PvP?

Discussions and chats related to Six Days in Fallujah.
InfinitVegito
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2023 11:00 pm

Re: PvP?

Man this game is awesome and not working on pvp is A BIG MISTAKE Trust me insurgency Sandstorm has awesome pvp but lacks the new look and quality life updates this games can DESTROY THE PVP MARKET it's definitely something the development team should consider. This game looks awesome create new maps if u feel like the ones u have aren't good for pvp but do not sleep on the treasure u guys have here.
hammerfist
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2023 12:58 am
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: PvP?

optimise wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:50 am As someone who mainly played Insurgency since its mod days I would love a new close quarters PvP game that is atmospheric, grounded and set in the middle eastern conflict, especially with Insurgency 2 player numbers dwindling and Insurgency: Sandstorm abandoning the authentic setting among other things which made me love that franchise.
I definitely feel like this is a somewhat common sentiment in the community right now, many of my buddies I used to play with have moved to Squad since it is practically the only grounded pvp FPS game, but even Squad is quite far off from what we're looking for due to its large scale and mechanics. SDIF definitely looks like it has the potential to fill that niche and I'd love to see them try, especially considering it would likely take a lot less development hours than mastering the AI.

- optimise
Just my 2 cents:

1. I don't think it would be a good use of their resources to make both a single-player and multiplayer game given how they are an indie team with limited resources.

2. Randomly generated maps (which is arguably the game's biggest selling point) would not make for a very fair competitive experience in a multiplayer game and would result in an experience that comes down to luck more than anything. Learning the map is a big part of practically every multiplayer shooter, taking that away would cause issues.

3. Multiplayer games require expensive servers, a huge varied arsenal of weapons and tools, and a bigger more versatile map to allow for multiple playstyles. The workload they would have to add to make that possible is massive and goes against the current vision of the game.

I also preferred Sandstorm in its early days but I don't think SDIF would catch on as a multiplayer game, there might be a niche of people that might play it for a while but I don't think it will ever have a big following as an MP game, it's not the game's vision, it's not how the game is being marketed, it's not what the project is known for and therefore I don't think its worth the devs' time to make an MP mode personally.
absent
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2022 7:13 pm
Has thanked: 165 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: PvP?

I have a friend that plays a COD title so often he could basically guess where most of the enemy team was based on sounds, where his own teammates were shooting or getting shot, where the corridors of the map were, etc. I get the appeal of that, but I can also see how a procedurally generated map might put more emphasis on actual tactics instead of map knowledge. I would definitely be interested in trying a title that has that feature someday. You can't count on players going down this alley or sitting in that window snipers are always in, you have to treat the environment as an unknown factor in every match and go slower and stuff. At least that's how I'm imagining it. I can see how it might be a balance issue in the map maybe, though.

I don't really care if Six Days has PVP at all, really, I just think it might be a neat idea for somebody to try in the future. The resources it would take the team to prevent hacking alone would probably be too much initially. Hacking / cheating is pretty rampant and difficult to prevent these days.
User avatar
Kean_1
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2021 11:15 am
Has thanked: 572 times
Been thanked: 393 times

Re: PvP?

hammerfist wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 1:28 am 2. Randomly generated maps (which is arguably the game's biggest selling point) would not make for a very fair competitive experience in a multiplayer game and would result in an experience that comes down to luck more than anything. Learning the map is a big part of practically every multiplayer shooter, taking that away would cause issues.
I agree with @absent. I don't really care to see PvP in SDiF but I feel the procedural generation would be a literal game-changer in the adversarial multiplayer space. The reason for that is that map familiarity is such a big part of PvP games as you mentioned. However, making the map "new" every match doesn't mean the experience is now purely a matter of "luck". In fact, I'd argue that small unit tactics, communication, teamwork, etc. would be more valuable skills to have in a game like that.

As for balance, I think each side could start out in the same static infil point at either side of the map or objective. The city (even though procedurally generated) could still follow parameters to make it fair for both teams. .....pathways, distances, etc. being similar. ....or introduce game modes like attack & defend, mission / objective based, etc. where it' may not be as critical.

I do think Victura has an opportunity in the future to create a really interesting PvP experience using aspect of SDiF even if a completely divorced project. I think they could possibly make it work.
User avatar
optimise
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2022 7:53 am
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 27 times

Re: PvP?

hammerfist wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 1:28 am
optimise wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:50 am As someone who mainly played Insurgency since its mod days I would love a new close quarters PvP game that is atmospheric, grounded and set in the middle eastern conflict, especially with Insurgency 2 player numbers dwindling and Insurgency: Sandstorm abandoning the authentic setting among other things which made me love that franchise.
I definitely feel like this is a somewhat common sentiment in the community right now, many of my buddies I used to play with have moved to Squad since it is practically the only grounded pvp FPS game, but even Squad is quite far off from what we're looking for due to its large scale and mechanics. SDIF definitely looks like it has the potential to fill that niche and I'd love to see them try, especially considering it would likely take a lot less development hours than mastering the AI.

- optimise
Just my 2 cents:

1. I don't think it would be a good use of their resources to make both a single-player and multiplayer game given how they are an indie team with limited resources.

2. Randomly generated maps (which is arguably the game's biggest selling point) would not make for a very fair competitive experience in a multiplayer game and would result in an experience that comes down to luck more than anything. Learning the map is a big part of practically every multiplayer shooter, taking that away would cause issues.

3. Multiplayer games require expensive servers, a huge varied arsenal of weapons and tools, and a bigger more versatile map to allow for multiple playstyles. The workload they would have to add to make that possible is massive and goes against the current vision of the game.

I also preferred Sandstorm in its early days but I don't think SDIF would catch on as a multiplayer game, there might be a niche of people that might play it for a while but I don't think it will ever have a big following as an MP game, it's not the game's vision, it's not how the game is being marketed, it's not what the project is known for and therefore I don't think its worth the devs' time to make an MP mode personally.
2. Depends on how the mp would be handled, but procedural generation also wouldn’t necessarily have to be a part of it if it didn’t benefit the gameplay.

3. Multiplayer does require servers, but those don’t have to be hosted by SDIF, rather the community, meaning no cost on the part of the developers. In fact having a community-based server system is preferable to official matchmaking.

As for resources & demand (whether it’s worth it) that’s an area where we can just disagree as it’s a matter of opinion, I know a ton of people who would love to see pvp in a game like SDIF (pretty much everyone I know who’s also interested in the game), and believe it’s 100% worth making it down the line to offer the experience for those who want it, appeal to a wider demographic and provide something unique to fill that market gap.

- optimise
ClayTatum
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2022 8:48 pm
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: PvP?

What if they did it with simunition and just made it like a training exercise? There’s gotta be ways they could make it work.



BobTank63 wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 11:29 am
optimise wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 10:44 am
BobTank63 wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:09 am

I don't want to have full release delayed by several months just to implement a PvP system only a small minority will use. It is never as simple as "just add PvP". You have to implement things like anti-cheat, start thinking about balancing, and a whole bunch of other stuff.

Developers are people like us, they have limited time and resources.
The game doesn't have to have in-depth balancing, nobody is asking for an esport, and implementing a simple pvp system would take relatively few resources, especially when compared to well-functioning AI systems.
And with the gap in the market of close quarters tactical shooters I would very much doubt it would be a 'small minority' playing such a mode. Most of the people I know who are interested in this game also extensively play pvp shooters and would love an option to do so in a game like SDIF.
I do completely understand if they want to focus on the co-op & campaign first, but pvp should definitely be a consideration down the line.
IDK. Playing as coalition troops fighting each other is kind of at odds with “authenticity” aspect the devs are aiming for, and they are very adamant about not being able to play as insurgents.
User avatar
StrixBit
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2023 7:02 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: PvP?

There's a decent suggestion on discord about pvp, but it was America's Army Style PvP.

So proposed was:
While I'm personally not a huge fan of the idea of 6DIF having PvP vs. staying more focused on PvE content, I've seen a lot of people asking for PvP get shot down with the reminder that players won't play as an insurgent which made me wonder: Has an America's Army style solution been considered?
In the classic version of America's Army you as the player would always play as US Army forces, while the enemy would appear as OPFOR units, and the enemy players would see the same: themselves playing as US Army forces fighting OPFOR.

Has such a solution been considered or has another solution been devised for potential future PvP modes?

One that stuck out from member Doc Shaftoe:
BFAs and MILES gear? Sign me up! That stuff was super annoying to use but it'd make for a really unique PVP setting. You could also go with simunition or paintballs instead. If they do go for a training-style PVP mode, I desperately want them to have it all be in hastily built Iraqi towns made out of conexes.
What I suggested:
What if the map was the current training map, but it could be reconfigurable [procedurally generated like mission]. But exactly as Doc said, either BFAs with MILES gear or Simunition. The weapons would actually display the BFA, or the blue bolt for sim rounds, the uniform with either have the MILES or a facepiece to protect the well face against sim rounds.

This way it can be "Blue on Blue" but one side operates as OPFOR. This is a solid idea, compared to the once "Let us play as them (Terrorists) pvp, otherwise bad game" argument

My Overall opinion:

Let this be a 5 Year plan idea.. maybe. First/Two years should be hammering bugs, QoL Features, Reasonable/Manageable Collective Community Requests, Tons of content, and getting through at least two roadmaps. Again, this is only an opinion. I'm on bored for the game and the development, I believe in their current vision and what they've said they stand for when it comes to this game.
Doc_Savage
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2021 1:42 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: PvP?

If it was kept CQC I would be up for PvP, if however it was cod crap, Keep it I'm not interested
User avatar
KageOni
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2023 6:29 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: PvP?

I don't love the idea of PVP in this game but there are two different ways I would be OK with it.

1. As mentioned above, treat it like a training simulation. Have a MOUT facility and laser training weapons and allow two groups of soldiers to practice against each other.

2. This would be more technical and kinda out there idea but create a separate game in the steam store call "Insurgency Simulator" that would be free to play. Booting it up puts you as a random Iraqi insurgent in someone's 6DiF match.

It would get people interacting with the game for free and provide a more dangerous force to fight against for the paying players.
User avatar
StrixBit
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2023 7:02 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: PvP?

KageOni wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 5:15 am
2. This would be more technical and kinda out there idea but create a separate game in the steam store call "Insurgency Simulator" that would be free to play. Booting it up puts you as a random Iraqi insurgent in someone's 6DiF match.

It would get people interacting with the game for free and provide a more dangerous force to fight against for the paying players.
I didn't wanna quote you completely as I agreed with the not wanting pvp, I'm not for it. I'm actually hoping the devs just say "No". However, until they do I'll be on the side of BFA/MILES or Simunition [Chalk Rounds].


However, what I quoted I don't agree with because I believe this breaks what was stated in the FAQ. It would have you playing as a terrorist even if using another gaming to connect to this one. What I think keeps getting left out of the PvP discussion, is the game is telling/displaying real events, of I deduced correctly the campaign is going to be a story we play told told to us from people who went through what we're playing at that moment. Killing Americans, may be in Squad and HLL, but in this game is developed around the trauma harsh reality they faced along side coalition forces, where is really the "fun" in that. Plus I known its possible, just seems like alot of resources to please a small percentage.

Didn't wanna get to wrapped up in it I get very lengthy when passionate, my big thing is I do hope the team says something about their position on this, even if it's a position that its possible but it won't be insurgent v American, it would be like a 29 Palms.
Post Reply