I'd say that the reason PvP isn't played so much is more related to the gameplay issues rather than a lack of long-term stats.

I can see the attraction for wanting to implement some idea of progress for the players, but I feel that awareness must be kept that adding residual score/XP/RP/inventory could have unwelcome effects on the very things that make PvP enjoyable and distinct from co-op.

I am strongly not in favour of having any RP or stash/inventory being carried over between games in PvP.

Firstly, as I've said previously, you'll have people focusing on their material goods - it's human nature.

People will get distracted from the team objective by gathering loot for the armory.

Unlike co-op, where it's one-way conquering by the human army, PvP is equal part defending and attacking. Attacking and capturing bases earns you RP; defending a base and preventing it from being captured by the enemy team doesn't earn RP. With long-term RP, the attraction will be greater for some to go around to wherever some capture RP can be acquired, rather than doing what's best for the team. The game will reward them for that.

Similarly, rare weapons. In the co-op game, people will go to great lengths to get back their rare weapons when they get killed. The same will be the case in PvP, undoubtedly often to the detriment of the team's mission.

From playing PvP, I like generally to have a small cushion of RP to buy vests, but beyond that all I'm concerned about is achieving the team objective. So my loot-collecting behaviour is different from co-op. Similarly, sometimes I come across a rare weapon in PvP, and they're fun to have while I've got them, but if I die and they can't easily be retrieved I'll just pick up another rifle and get on with the game in a way I probably wouldn't do if it had long-term value.

Secondly, you say that the reason for these changes is to attract players to the PvP game. If residual stats come into effect, you are likely to have one or two players that'll play the game when no other human players are playing, to work on their profile. If you're a new player and you join a game where the other guy's an experienced PvP player and he's also got a P90, three vests and a 1000 RP, are you going to enjoy that game? Probably not.

XP and score are slightly different. As you say, the effects of these things are supposed to have little to no effect on the actual gameplay.

Going back to the example I gave above of a new player joining a server to play PvP against that experienced player. If the only difference would be that the experienced player had shinier insignia and perhaps the ability to command one or two more squad members, then that wouldn't be so bad.

Potentially, points from enemy human kills could be linked to rank, so shooting Pvt. Noobie McNoob five times in his first game earns you less than shooting generals Dio or Street Veteran five times in a game.

[There's another possible idea, and I've been thinking this could be for co-op too, is that the highest ranked player, if he's a general or above, is able to change the attack arrow on the map.]

So, while I still have reservations, if residual stats were to be introduced, it seems to me that they could only relate to score and XP. Doing the same for RP and stash/inventory I can only see as damaging for a PvP team game.

What do other players think?

Sure, 1000 RP is probably too much.

1-vs-1 will be hard to balance right anyway and it's entirely dependent on getting a player ranking system up and either compensate or make it impossible to play against uneven levels. Frankly, I don't see things will go this way, RWR's strong points are hardly in 1-vs-1. It's true people will need to play 1-vs-1 at times when a match is finding its players, but not sure if there's too much we can do. Haha, maybe the game could have you play coop until there's enough players to split between the factions.

Without compensating for skill, the experienced player will own the new player no matter what equipment he has, it's generally like me playing against ram-kults, certainly not a delight That's still no valid reason to ban ram-kults from playing PvP or give tanks to the other team to make them stand a chance. Rare weapons are fine imo as long as they stay rare.

On topic of RP and setting a max value for it, maybe we should go a long way back to how things were when Classic/Quickmatch was the only gamemode. Back then you only had single strike mortars as something to call, leaving the massively overpowered things out such as 8x artillery strikes or tanks or 8x paratroopers. E.g. single strike mortar, sandbags and maybe 4x paratroopers could make a decent call set, so max RP could be enough around 100-200.

Back then, there was no loot in the game either. Actually RP was also just a number of mortar strikes you had. Each 500XP step you'd got another mortar strike, so by just playing in general.

I don't think any rewards will be necessary for people getting to a server first or making people play co-op until there are enough players.

The new PvP, since it will not follow exactly the same capture rules as now, will probably feel like a new single-player game mode in itself, if played that way. If the game PvP mechanics are set up so that there is more than one base to capture at a time (unlike now) and therefore multiple ways to achieve victory, then there'd be fun in trying out different things while waiting for other players to arrive.

Plus, if you are in a server first you have the chance to pick up some RP which will give you an advantage, anyway.

I'm still wary of RP and inventory being carried over in the PvP team game format and would be interested in the thoughts of other players.

I do think they would work, though, for another gameplay mode which I haven't seen discussed much: PvPvPvP etc. (everybody against everybody). I think this would also be a really fun multiplayer mode. Just everybody hunting each other in the woods with sniper rifles!

This could definitely have persistent rare weapons.

Even down to 1 player vs 1 player this would be great fun. There could even be no bots, just the two human players on the map! Setting up traps with C4 or claymores would be more widely practised, I'm sure!

The way I see this mode working is having no capturable bases.

Additionally, the game would benefit if there was some symbol that appeared on-screen if you were too far from any other players, to try and avoid players running round the map never finding each other.

Also, it could be that you wouldn't spawn within a certain distance from other players, so you wouldn't be killed at spawn, and it would also allow you the chance to steal any loot from a player you've just killed. Although, maybe a third player could be lurking in the shadows to shoot that guy and therefore steal two people's stuff!

The game could be on a timer and the winner is the player with the most human kills in that time.

We actually played Deathmatch mode much like this when it was first made possible. We tried it first in Moorland Trenches, which without bots obviously felt pretty empty and weird when played with around 4 players but it was pretty fun once you found someone else. It was missing things then which have been since added in Deathmatch, the spawn safety check, the timer. Loot and rare weapons were non-existing as only bots are generally configured to drop them, so there was literally nothing to do if you're alone there.

Deathmatch as a mode is still alive and well, after a long break there's also a server running it currently. Persistent profiles is turned off in favor of seeing match results in the game, but that too could use persistent profiles in the next version which can additionally handle both total and match stats. There's only one map in rotation, a special small one. It can be a lot of fun with low amount of players already, needs around 4 to make it fast paced enough.

Maybe pure PvP next sunday?

how about DM on the pvp1 map?

I'd prefer TDM but I'm definitely up for just all out chaos DM too.
But wouldn't pvp1 be a bit small for DM if more than 15 people were to turn up? IIRC last time I played that map we had trouble spawning with as little as 10 people on. Dunno if that got fixed or not.

How you know which map is which?
There is this small island map dedicated for DM. Its fun.

Yes, that's a very small map.

I'd like to play a deathmatch game on a large map where a lot of the fun is in the anticipation and the hunting.

So you'd get the paranoid feeling that you're all alone on the map, yet that there are people out there stalking you and trying to kill you. Each player's thinking all the time: am I being followed? Is somebody stalking me? Am I walking into a trap? A lot of the fun would be in locating the other players and trying to sneak up on them.

If players are unable to spawn within a certain distance of each other, then you'd be able to look at the map to see where spawn points are blocked and so be able to locate enemy players' approximate locations. That'd help in the areas with spawn points, but the "dead" areas in between would be dangerous no man's land.

You'd also be listening out for gunfire, which would give you the opportunity to sneak up on some other player's gun battle and try and take them out.

I feel the bigger maps would work with this style of game in mind: Moorland Trenches, Keepsake Bay, Old Fort Creek, Fridge Valley, Bootleg Islands, Rattlesnake Crescent, Black Gold Estuary.

The smaller maps - Power Junction, Vigil Island, Copehill Down, Islet of Eflen - would, I feel, be rather constricted and basically be purely "firefight" games, without the opportunity for the stealth/sneaky aspect.

Even on the larger maps, one might find that 20, 30 people in an event game could get cramped. Each player's going to be shooting anyone that comes within a maybe 40,50 metre radius of them. Multiply that by a few dozen people and that takes up space.

As I said previously, if this turned out to be a fun format then it could do with a marker that appears or disappears on-screen when players are too far away from each other. This probably wouldn't be necessary in an event with lots of players, but with few players or 1v1 it would probably be needed.

We nerd out and look at what the folder is called.

That would be pvp1, or Islet of Eflen as we like to call it.

It's fun as hell. But in straight DM the spawns tend to be blocked because people are all over the place. At least in TDM you have spawns for each team on opposite ends of the island and usually that works out ok.