Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ironman13

Improvements I believe a decent number wants

Recommended Posts

He's talking about the weight a real soldier is carrying, and which ArmA2 simulates.

Here it is irrelevant if the helmet or vest has any functionality or not.

Like it or not, it has been said already that losing the gear while swimming is by design. Get over it. ;)

May I ask: In which Army you served, and what was the greatest distance you were swimming in full combat gear?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He's talking about the weight a real soldier is carrying, and which ArmA2 simulates.

Here it is irrelevant if the helmet or vest has any functionality or not.

Like it or not, it has been said already that losing the gear while swimming is by design. Get over it. ;)

May I ask: In which Army you served, and what was the greatest distance you were swimming in full combat gear?

Now the answer to that question i'm eager to read...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he's already been asked that so it will probably just be

not answering questions already answered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 years British Army. No way would I drop my rifle. The rest fine, but my rifle would make it to shore. Even if I appeared in just boxer shorts. :p

Edited by Tinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No way would I drop my rifle. The rest fine, but my rifle would make it to shore. Even if I appeared in just boxer shorts.

better believe it.

16 years and retired... i can never image a time.. for whatever reason... our weapons NEVER went with us.. even if all else was lost.

but on a side note.. those who 'know' their packs will be waterborne will have air pouches in some of the compartments to allow the pack to be towed.

but if an land based unit has to abort the water vehicle.. that pack full of metal is gone in a heartbeat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for coming in guys and defending my point.

Wolle, yes it is by design, I acknowledge it and that is why I say rework the entire water system. I know it is not a small undertaking by any measure. But, those skilled enough, I am confident can do this, and it is not as far out of reach as some might think.

No I have never served in any branch of the military, nor did I claim to. Was the meaning of that question to try to diminish my point? I mean really, you could just ask did I ever make a game.... O wait, that was already asked wasn't it. Still doesn't diminish my points.

If you have served in any branch, thank you very much for your service. If you are still in I keep you and your family constantly in my prayers. Thank you so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point of the question if you ever served wasn't to disrespect you, the point was/is to get a feeling if you really do know what you're talking about.

It was to know if you ever felt the weight of a combat-ready loadout.

There might be situations/branches where soldier do swimming insertions but those are special trained, special equipped units and even there a swimming insertion is the very last option. Preferably they would chose a CRRC over swimming.

Ported to the game, the overall need for swimming insertions might be somewhat around 0.1%, the rest of 99.9% are just regular soldiers without special training/equipment so the fact they lose the gear is closer to reality than having them keep the gear by default.

And as already said, for those 0.1% such a system could be easily scripted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Loki said it best:

those who 'know' their packs will be waterborne will have air pouches in some of the compartments to allow the pack to be towed.

but if an land based unit has to abort the water vehicle.. that pack full of metal is gone in a heartbeat.

Translated to Arma2, I would say a good start would be a scripting command that disables equipment loss in water for specific units. That shouldn't be too hard to implement. It has already been disabled for AI. Let us disable it for certain players too.

As for reworking the whole water system to allow for scuba diving, I still think of that as a low priority "nice to have" feature. Currently this would be trumped by way too many more important engine issues that need dev attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can tell you that, in full combat gear, you will do anything rather than swim. Even if it means walking several miles. I think that for normal ingame use the losing-the-combat-gear solution works quite well, as it really makes you think about simply roaring off in a straight line to your objective. Basically, as long as you CAN swim when you NEED to, it'll be OK. As others have said maybe a scripting solution for combat units who for some reason must cross deep wather can be hammered out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Maddog what needs to be improved in your eyes? Water is obviously low on your list.... come up with what you feel is necessary in an upgrade....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So Maddog what needs to be improved in your eyes? Water is obviously low on your list.... come up with what you feel is necessary in an upgrade....

Check out the issues list on dev-heaven and sort by votes (descending). Most of my pet peeves are on the first page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, what large scale improvements would you like to see? Small fixes are fine but rarely change overall game-play experience.

Funny that many items on my lists are on the dev-heaven and ranked high. Even the release of MLODs, who would've thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, what large scale improvements would you like to see? Small fixes are fine but rarely change overall game-play experience.

There are a couple of large scale improvements I would love to see made, but none of them are really relevant to this discussion.

Funny that many items on my lists are on the dev-heaven and ranked high. Even the release of MLODs, who would've thought.

That's because most of your suggestions make sense. The main thing people in this thread are contesting is firstly your presumption of claiming to speak for 400+ people, secondly your apparent conviction that making DLCs and fixing bugs are somehow mutually exclusive endeavors and thirdly your ideas for reworking the water system.

Nothing more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2) REWORK THE WATER SYSTEM! This is lol-tastic. In OFP you died when you tried to swim in water. In ArmA you could swim and lose all your gear, except your super duper pistol. You wonder what changed from ArmA to ArmA 2 regarding the water system, nothing. We should be able to swim in water without losing anything. Soldiers in real life are taught how to do this with all their gear. Maybe give us scuba gear so we can even, dare I say it, swim underwater. I find it hilarious how a game like Delta Force-Delta Force Team Sabre can accomplish swimming underwater but a sophisticated game like this will either have you die, or lose all your gear. Not asking for much with this as you have had MANY years to fix this.

Funny to see that water in Arma becomes something like acid for non-swimming armored vehicles and cars. Why they explode in it? Isn't it so hard to give dammage to crew only but not to the whole vehicle? BTW, some OFP tank addon had ability to survive under water. It just stopped and couldn't move further. Isn't it hard to implement the same to A2 vehicles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How long do you have to be in the water to lose your gear?

Something like 30 seconds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how is mentioning what you would improve not appropriate for this discussion? I believe I made it part of this discussion in my very first post.

Another point, I never claimed to speak for 400+ people. All I claimed is that 400+ gamers said no more DLC, which is now up to 700+. And that is what they said. I was unaware that bringing up facts meant I spoke for every single one of the 400+ people. Almost everyone that posted in the two forum posts I created, made that assumption on their own. So, if you want to talk about arrogant assumptions, there it is. Look no further than the mirror.

The only thing I said remotely close to I represent others is, MANY AGREE WITH ME. And so far, that claim has held true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So how is mentioning what you would improve not appropriate for this discussion? I believe I made it part of this discussion in my very first post.

Well then, take a look a few posts back, where I posted a link to a list of things I felt would be needed to polish the game. It's not exhaustive, but it's a start.

Another point, I never claimed to speak for 400+ people. All I claimed is that 400+ gamers said no more DLC, which is now up to 700+. And that is what they said. I was unaware that bringing up facts meant I spoke for every single one of the 400+ people. Almost everyone that posted in the two forum posts I created, made that assumption on their own. So, if you want to talk about arrogant assumptions, there it is. Look no further than the mirror.

The only thing I said remotely close to I represent others is, MANY AGREE WITH ME. And so far, that claim has held true.

700+ voters on the Armaholic forums said "no more DLC, make a full expansion instead". Your post starts off saying "no more DLC, fix bugs first". The two are not quite the same. And apart from the fact that some of the points you raised make sense, making the broad claim that "many people agree with you" is simply false.

Judging by the Armaholic poll about 50% of Arma2 players want more DLC, and 50% would rather BIS create a full expansion instead of a DLC. Nothing more. Not only is this an even split, but it also has absolutely nothing to do with the demands you made in the first post - except for the fact that you are against DLC which, as has been explained before, has absolutely nothing to do with BIS' ability to patch engine bugs.

Long story short, you speak for no one but yourself, but some of the points you raised do make sense.

Edited by MadDogX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what would it take to prove that I am not the only one with these ideas? Do all the people I know, that haven't said a peep in here, have to come and comment? Obviously, if they agree with my points and don't post in here, then I do speak for them... is that logic flawed?

I made an arrow to the claim that 400+ said no more DLC. So when people ask me why I say no more DLC, hahaha which people did, I can say look, many people agree that DLC should stop being made. Regardless of whatever opinion I can come up with, 700+ people say no more DLC, you can have you own opinion about DLC. However, 700+ is a staggering number in this community. I never said that of those 400, now 700+ that they all agreed with my list or even a majority. I am willing to bet that there are many that do, as I know quite a few that I communicate with on a daily/weekly basis that have supported my list.

By the way, hey Stan, Lib, Neo, Chef, Madjack, Bullets, Daka, Deadly, Radar, Impulse, h3killa, SharkAttack, and on and on lol....

But, that proves little. Just because they agree with my points, and they don't post in here, doesn't mean I speak for em right? I need to be declared a full fledged speaker of peoples and that probably wouldn't even do. My bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So what would it take to prove that I am not the only one with these ideas?

No, the real question is: why do you need to prove that?

You have a list of suggestions. Why not simply present them and invite people to discuss? There is no need to appeal to the majority (a logical fallacy) to try and prove your points. And as I myself and others have said, in this thread and the last one, claiming to speak for everyone (as you initially did) or even for "many" is presumptuous and rude.

If you don't care about offending people, that's your choice, but then you shouldn't be surprised if your threads get sidetracked, derailed and locked. Then again, looking at your previous thread, maybe a heated discussion is exactly what you want to achieve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Myke, if only more people thought like you, it would be great... wrong is wrong, right is right and it stands this way till the end of time. The majority doesn't determine this.

Explain to me how my post is presumptuous/rude please. To assume I spoke with no one about these issues before my initial post in here is presumptuous and according to you, rude.

I have no idea how it is rude and/or presumptuous, that is your opinion though. If a dev came on here and said ok, we are gonna work on the DLC because that is what the community wants and how BIS can sustain-long term is that not also presumptuous? Did you call Suma presumptuous/rude? Nope, no one did. I mean, presumptuous really has two meaning, one can be developed through many discussions and careful thought, and the other way is a jerk reaction. You are taking my list as a jerk reaction, at least that is what is steaming off mostly 90% of the comments in this thread and the last. And in that, you are being presumptuous without careful deliberation. You are acting on a jerk reaction. The very thing you believe I have done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you should step back of using the "many do agree with me" argument and instead bringing real arguments, your arguments. Because as said, just because many do agree doesn't make it right by default. History is full of examples which proves this.

So, reworking the water system will turn it from a rather realistic behaviour to a rather unrealistic behaviour.

For the bigger part of soldiers it is a simple truth that you don't go swim with your gear or you'll be in serious trouble.

There are exceptions as always. And as already said, such exceptions can be easily scripted to simulate the required behaviour.

So you might think you speak for a majority of players but especially this point will "improve" the game for a minority of situations.

And for the (surely upcoming) argument that AI too often crosses ponds/water and then lose their gear...well, better make the AI avoid water then.

And by thinking over it...what would be the difference in making a Expansion pack rather than a DLC? Or what do you think is the difference between them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never claimed anything I said was right or wrong. I am merely voicing an opinion that many have, meaning many agree with my points, and I agree with many issues people bring up. It goes both ways.

I already answered what I think the difference between DLC and an Exapansion is. And that is only my opinion. What is fact is that many people were disappointed with the PMC DLC because it lacked substance. I am also willing to admit many loved the BAF DLC and were upset with the pricing at first but seemed to be OK with it now because the content was decent in retrospect to the PMC release.

I can understand this argument for DLC: only two have come out so far and a third is being worked on by many in our community. So, really there isn't a large enough sample population to form a justified opinion of DLC. All I am saying is that out of the two that have been released, overall, people would rather have things polished. What those "things" might be can be speculated and that is what my list does. It takes my overall experience with talking to people and simply pumping it out.

Suma already explained why they release the DLC, and to me, gave a good reason behind it. Well thought out. However, only time will tell if his reasons help sustain BIS in the long run. Because, what Suma was doing was being presumptuous, or hoping for the best. But, not a fools hope, as there was careful thought placed behind it. Just like there was thought placed into formulating this list.

If you don't like the water idea, that is one point of five. What changes would you like to see Myke? Surely you have some requests, you are fairly knowledgeable as your addon work proves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me the world is ok as long BIS ignores threads like "These changes would make ArmA 2 far more popular".

Whenever i encounter a engine limit, i don't waste my time with bothering the devs with it, instead i try myself to find a workaround. I spend my time in learning, exploring, researching. Just as example: in ArmA 2 it isn't possible to lean in vehicles, right?

t23qEflD30A

I'm used to search for solutions rather than complaining about the problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×