it is badly designed and boring" factor making a possibility for whinefest quite real. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Madha 0 Posted March 13, 2009 hmm haven't really played ArmA in clan but in some other games... But the way I see it: Ladders = advanced training... gives a little challange than the usuall pcw/scrim training Leagues = kind of nice to be in the top, a bit of glory  =) Cups = More glory and maybe prizes to win ! Haven't tried medal/belt based thingys... Best regards Madha Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
walker 0 Posted March 13, 2009 Hi Eda Mrcoch I see no problem with home advantage since both sides make or choose 1 mission, both would look to maximise their home advantage. Since this is analogous to an army defending its homeland it is internally logical. That people compete is the nature of people. As to whether it is fun? There is only one test, the suck it and see test. Kind Regards walker Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
walker 0 Posted March 16, 2009 Hi all Maybe BIS could put up a prize for a chalenge cup? The First team to complete the campaign online perhaps? Kind regards walker Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.kju 3239 Posted March 16, 2009 Prizes are the least problem here. Organization, getting teams interested and doing the missions is from my experience. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BLSmith2112 0 Posted March 16, 2009 Prizes are the least problem here. Exactly. You can't host a prize contest in a room filled with 10 people and expect to get a lot of submissions. The room has got to be filled up with more people first. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
walker 0 Posted March 16, 2009 Hi all BIS could easily include the campaign competition as a flier in the ArmA packaging and advertise it on websites. Kind Regards walker Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
telejunky 0 Posted March 16, 2009 Yeah maybe, but i do NOT want to see a general ranking system for MP like BF2 does have. It destroys how ArmA is meant to be played: The players goal is to get a higher rank and not to win with your team / be stealth in some situations. You know what i mean? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
walker 0 Posted March 16, 2009 Hi all telejunky I completely agree with you. Ranking system just leads to fake elitism based on paintball style competition. The ability to complete the campaign on line allows a paradigm shifting form of PvP to develop; based on realistic rather than artificial goals. It's not the Kills it's the mission. Kind regards walker Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
