Game-Mode That YOU Think Should Be Official

What's up guys, I have a question for all of you. It is what the title reads, but let me explain in more detail. Arma 3 and 2 don't have official servers. They simply have community made servers that are run by awesome people kind enough to do so. But what if there were, BIS Official Servers? What would be played on these servers?

More in depth, though, in regards to mod-ability, what i'm interested in hearing, are 3 Game mode's that should be Officially Hosted, that can also include community mods if highly requested.

• Tee Times Warfare
  
• End Game
  
• Zeus Sandbox
  

I think that these would be ideal game modes, that should become part of an Official Arma Experience.

Starting with Tee Time Warfare, this is a TvT experience, where two teams fight to capture strategic locations, in a "Chain-Link" style gameplay. The first team that captures all the points, wins the round. This Game-Mode in particular is great, because it includes the ability to earn money over time to purchase certain assets that could be valuable to winning the game for your team. This Mode can actually draw out for hours if caught in a stalemate, and Logistical asset's can also be brought to certain locations for the possibility of more deep down covert Operations via. squad, and can make for some interesting slips.

End Game is an Official Game-Mode, that is yet to be released, more on this when Marksman DLC is closer.

Zeus Sandbox is a Game-Mode that inspires creativity on the fly, real time, and can make for some interesting, and linear gameplay. Zeus can also be a tool for practicing tactics from large scale, all the way down to squad based tactics. This is essentially a Game-Mode that can be used to show new comers of Arma how to do various tasks, and training.

Either Zeus Sandbox, and Tee Times Warfare, can be modded, in order to bring in new elements of gameplay, in the case that could bring about more competitive style, or new features into the mix to create some truly unique combat experience.

Choose 3 Game Modes that you think should be Official Game-Mode's and let us know what you think!

Actually, there ARE official servers for A3.

http://arma3.com/servers

Actually, there ARE official servers for A3.

http://arma3.com/servers

Well... i should have done more research to be sure. there were some for A3. Well, none the less, i guess that excludes Zeus and Possibly End Game, as that's sure to end up on a handful of Official Servers.

I wanna see something like 'Conquest' from BF3 in A3 multiplayer. It just really sux how the only TvT gamemode out there is KOTH. It makes public multiplayer not worth playing once you get bored of KOTH. I would also like to see something like Rush (with AI as well?) and just genuine CQB TvT where you fight in the confines of say an industrial complex or town (like Team Deathmatch from BF3).

I wanna see something like 'Conquest' from BF3 in A3 multiplayer. It just really sux how the only TvT gamemode out there is KOTH. It makes public multiplayer not worth playing once you get bored of KOTH. I would also like to see something like Rush (with AI as well?) and just genuine CQB TvT where you fight in the confines of say an industrial complex or town (like Team Deathmatch from BF3).

Filter for, "capture-the-island", CTI. The EUTW folks run popular tee-time pvp servers.

Filter for, "capture-the-island", CTI. The EUTW folks run popular tee-time pvp servers.

Tis a shame because I can't play on European servers...I get 350+ ping

Tis a shame because I can't play on European servers...I get 350+ ping

There's a new ca server run by the hostiletakeover guys.

Blitzkrieg

Tis a shame because I can't play on European servers...I get 350+ ping

When i play on EUTW servers, it's actually one of the few servers i get amazing FPS on, and considering it's a a European server most of the time, that's pretty cool.

Some AAS style missions.

I really wonder why some basic mission styles weren't promoted well with MANW. AAS, Insurgency, Conquest style, CTF, you know that stuff should be the basic gamemodes in Arma and you don't see those much... Well Blitzkrieg was there but it didn't even make in top-10... Probably the only MP gamemode category that I could enjoy...

Edited March 29, 2015 by St. Jimmy

Anything like Capture and Hold - BF Conquest style etc

good old Cerberus C5 pvp maps in ArmA 1

One of the primary inhibitors in the MP section was 3rd party content. For instance Insurgency gamemodes have 4-5 significant contributors to the popular variants.

I think, there definitelly should be official singleplayer game modes, maybe with optional MP if applicable, but I really don't care much about MP. Procedural, but not exactly like in A2, better, wider and more diversed as for kind of gameplay provided (creative approaches, exploring new ideas, truly living island in the background). IMHO Arma is very well suited toward this kind of gameplay except for performance so far. Much more, than toward linear campaign, which IMHO simply doesn't use whole potential of A3 by its nature.

All right, I know, intention was MP, but I couldn't resist. :)

Some AAS style missions.

I really wonder why some basic mission styles weren't promoted well with MANW. AAS, Insurgency, Conquest style, CTF, you know that stuff should be the basic gamemodes in Arma and you don't see those much... Well Blitzkrieg was there but it didn't even make in top-10... Probably the only MP gamemode category that I could enjoy...

Yes! Blitzkrieg was really good, I don't' know why it seemed to fade away and die. something like that is what I think they should work on as an 'official' PvP multiplayer mode. Something that encourages teamwork inherently in the rules and has enough distance between the points to need some light transport. One team attacking and the other defending. TacBF is pretty solid too, although it never really clicked with me for some reason, but either of those would be my vote.

Blitzkreig gets my vote... Would be great to play it as an official game mode.

why it seemed to fade away and die

The current server browser is the key reason. It promotes high player count server more than anything else.

In addition with the poor filtering options (people only see the most popular game modes), as well as lack of history

and favorites (at least until recently).

Unfortunately BI was never willing to acknowledge its importance and Dwarden does not have enough say inside BI..

Other reasons were me not willing to give into fully casualizing the system (free weapon selection, unlimited snipers,

income system and focus than individual player scores - instead of current team success design).

In any case I had offered BI the game mode during A3 dev and they said "a mere sector control" is not unique and good enough.

Unfortunately BI has little understanding of MP and is not willing to listen to people with knowledge or experience.

A3 could have captured a large crowd from BF3 and PR, yet they did not see that potential or cared.

Lucky for them Dean made Arma so popular with DayZ and very popular streamers brought A2 and A3 now lots of new customers

looking for DayZ alternatives like Wasteland, Life and KotH turned out to be.

Edited March 29, 2015 by .kju [PvPscene]

;2908541']The current server browser is the key reason. It promotes high player count server more than anything else.

In addition with the poor filtering options (people only see the most popular game modes)' date=' as well as lack of history

and favorites (at least until recently).

Unfortunately BI was never willing to acknowledge its importance and Dwarden does not have enough say inside BI..

Other reasons were me not willing to give into fully casualizing the system (free weapon selection, unlimited snipers,

income system and focus than individual player scores - instead of current team success design).

In any case I had offered BI the game mode during A3 dev and they said "a mere sector control" is not unique and good enough.

Unfortunately BI has little understanding of MP and is not willing to listen to people with knowledge or experience.

A3 could have captured a large crowd from BF3 and PR, yet they did not see that potential or cared.

Lucky for them Dean made Arma so popular with DayZ and very popular streamers brought A2 and A3 now lots of new customers

looking for DayZ alternatives like Wasteland, Life and KotH turned out to be.[/quote']

Funny how everything needs to be so unique when the game is lagging of basic gamemodes. No official CTF, Conquest, Sector Control, S&D etc. etc. those PVP modes that SHOULD BE there officially or at least should be well supported.

Got to really hope that they're working on much better server browser. At least history tab is coming but it needs much more.

I wanna see something like 'Conquest' from BF3 in A3 multiplayer.

*cough* It's called Sector Control, there's an Editor module for it... heck, one of the official game modes that BI delivered with the Zeus update is ZSC 32+2 Control Edessa on Altis. Is there's something from Battlefield Conquest that's missing from SC...?

I would also like to see something like Rush (with AI as well?) and just genuine CQB TvT where you fight in the confines of say an industrial complex or town (like Team Deathmatch from BF3).

While I'm not averse to either of these, I remember there being some TDM servers early in Arma 3's life that seemed to fade off eventually, possibly because people found that they were able to (pardon the expression) "get their fight on" in the more popular modes just​ fine. As for Rush though... I'm thinking of the question of the concept of just how to enforce the linear approach inherent in that match type without instituting the playable area boundaries of COD/BF.

I really wonder why some basic mission styles weren't promoted well with MANW. AAS, Insurgency, Conquest style, CTF, you know that stuff should be the basic gamemodes in Arma and you don't see those much... Well Blitzkrieg was there but it didn't even make in top-10... Probably the only MP gamemode category that I could enjoy...

Define "promoted well with MANW" here?

Forgot to mention Dragon Zens push concept, I forget the amazing name he gave it :P I always imagined that would be a lot of fun playing on full servers.

*cough* It's called Sector Control, there's an Editor module for it... heck, one of the official game modes that BI delivered with the Zeus update is ZSC 32+2 Control Edessa on Altis. Is there's something from Battlefield Conquest that's missing from SC...?

the problem with the sector control modules is that it's the very bare minimum.

the long list of deficiencies in arma start with basic things like a simple and intuitive marker placement system to actually allow satisfying cross squad communication. things like that have to be game mode specific and streamlined for what the specific game mode needs. that means both expansion and limitation of all the random stuff that is already there. much like a game mode specific HUD the map has to talk a certain specific language. i'm talking about gamemode specific symbols and spotting systems a la PR. anything else is counterintuitive and random and thus chaotic in its outcome as can be seen on the map in public servers. they are either empty or full of bullshit most of the time.

here's a great example of what i'm talking about.

another thing is actually giving the tiniest fuck about a squad leader being a squad leader. the lack of this is mind blowing since arma has a group system at its very core that even the AI uses. squad leader specific abilities. then there's revive systems and spawn mechanics which also can tie in with specific roles. i don't want to go into too much detail because i think most of these things are no brainers, if you really care.

and if you want to think more basic and something that sadly blitzkrieg was missing too imho...having flags be in actually interesting positions and nicely balanced locations. i know that's harder on a premade terrain but on the other hand arma also offers in insane amount of good locations.

your attitude obviously comes from having zero interest in such a game mode and sadly mirrors BIS' attitude. the thing you have to do when you make a game mode is actually care about it and play it. just thinking in bare principles doesn't magically great enjoyable gameplay. and while i appreciate the effort put into mission modules for tasks, i think a fully designed sector mode would be worth more effort than those modules that basically say what you said: "if you really want this, here you have a way of doing it".

While I'm not averse to either of these, I remember there being some TDM servers early in Arma 3's life that seemed to fade off eventually, possibly because people found that they were able to (pardon the expression) "get their fight on" in the more popular modes just​ fine. As for Rush though... I'm thinking of the question of the concept of just how to enforce the linear approach inherent in that match type without instituting the playable area boundaries of COD/BF.

that would actually improve the game mode. rush in battlefield suffers a lot from lack of flanking room. it's what creates those insane base rape locks and tunnel massacres.

i'm glad to see some acknowledgement of things like a proper respawn system and a tightly designed gamemode being of actual value by making something like endgame. but it's way overdue and far from enough.

that would actually improve the game mode. rush in battlefield suffers a lot from lack of flanking room. it's what creates those insane base rape locks and tunnel massacres.

Sadly I do know what you meant by "insane base rape locks and tunnel massacres", and I did groan at the announced return of Operation Métro for this reason... but I imagine that what you're thinking of can be chalked up to suboptimal-for-that-mode (to say the least!) map design and in particular M-COM placement. After considering of how the lack of the playable area boundary would improve the game mode, I suppose that what you'd have in mind instead would be "vanilla Attack & Defend" while taking advantage of Altis/Stratis' "insane amount of good locations"?

Sadly I do know what you meant by "insane base rape locks and tunnel massacres", and I did groan at the announced return of Operation Métro for this reason... but I imagine that what you're thinking of can be chalked up to suboptimal-for-that-mode (to say the least!) map design and in particular M-COM placement. After considering of how the lack of the playable area boundary would improve the game mode, I suppose that what you'd have in mind instead would be "vanilla Attack & Defend" while taking advantage of Altis/Stratis' "insane amount of good locations"?

I actually thought up a decent amount of game-mode's myself. Though a traditional rush style gameplay sounds like a nice twist that would be interesting to see in Arma.

something that sadly blitzkrieg was missing too imho...having flags be in actually interesting positions and nicely balanced locations.

i know that's harder on a premade terrain but on the other hand arma also offers in insane amount of good locations

you are aware of this Bad Benson anyway, but just to spell it out for others:

1) requires a lot of testing, tweaking, adjustments - neither for IF nor A3 I had the community/team to do this

2) that said its also a design choice - it should be about strategic terrain combat, not about micro terrain combat like in CS/BF/RO

(both the arma terrains nor the arma infantry mechanics/gameplay are as well as suited as its competitors for this)

;2909017']you are aware of this Bad Benson anyway' date=' but just to spell it out for others:

1) requires a lot of testing, tweaking, adjustments - neither for IF nor A3 I had the community/team to do this

2) that said its also a design choice - it should be about strategic terrain combat, not about micro terrain combat like in CS/BF/RO

(both the arma terrains nor the arma infantry mechanics/gameplay are as well as suited as its competitors for this)[/quote']

yea i totally agree on point one. i'm not blaming you at all for anything. but i also think that your second point is part of the thinking that leads to arma having such a lack of PvP like that. "Arma is this, Arma isn't that". BIS did so much in terms of infantry movement that i don't think that's a good argument anymore.

and besides. the PvP maps i had the most fun on in arma 2 on the legendary (for me atleast :D) cerberus 5 servers were the ones where they basically placed a lot of stuff in the editor to create what you could call micro terrain. hell, one of them was just a bunch of parallel walls in the desert that created some kind of trench warfare. another took entirely place in a riverbed filled with cover objects, which made for something that reminds me a lot of some rising storm maps in retrospective.

i agree though that Arma needs to do its own thing. not so much in terms of just scaling up what you see in other games but more using all the things that other games don't have (which could be anything really..considering sqf) to create interesting mechanics that give everything more meaning and prevent the lone wolf sniping it often ends up being.

i'm for example a firm believer in revive and squad respawn systems while these were often called too "unrealistic" or "gamey" by arma people. but you have to ask yourself what these things actually can do for teamplay. if i want to rely on friends/clan mates then there is virtually no game design needed. but in a public environment it's a totally different ball game.

and i think that flag placement is the smallest problem. i also think that one should not only look at conquest type modes. i mean End Game has a lot in common with bf4's obliteration. it's more something like a CTF spin off. i could also see something like squad deathmatch working well in arma. it all needs its own twist though but i think there is no shame in "stealing" those concepts from places where they work.

;2909017']you are aware of this Bad Benson anyway' date=' but just to spell it out for others:

1) requires a lot of testing, tweaking, adjustments - neither for IF nor A3 I had the community/team to do this

2) that said its also a design choice - it should be about strategic terrain combat, not about micro terrain combat like in CS/BF/RO

(both the arma terrains nor the arma infantry mechanics/gameplay are as well as suited as its competitors for this)[/quote']

Blitzkreig is an example of a fine pvp mode few have played or know about.

I'd like to see Bis host Blitzkreig --and other well made modes-- on their servers.

Think of it as a pvp showcase where Bis can foster awareness of these solid missions.

Bis could even create a filter for "Bis Showcase" to make them easy to find.

Given a chance, modes like Blitzkreig will find communities willing to host on private servers.