Why warfare fails as a game mode

[cadmium77 16]

There are several solutions for base hunting in WF/WFBE. For example: LINK system for both sides to communicate with their bases respectively. Leaders choose locations to set up those lines. Only members of a particular side can see and use them. Meanwhile, bases are invisible and invulnerable until some condition is satisfied. Could be anything - one side must control 50% of the towns on the map or similar. Then proceed to search&destroy phase.

Overall, numerous solutions are possible, as you can see. It's only a matter of time and human resources to implement and present them.

What warfare mode needs more than anything is for the AI enemy to go on the attack more. Total War has the same problem; you end up fighting a lot of sieges. Sieges are OK but at the very least you should be besieged yourself by the AI enemy. The enemy needs to marshal resources and go on the attack.

[dmarkwick 261]

Nobody should have to fix a developers broken game for them.

What you're talking about though is not fixing, but changing. A heck of a lot of people seem to confuse changing the standard gameplay to fixing the standard gameplay.

[iceman77 18]

Actually, the "WF" is a "MFCTI" concept. It originated in OFP, by "at that time"..just another game player "modder" with an idea.

Yup, exactly. But yet it's BIs fault, because we actually have the option to go into config files and set some values, so the scenario is to our liking. Us, going into a config to set some values, according to JCD, is fixing BIs game. Crazy.

[JCDBionicman 1]

What you're talking about though is not fixing, but changing. A heck of a lot of people seem to confuse changing the standard gameplay to fixing the standard gameplay.

I disagree that what I'm describing isn't in fact asking Bohemia to fix their broken multiplayer. Actually, an easy fix technically already exists in that AI can be completely disabled, but nobody seems to have the sense to create servers like that and if I create one nobody joins it. If somebody could PM me and invite me to the described server type I am asking for I would appreciate it.

EDIT: Just created a game, and seems disabling AI only does so for the purposes of commanding. AI units are still core of gameplay.

---------- Post added at 07:44 ---------- Previous post was at 07:11 ----------

Yup, exactly. But yet it's BIs fault, because we actually have the option to go into config files and set some values, so the scenario is to our liking. Us, going into a config to set some values, according to JCD, is fixing BIs game. Crazy.

That you have the option to modify the game isn't the reason used. The reason used is that the game has several major gameplay design oversights, most of which should have been obvious if they had tested their own alpha/beta more extensively, and that these design oversights, in addition to some bugs, are not addressed by BI like they should have but instead have been addressed by the modding community.

Edited January 19, 2013 by JCDBionicman

[iceman77 18]

I disagree that what I'm describing isn't in fact asking Bohemia to fix their broken multiplayer. Actually, an easy fix technically already exists in that AI can be completely disabled, but nobody seems to have the sense to create servers like that and if I create one nobody joins it. If somebody could PM me and invite me to the described server type I am asking for I would appreciate it.

EDIT: Just created a game, and seems disabling AI only does so for the purposes of commanding. AI units are still core of gameplay.

---------- Post added at 07:44 ---------- Previous post was at 07:11 ----------

That you have the option to modify the game isn't the reason used. The reason used is that the game has several major gameplay design oversights, most of which should have been obvious if they had tested their own alpha/beta more extensively, and that these design oversights, in addition to some bugs, are not addressed by BI like they should have but instead have been addressed by the modding community.

nvm, not even worth anymore of my time to argue with a BF/COD noob who thinks he knows...

Edited January 19, 2013 by Iceman77
Not going to waste anymore time with this noob

[JCDBionicman 1]

nvm, not even worth anymore of my time to argue with a BF/COD noob who thinks he knows...

NOOB: Somebody who is new to a competitive online video game.

If you're going to insult, do it properly.

[inlesco 233]

I disagree that what I'm describing isn't in fact asking Bohemia to fix their broken multiplayer. Actually, an easy fix technically already exists in that AI can be completely disabled, but nobody seems to have the sense to create servers like that and if I create one nobody joins it. If somebody could PM me and invite me to the described server type I am asking for I would appreciate it.

EDIT: Just created a game, and seems disabling AI only does so for the purposes of commanding. AI units are still core of gameplay.

---------- Post added at 07:44 ---------- Previous post was at 07:11 ----------

That you have the option to modify the game isn't the reason used. The reason used is that the game has several major gameplay design oversights, most of which should have been obvious if they had tested their own alpha/beta more extensively, and that these design oversights, in addition to some bugs, are not addressed by BI like they should have but instead have been addressed by the modding community.

I'm not here to discuss something vague, but apparently you do.

First off, all the flaws you mentioned were addressed and if time allows, I think WF will receive a design overhaul based on Benny's and others' ideas and particular implementations of them. Expect something fresh, too.

Secondly, the "problems" you described are long-known. From a video games business perspective, it'd be irrational to release a WF mode overhaul even if it's finished at this moment. Very improved stuff is usually kept for next installments of franchises.

Thirdly, get familiarized with how games industry, content creation workflows and management really works.

Finally, apply the knowledge to prevent fruitless discussions.

[iceman77 18]

NOOB: Somebody who is new to a competitive online video game.

If you're going to insult, do it properly.

Cool that a google returned that definition. Here's the one I prefer. Out of about a thousand other definitions for noob.

Noob - knows little and has no will to learn any more.

Btw, I read another one of your posts. MP isn't necessarily PvP. MP can be any game mode. You're speaking of MP like it's limited to PvP. Also, noone plays CTF or TDM. So I doubt BI will put any effort into those game modes. There's already PvP game modes such Vahalla, berzerk & also AAS maps if you're looking to reproduce the games your fresh over from...

[JCDBionicman 1]

I'm not here to discuss something vague, but apparently you do.

First off, all the flaws you mentioned were addressed and if time allows, I think WF will receive a design overhaul based on Benny's and others' ideas and particular implementations of them. Expect something fresh, too.

Secondly, the "problems" you described are long-known. From a video games business perspective, it'd be irrational to release a WF mode overhaul even if it's finished at this moment. Very improved stuff is usually kept for next installments of franchises.

Thirdly, get familiarized with how games industry, content creation workflows and management really works.

Finally, apply the knowledge to prevent fruitless discussions.

You mean't "apparently you are." Don't understand what's vague about what I'm talking about.

Those flaws I mentioned aren't addressed at all in ArmA 2. If there's something I'm missing perhaps you should fill me in and be less vague.

Seeing as this is the sub forum for ArmA 3, I was of course talking about Warfare for ArmA 3. Do you know what forum you're on?

I don't see where I've shown any ignorance in the industry, but it's clear you have no idea what you're talking about on any front.

Edited January 20, 2013 by JCDBionicman

[Nicholas 5]

I'm not a fan of Warfare at all. I can play a quick game of Warfare here and there, but I don't like when I'm forced to play it. Warfare was probably one of the biggest reasons why I did not like the ArmA II campaign.

[JCDBionicman 1]

Btw, I read another one of your posts. MP isn't necessarily PvP. MP can be any game mode. You're speaking of MP like it's limited to PvP. Also, noone plays CTF or TDM. So I doubt BI will put any effort into those game modes. There's already PvP game modes such Vahalla, berzerk & also AAS maps if you're looking to reproduce the games your fresh over from...

Cool that a google returned that definition. Here's the one I prefer. Out of about a thousand other definitions for noob.

"Noob - knows little and has no will to learn any more."

PVP should be the focus of any multiplayer development, as it is the most dynamic, fun, and therefore the most attractive mode. DayZ is popular because it is PVP central, the zombies might as well not be there. What I'm saying is, coop and otherwise AI focused games have their limits, whereas PVP is always interesting and generally never ceases to be fun. I pointed out in another thread that BF2 is from 2006 yet still has over 700 servers up to date. ArmA 2 has less than 40 overall vanilla servers, and less than 300 with DayZ servers.

That noone plays CTF or TDM doesn't mean they aren't interested in PVP. I would never play those modes either, not because there is something fundamentally wrong with the idea behind them, but because BI poorly designed them. They don't have vehicles, the playing space is too small, in short it's not the kind of game mode you should play if you bought ArmA 2 so you could play large open battles. That's why nobody plays them.

Again, you talk down to me as if there's something wrong with my dislike of ArmA 2's multiplayer. Perhaps worshipping this game as if it's the greatest thing since the wheel is something to be looked down upon.

The definition given is more indicative of your hostile closed mind.

[slatts 1978]

your closed mind.

Coming from you that's just gold.

[JCDBionicman 1]

Coming from you that's just gold.

I don't know if you've noticed, but I generally spend more time formulating counters to arguments and focusing on the actual issues at hand rather than coming up with... "golden" comments like yours.

Again, your comment benefits nobody, and I invite you to instead engage in discussion and correct me where you think I'm wrong. The user did in fact ignore the issues I brought up and similarly to you succeeded in only in creating "gold." That's why I called him closed.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Thought that people should be able to choose what they like to play? Keep in mind that not every mission is made to please everyone's liking or fun... some missions are just created for certain interests and/or "target groups".

[maddogx 13]

PVP should be the focus of any multiplayer development, as it is the most dynamic, fun, and therefore the most attractive mode.

This is debatable. Stating your opinion as fact does not make it true.

In my experience, COOP in Arma2 can be every bit as dynamic and fun as PvP, simply because the AI are unscripted und often even more unpredictable than players. COOP also allows for a variety of interesting scenarios that don't translate well into a PvP environment (especially story-based scenarios).

So no, PvP is not unequivocally the best.

[EDcase 87]

PVP should be the focus of any multiplayer development...

That statement sounds VERY self-centred.

For example I play mostly Co-Op because its a game mode that does not rely on having a certain number of players to be fun. It can scale according to the player count.

The AI in ARMA are not perfect but they certainly are a challenge when the mission is made properly.

Warfare is a unique game mode in the FPS genre and if BIS can make it reliable then it can provide DAYS of continuous fun.

Benny has already shown that it can be enormously improved.

BIS needs to make ARMA3 work for both PvP AND Co-Op to reach the widest player base.

Edited January 21, 2013 by EDcase

[JCDBionicman 1]

That statement sounds VERY self-centred.

For example I play mostly Co-Op because its a game mode that does not rely on having a certain number of players to be fun. It can scale according to the player count.

The AI in ARMA are not perfect but they certainly are a challenge when the mission is made properly.

Warfare is a unique game mode in the FPS genre and if BIS can make it reliable then it can provide DAYS of continuous fun.

Benny has already shown that it can be enormously improved.

BIS needs to make ARMA3 work for both PvP AND Co-Op to reach the widest player base.

Ironically, it's not, because the majority of gamers agree. Games like Counter Strike and BF2 and whatever else have had such successful multiplayer communities because they are PVP focused.

I'm not discounting coop. If BI put more focus onto PVP I don't see how that would affect the current quality of coop we have now. I don't see any reason why coop would be any worse off in ArmA 3.

Yes Warfare has enormous potential, and the only thing wrong with it is actually that it's so dependent on AI. If non-AI Warfare had been an option in ArmA 2 for vanilla games, or even if they just made controlling them less of a chore by giving them some common sense and improving the methods used to control them Warfare would have been just fine.

Yes, they should focus on both, just saying which one is more important to focus on if BI is interested in their financial future. Also, you shouldn't have to go to a fan made website to download user missions, there should be some sort of system ingame. I actually wouldn't mind how heavily dependent ArmA 2 was on mods and user made content to be fun if there was just some way to access that stuff ingame.

Edited January 22, 2013 by JCDBionicman

[iceman77 18]

Ironically, it's not, because the majority of gamers agree. Games like Counter Strike and BF2 and whatever else have had such successful multiplayer communities because they are PVP focused.

Go play A2 PR. There are some righteously large private games you can get into. I actually hate coops. I'm all about Arma pvp. You need to cool your jets though. Public PvP population in Arma is very spikey. For example, there was a shit ton of "conquest" mode (Berzerks) servers in A1. At anytime of the day, night or morning you could get into a populated Berzerk. Pure pvp. Think BF conquest mode for Arma or think BF conquest mode on steroids. Now, A2 PvP has fallen short, unless you get into the various TvT campaigns or private PR games.

Anyhow, point being, you need to calm down with the pvp rants, and just hang on for the ride. Arma3 is going to have good PvP. BTW, I think I've bitched enough for us all regarding the state of PvP. Go look around at some posts ;)

[NoRailgunner 0]

JCDBionicman just because you want that pvp gameplay like you used to play on a console doesn't mean that the majority of pc gamers agree with you....

[iceman77 18]

JCDBionicman just because you want that pvp gameplay like you used to play on a console doesn't mean that the majority of pc gamers agree with you....

Not saying I totally agree with bionic, because I don't (which I've made clear many times), but to be fair, regarding pvp I think he's just like any other pvp oriented player who plays arma. They really like the game, but ATM the public pvp population is stagnant. So they rant about it. I'm not sure he wants console play, but just a viable public pvp population for Arma. Think how good the public pvp was in A1, that's what I'd like to see again. Where you can hop into a c&h, have fun, and then leave. Kind of like you can with BF or COD, except with Arma instead, because it's 1000x better.

What I find funny, are all of the "hardcore realism" coop units/clans who are anti pvp. But yet, pure pvp is where you'll find the most realistic engagements/firefights/battles etc. Where a firefight can actually last a while, instead of the AI running out into the open on a suicide mission. In any case, it's all opinions & preference.

regards,

David

[avibird 1 141]

I think player vs player is still around but for the life of me I can't understand why if you have ARMA would you want to play DAYZ, LIFE and the old game mode Border Patrol lol. That is where the player vs player games are currently in open rooms for ARMA. Just my 2 cents.

[metalcraze 290]

Ironically, it's not, because the majority of gamers agree. Games like Counter Strike and BF2 and whatever else have had such successful multiplayer communities because they are PVP focused.

Who cares about games like CS and BF2? Who cares about what the so called majority* of gamers think?

If you want to play CS and BF2 why are you coming to ArmA forums?

The main strength of ArmA is that it isn't focused on anything at the expense of another thing and anyone can make anything in the editor be it PvP, SP or Coop. There's PvP in ArmA. There are a lot of servers running PvP from usual mindless teamkill-ridden public servers to organized tactical PvP operations. But it doesn't and won't play like BF2 and CS. Deal with it.

Don't like the game? Go find something else to play. I don't like CS - I don't play it and I also don't demand it to be turned into Unreal Tournament. Valve also didn't crash and burn because I didn't buy a copy of CS. And I'm certainly sure CS community won't miss me playing with them since I don't appreciate its gameplay and design.

*There are more people playing WoW and Farmville than CS and BF2 put together - does that mean ArmA3 should be MMO with farming instead?

Edited January 23, 2013 by metalcraze

[bodenmovies 1]

I agree, change it

[spanishsurfer 58]

Warfare used to suck, but since the patch released months ago that fixed the lag issue, Warfare has come back strong. I play on a handful of servers that are packed with 40-50+ players and the game runs great. Warfare no longer fails, it's actually awesome now. Benny Edition: Rubber Edition in particular is great. It promotes team-play/PVP fighting and makes base hunting VERY difficult, focuses more on fighting over towns. IF you guys are hungry for GOOD PVP battles check out the UX Rubber server, we're usually full of players in the afternoon (Zulu time). Yes, we're a public server.

[mick18 1]

My focus being on warfare with the AI, i don't think things would be half as bad if there was an actual RTS interface, and did'nt require you to force your way through tedious keyboard stomping.

RTS interface

Simplified attack/defence/patrol/capture commands

Simplified commands in regards to unit type/movement and attack style

Strong base defence by default

Allow commander to control from base and any captured town

Armor, air power and air support harder to obtain

Fast travel restrictions

etc

And more, but i hit the mental wall. You know, if someone just made an RTS mod of warfare and started out with making everything REALLY simple with only really basic AI, you could just build on it from there, and you would end up with something so much better than ARMA2 WF.