Ragdolls = In .... Realistic wounds ???

[maddogx 13]

The motivation would be as you say in mission design. Once someone goes down it becomes an objective to get them out. Other than that you don't get reward in gameplay terms.

Absolutely. Something like this could conceivably be added to any mission, and even mods like ACE could have special modules for it - say a "wounds+revival" module and a "wounds+medivac" module, where wounded can only be stabilized but not returned to full combat readiness. :)

To me the reward is the experience and immersion I get having to complete these kind of goals. And if I were the casualty I would be perfectly fine with watching the rest of the mission until it's done or just leaving if I didn't have the time to.

I get where you're coming from on the realism/immersion aspect. :)

Sometimes I think I could have fun with that too, but not always.

If you really wanted to have a second chance mission makers could integrate reinforcement points. When the team gets to a certain point in the mission casualties are revived as new reinforcements joining the team. This of course wouldn't make sense for some missions

Funny, I've thought about exactly the same thing. Similar to Conquest mode in Battlefield where you don't lose a spawn ticked if someone is revived. In this case you could gain a "reinforcement point" by medivacing casualties, for example. :)

but the whole revive thing... Well it's not for me. But when it comes down to it my way is not for most other people. You're opinions are perfectly reasonable and I understand the resononing behind them but I just have different preferences than you guys and probably most other gamers here. No worries, I am sure these things won't be implemented, but just watching one of the latest vbs2 video, showing the medivac features, made me realize how much more gameplay you couLd get out of a mission if you had to stabilize and medivac wounded troops or destroy or recover disabled vehicles etc. The battle of Mogadishu (black hawk down) would never have escalated to the heights it did if not for the "we leave no man behind" actions. And who hasn't wanted to depict this type of battle in arma but can't because pilots are instantly killed upon impact and you just leave the dead behind.

I guess both sides have their pros and cons. In the end we are better off being able to make such decisions ourselves, either by mission design or in mods.

[dmarkwick 261]

Adding such depth is great in theory, but as you say it does seem pointless. There needs to be some kind of purpose behind something like that in order for it to make sense in a game. Unless the advantages of medivac'ing wounded soldiers are somehow woven into the mission (for example mission fails if wounded comrades are left behind), I don't see how this could be achieved. Therefore such a system would indeed be pretty pointless from a gameplay perspective, since making the effort to stabilize a non-fatal casualty and get him out of the combat zone would yield no reward.

On the other hand, the current system of "reviving" soldiers and getting them back into combat has immediate and obvious advantages, which motivates players to make the effort. Sure, it's not very realistic, but as far as gameplay is concerned, it's a lot more gratifying. :)

I can agree :) I think the "problem" (not that it is one) is that missions are designed around success, whereas in a good game, how you fail a mission can be as entertaining as how you complete one. Getting out of a sticky situation becomes the mission, but that's not really how most missions are structured.

[dragon01 902]

Currently if you are hit and survive you are reduced to crawling, explain what you would like to happen in this situation?

What does the player who's injured expected to do while proper medical procedures are being carried out etc etc

This should depend on a mission type and game mode. In general, a unit would have a few options after being hit:

1). A weak hit with a blunt object, causes pain that diminishes over time. No treatment needed.

2). A nonlethal wound that causes some pain and bleeding, making movement and/or shooting difficult. Can be treated with morphine and bandages.

3). A nonlethal hit that damages bones. A person hit can't use the damaged hand for shooting (meaning he/she's reduced to firing a pistol one handed) and can't walk if hit in legs. Using morphine, some rails (improvised or not) and plenty of bandages (if bleeding) such unit could return to fight, but with reduced efficiency.

4). A hit that causes heavy pain, but doesn't hit important organs. Similar to stock "heavily wounded", it causes incapacitating pain. Can be treated by comrades using morphine.

5). A hit that causes concussion and leaves the a person unconscious. If there's someone nearby who's able to help (move the body into a safe position and stop bleeding if needed), he/she wakes up after some time (it could be near-instant to the player, but in-game, it could be any amount of time). Can happen on headshots if one is wearing a helmet, but that would be rare. For the player in SP: If there are no friendly forces nearby, game over with "You were captured by the enemy." message (in MP, that would happen if he was treated and captured by the opposing team). If there's no one nearby, game over with "You bled out/choked while unconscious."

6). A hit that causes leaves the player unconscious and stops breathing and/or heart action due to shock. Similar to 5), but requires CPR to be applied.

7). A hit that damages nerves or joints, or losing a limb. Causes only moderate pain (believe it or not) and very heavy bleeding. Even if treated in time, the player unable to use the limb for the rest of the mission. In campaign, it's game over with a message "You lost a limb, but gained a Purple Heart and a ticket home." or something like that, unless it's the last mission (and if he's in command, if he's not, the commander would send him back anyway). In a single mission (SP or MP), player could try to complete the mission after that, as long as he doesn't need both hands.

8). A hit that heavily damages body, causing very severe pain and bleeding, but doesn't kill instantly. Perhaps the most common kind of hit when it comes to bullets. Permanently eliminates one from combat. For a player, it's game over with similar messages as in case of 5). It is still possible to save somebody hit like that and evacuate him/her. While this wouldn't have immediate benefits, this could matter at the end of the mission, or in the long run. For example, saving the entire squad could earn you a medal, or provide long term benefits in campaign. Saving wounded enemy soldiers and capturing them should also have beneficial effects. In MP, it should be possible to set up a game in which, for example, killed players wouldn't be able to participate in later missions.

9). A hit to the heart or head. Instant kill. Surprisingly uncommon, but happens. If you have a shovel and some time, you could bury a dead comrade (or an enemy) in a shallow grave, which should net you a small increase in score and a commendation at the end of the mission.

I've tried to make this list as general and as realistic as possible, so it could be applied to bullets, shrapnel, knifes, thrown stones or even bare fists. If somebody spots a glaring error of medical nature in this post (I'm not a medic), please correct me. While this is complex, it's not like RL medical procedures are simple. I think that this would make the combat medic role much more interesting. Perhaps even a campaign (custom or in a DLC) could be focused on playing as a medic, as I haven't seen such a game yet. It'd actually be an interesting idea. A military game about saving people instead of killing them.

[Minoza 11]

Funny, I've thought about exactly the same thing. Similar to Conquest mode in Battlefield where you don't lose a spawn ticked if someone is revived. In this case you could gain a "reinforcement point" by medivacing casualties, for example. :)

Exactly what I had in mind! Why not make it like a "ticket" system. It should be connected to respawns. It's more of a mission design though, it can be achieved with current system too. But I like the idea. I'm just not sure whether it would be too much to force players to wait for casevac to be done in order to respawn, or just a "ticket" system, but then, it might get exploited in form that everybody would just respawn and waste tickets...

[soldier2390 0]

There is alot of neat ideas, and I have a few of my own based on my RL medical training, but I would rather a BIS Dev give us an answer.

So can any Dev give us any information on how this is going, or if its even being disscussed by the BIS Dev Team??? BTW AA3 has some good Medical stuff that is based on basic RL stuff we do! Maby BIS can take hints and ideas from Americas Army!

Dave,

[Smaug99 10]

I like how realism is often used as a reason for putting something in. Games are, inherently, unrealistic. War is, inherently, not fun. The last thing I want to see is a wonderfully rendered model of a human being with his legs blown off, shrieking for his mother. I am willing to sacrifice realism and immersion in order to not suffer from PTSD induced by a video game. If not being able to watch a person's leg get realistically blown off by a land mine is a point of contention for you, don't look to a video game to fulfill whatever creepy fantasies you have.

Games are meant to be fun. If you are so obsessed with realism, join the armed services rather than wishing that video games were just like real life while still giving you a do-over.

[Minoza 11]

The only place where things like that can be fun is a video game. Making it look believable still doesn't make it real, so what's your point?

If you get PTSD from a video game then there's probably something wrong with you anyways... Bots, nothing else, they are as lifeless as a piece of furniture. Get over it. Btw. who said anything about making them moan or pray to whatever god they believe in (or a pot of tea... whatever...)? Do you find SLX disturbing? What about Postal?

Edited November 12, 2011 by Minoza

[Smaug99 10]

I have no problem with a better blood system or a system similar to Euphoria or even a little dismemberment. But the level of realism that many seem to demand seems little more than a wish that a video game was just like real war without the actual consequences.

[Cripsis 10]

the level of realism that many seem to demand seems little more than a wish that a video game was just like real war without the actual consequences.

That's the entire point of a computer simulation. :rolleyes:

[katipo66 94]

Arma is a game...

There is such a simulator though...

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8p6tc_medic-medic_tech

[Cripsis 10]

Arma is a game...

BIS are calling ARMA3 a tactical military simulation game, if that makes you feel better.

http://www.bistudio.com/index.php/english/games/arma3

When I play ARMA I try to replicate realism as close as possibly, other people prefer to play ARMA in a much more carefree manner, it's pointless arguing about whether it's a simulation or a game, it can be both.

[PuFu 4600]

BIS are calling ARMA3 a tactical military simulation game, if that makes you feel better.

http://www.bistudio.com/index.php/english/games/arma3

When I play ARMA I try to replicate realism as close as possibly, other people prefer to play ARMA in a much more carefree manner, it's pointless arguing about whether it's a simulation or a game, it can be both.

You again? Still talking about the same thing?

First of, in the link provided: w w w . bistudio . com/index.php/english/games/arma3 - how about the irony...

Secondly:

When I play ARMA I try to replicate realism as close as possibly

You sure you are playing it, and not "simulating"? Because you can only play games, instruments, and most obviously for you here, your own self...

Give it a rest already

[-Coulum- 35]

I may be wrong but isn't a simulation a type of game. When I go to a games Website there is a simulation genre. So in my opinion arma is a simulation and a game. Calling it otherwise is like saying cod is a fps not a game or vice versa. If you talk about vbs2, people will tell you it's a game that simulates war. In the end all these computer programs have no real consequences and so are games though. I Donna know just the way I see it. I think its weird that people are separating the two. Arma is a game that happens to be a simulation to me.

[Cripsis 10]

Arma is a game that happens to be a simulation to me.

Precisely.

For those of you who understand, no explanation is necessary. For those of you who don't, no explanation will suffice.

[giorgygr 61]

As much bloodbath and limbs flying in the air..the more better i say.

If i want to "play"..i ll choose other game.

'This' must be a living hell.

[purepassion 22]

says who?

The team already stated multiple times they are not fans of all this gore stuff and will not put it in the game.

However, since Ragdoll is confirmed (active ragdoll should be supported by the engine aswell) and dismemberment is possible (look in VSB2)

it is up to modders to fulfill the dreams of "bloodbaths and flying limbs"... :rolleyes:

[dragon01 902]

They're not fans of gore, that's true, but community want it and dismemberment is already done for VBS2, since military also wants it. I don't see why shouldn't they include it in AIII. Aside from blood trails, other "gore" effects need only a slight improvement. Of course, this should be all toggleable, so people who don't want PTSD won't get it. Those though enough to handle it would be able to get more realism.

Not to mention that without dismemberment, the medic system would have to be less realistic. It's not "gore for gore's sake" as in most other FPSes. This is gore that serves a very tangible purpose. For instance, this could be critical when it comes to triage, would make player chose correct weapons for the task (no leveling the enemy base with arty when looking for documents), and it could serve story purposes as well.

[katipo66 94]

Those though enough to handle it would be able to get more realism.

Buahaha thats some funny shit right there

cheers tough guy....

[purepassion 22]

Dismemberemt surely is more realistic and would also enable a true use of advanced medic systems but as already said it will simply not be in vanilla Arma 3. I would appreciate if modders could take on this matter which would be appreciated by a lot of people.

I think the team should only concentrate on better wound textures that appear on the correct spots and reworked blood hit and blotch(drag) effects that appear on the ground and especially on walls.

[dragon01 902]

Was it outright stated (if it was, where?) that dismemberment will be VBS2-only, or just based on the fact BIS stated they're not big on gore?

Of course, improving blood hit and blotch is also rather important. And even if dismemberment won't be in, I'd still like to see vaporization (for performance and immersion reasons). It'd most likely work in most situations, being more common than dismemberment.

[PuFu 4600]

They're not fans of gore, that's true, but community want it and dismemberment is already done for VBS2, since military also wants it. I don't see why shouldn't they include it in AIII.

where did you get that "community wants it" shit from? there numerous threads and polls about it in the past (not that you'd know of by looking at your join date)and all showed the same results: the vast majority of bis community doesn't NOT want dismemberment and explicit gore.

if YOU want it doesn't mean everyone else does as well...

Aside from blood trails, other "gore" effects need only a slight improvement. Of course, this should be all toggleable, so people who don't want PTSD won't get it. Those though enough to handle it would be able to get more realism.

please grow up...

Not to mention that without dismemberment, the medic system would have to be less realistic. It's not "gore for gore's sake" as in most other FPSes. This is gore that serves a very tangible purpose. For instance, this could be critical when it comes to triage, would make player chose correct weapons for the task (no leveling the enemy base with arty when looking for documents), and it could serve story purposes as well.

it is easy to invent reasons for a feature that would serve no gameplay purpose isn't it...

[-Coulum- 35]

the vast majority of bis community doesn't NOT want dismemberment and explicit gore.

Ummmmm.... The above poll says differently. 74% want the real deal and 92% want dismemberment. Am I missing something. Must be because Jeez, look how recent my join date is. Couldn't be that I have been playing arma/opf and observing the forum for years now just hadn't bothered registering till now or anything...

Anyways. I think that the "small minority" that want these realistic features will have to suck it up and be happy with all the other neat features I'm sure bi will be implementing instead. When someone mods it I hope they do it right however. No overdone gore like in cod. I don't want see someone step on an ied and see their limbs flying in everywich direction and a nice bloody mist were they once stood because in reality this would not be what you see. Instead I simply want to see the explosion engulf the soldier and when the dust clears and I come to check for survivors I see him bleeding out with his legs missing or something. I know it sounds sick but it's a video game get over it.

Not to mention that without dismemberment, the medic system would have to be less realistic. It's not "gore for gore's sake" as in most other FPSes. This is gore that serves a very tangible purpose. For instance, this could be critical when it comes to triage, would make player chose correct weapons for the task (no leveling the enemy base with arty when looking for documents), and it could serve story purposes as well.

easy to invent reasons for a feature that would serve no gameplay purpose isn't it...

Everyone has different opinions of what "purposeful gameplay features" are and aren't. Yours are different then mine because I think realistic wound effects would help increase immersion immensely, and if implemented with a First aid, triage and medivac systems would be very useful for making casualty management much more realistic which in turn would effect the flow of combat. As mentioned early in this thread, not every one would want this but I think it would be a step in the right direction for arma. Only my opinion however and I now I am in the minority on that front.

But I have already accepted that their will be very little gore in vanilla arma 3. After seeing a man struck by an ied and the amputations and mutilations he suffered I can understand why. I still hope that when mods come out they reflect reality as best as possible.

[nkenny 1057]

Eh.

Arma3 is set to release next summer. If dismemberment/gore/whatnot wasn't part of the original design intention. What makes you think it can be bandaided in now? Have you any idea of the process involved in making contemporary 3d models. (I'll give you a hint. PuFu does)

This poll proves little and is about as valuable as a "Do you want free beer" one.

-k

[Cripsis 10]

If dismemberment/gore/whatnot wasn't part of the original design intention. What makes you think it can be bandaided in now?

http://resources.bisimulations.com/wiki/setAmputation

[nkenny 1057]

http://resources.bisimulations.com/wiki/setAmputation

Game: Virtual Battlespace 2

Nothing has so far indicated that BIS have decided to accept the extra 3d-modelling work to adopt this for all ground-soldiers.

Having said that I wouldn't mind it. I just don't believe it is something BIS have any intention of focusing on for Arma3.

-k