"Resourcefulness" mode

[David Schofield 10]

I've been tinkering around in Mission Editor for a few hours now, and I've realized that there's something missing that could improve the game experience much more. AI Resourcefulness traits. I'm not sure if it should be implemented like behavior (Like Safe, alert, ect. but instead ignore, necessity, grab-away, ect.) but it could give the AI vital improvement in upgrading their arsenal. For example; an Iranian soldier who kills a Marine in 1 on 1 combat could rush over and trade his AK-74 for the Marine's HK 416 (depending on ammunition.) This essentially could be used to provoke an AI to scavenge, basically...

And of course, since it could be a controlled behavior, it wouldn't be in the way if people didn't want it to be! :bounce3:

What does everyone think? Developer input?

[Montanaro 0]

1. When is there ever 1 on 1 combat?

2. Why on earth would a person sprint to the person he just killed in the middle of a battle just to pick up his gun?

It makes more a whole lot more sense to have squad members share ammunition, which has been implemented with some success in ARMA2 mods.

[Beagle 684]

Picking up foreign equipment and in turn leaving behind isued gear is uncommon in any regular army and will lead to persecution. This is something that wil not happen. captured gear will be secured, for sure but not this way.

There is no gain in taking a weapon you dont have ammunition supply for.

[JdB 151]

For example; an Iranian soldier who kills a Marine in 1 on 1 combat could rush over and trade his AK-74 for the Marine's HK 416 (depending on ammunition.) This essentially could be used to provoke an AI to scavenge, basically...

30 seconds afterwards other Iranian soldiers hear an HK 416 firing and lob a grenade, or they're looking into the direction of the sun, see the outline of the weapon, and shoot at the outline of the guy holding it. That's why scavenging generally isn't a good idea on the battlefield, it makes blue-on-blue more likely. Optional behaviour yes, default no.

Implementing resourcefulness is good, but not when it goes against army regulations and/or common sense.

Edited July 13, 2011 by JdB

[Smurf 12]

A waypoint\script command\function would do it. Default, no. Maybe for AT\"special" weapons.

[rye1 21]

All-out-war, guerrilla war. Unconventional troops in the campaign.

Wearing non-standard uniform and kit is against regulations too but the SF wore rags like the Taliban and some even used AK's. It's not about regulations, it's about whether or not it is practical for your role. The current roles the Army are in are well supplied:- if that wasn't the case then a last resort may be to do so, if you're out of ammo and there is an enemy AK near you then go for it. Covert in an unknown land, use the enemies weapon, overt in an enemies land then what's the point:- that stuff's for combat and fighting patrols. Same goes with training the host nation, it's normally done with their weaponary or at least sometimes it is.

Edited July 14, 2011 by Rye

[bradp191 10]

Yeah, that'd be great for the Muj. I bet you could even script that in.

[los18z 19]

Apart from whether or not this would be fun to do in the game do not confuse this fantasy with what happens in RL. (assuming you are not a guerrilla). This is where reality rubs up against someone's fantasy.

Anyone who drops his issue weapon just to "upgrade": to another weapon is going to get screwed and prosecuted, after all he's signed for that thing. That's different than when you are back at base and you select certain kit to bring with you as mission dictates. (such as bringing an AK vs an M4 to appear covert.)

Likewise the team is kitted out with certain weapons, typically all the same caliber. (excluding crew served etc). This way you can swap magazines during consolidation and reorganization. Now here you are having ditched your own stuff for something of a different caliber and now no one has anything to give you. Then there is the issue of you also have to swap out the web gear. After all AK mags don't fit in M4/M16 pouches.

SO then you have to take all your stuff off, and btw nowadays your Molle pouches may be physically attached to your body armor. So you throw out your $600 custom rig and perhaps your armor too and don some piece of crab webbing that Ahmed has been carrying around. So not only do you loose that but all your cool stuff, like your pogey bait. Unless of course your team wants to sit around for 15 minutes while you reconfigure. It's not something to be taken lightly that's for sure.

These kit decisions are typically made before the mission starts. In a survival situation? Sure. Upgrading because it's col to press a button in COD and get new stuff. Silly.

Los <grin>

Edited July 14, 2011 by Los18z

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Apart from whether or not this would be fun to do in the game do not confuse this fantasy with what happens in RL. (assuming you are not a guerrilla). This is where reality rubs up against someone's fantasy.

But this isn't reality; it's a game. I don't see why there is even an argument here. This behavior can be scripted easily if the mission demands it.

[JakeWed 10]

It would be good for Non-Official Soldiers (So Militia, Civilian and Terrorists etc..) and SF Guys but for Regular Soldiers its not a good thing but would be Nice to Have as a Optional Thing in their

Resourcefulness could also Be how they use their Environment, Like Taking Cover and Using Static Weapons, Like the Sliders we have it could be on a Scale of 0-100:

0 - Stands their and Shoots

50 - Takes Decent Cover and Static Weapons

100 - Takes all Cover Possible, Static Weapons are Manned and Supported etc...

[bradp191 10]

Some tallywacker shot at me a while back with a SAW, and you can be sure he ruined someone's EDL to get it. It definitely happens.

If I was in dire straits, then I'd grab anything that shoots. AK mags fit in cargo pockets and dump pouches.

They can only NJP you if you survive.

[4 IN 1 0]

It doesn't matter what you bring into a fight, you just remember that you don't throw away your issue weapon in the field that easy.

[dmarkwick 261]

I think the idea of needing to preserve your issue weapon is unneeded in a game. If you need that sort of activity it should be mission-specific i.e. scripted, and I doubt anyone would ever see such a feature.

Edited July 14, 2011 by DMarkwick

[CameronMcDonald 146]

I think the idea of needing to preserve your issue weapon is unneeded in a game. If you need that sort of activity it should be mission-specific i.e. scrited, and I doubt anyone would ever see such a feature.

This. Adding immovable restraints to the vanilla game (that can easily be added by scripting) starts a long journey down a reeking sewer that ends at Codemasters front door.

[Guest Writiny]

I do not understand why there even an argument. This behavior can be very easy to script, if the task requires.

[NoRailgunner 0]

I think its better for AI to grab another weapon only if:

- there is no ammo/magazines for its own weapon(s) within reach incl. backpack and other AI units who are (or should be) able to share ammo/magazines

- AI can grab the new weapon without getting killed and not just running/rush around to grab the "best" or golden rifle...

Perhaps make it happen that AI "regular/grunts" only take weapons that they know eg default AI regular/grunt with AK will take primarily only AK variants of rifles. AI SF fastmovers could take/operate any weapon within reach. In general AI should not leave the team/group without order or notice.

[rangerpl 13]

Yeah, in most regular armies you'd get into trouble if you dropped a perfectly good weapon and picked one up from the enemy.

If you're out of ammo or your weapon is lost (somehow) then there's a difference.

This should only be implemented for guerillas, it could be rather interesting to see insurgent armies with all kinds of kit.

[Smurf 12]

Perfect use of enemy weaponry:

UhGIFLWadEU

From now on, all your argumentation is invalid. :cool:

[Big Dawg KS 6]

I do not understand why there even an argument. This behavior can be very easy to script, if the task requires.

Thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis.

[David Schofield 10]

It seems I'm getting a lot of flak for this idea, and I think it's because I just didn't explain it well enough...

1. When is there ever 1 on 1 combat?

2. Why on earth would a person sprint to the person he just killed in the middle of a battle just to pick up his gun?

1. It was a lone example I used to explain it simply.

2. I never said that it was priority to pick up dead jim's gear while all of jim's comrades are firing away. As soon as the area is safe, they can go for a fallen man's gear.

Picking up foreign equipment and in turn leaving behind isued gear is uncommon in any regular army and will lead to persecution. This is something that wil not happen. captured gear will be secured, for sure but not this way.

There is no gain in taking a weapon you dont have ammunition supply for.

That's why I suggested having it as a setable scale level... AI can be easilly set to not pay any mind to something left behind. Possibly they could be set to pick up a fallen allies' mag, then gear. Maybe it would be more complex than just a drop-down tool setting, but it's still a possible feature that could improve the game. Can you explain what would happen with an irregular army? What about real wars that occured; Vietnam and Gulf War, and recently Middle East 2003+?

30 seconds afterwards other Iranian soldiers hear an HK 416 firing and lob a grenade, or they're looking into the direction of the sun, see the outline of the weapon, and shoot at the outline of the guy holding it. That's why scavenging generally isn't a good idea on the battlefield, it makes blue-on-blue more likely. Optional behaviour yes, default no.

Implementing resourcefulness is good, but not when it goes against army regulations and/or common sense.

Good point; but exactly why it should be Optional and implemented as a feature.

All-out-war, guerrilla war. Unconventional troops in the campaign.

Wearing non-standard uniform and kit is against regulations too but the SF wore rags like the Taliban and some even used AK's. It's not about regulations, it's about whether or not it is practical for your role. The current roles the Army are in are well supplied:- if that wasn't the case then a last resort may be to do so, if you're out of ammo and there is an enemy AK near you then go for it. Covert in an unknown land, use the enemies weapon, overt in an enemies land then what's the point:- that stuff's for combat and fighting patrols. Same goes with training the host nation, it's normally done with their weaponary or at least sometimes it is.

I pretty much agree with everything you said. Thank you! :D

Apart from whether or not this would be fun to do in the game do not confuse this fantasy with what happens in RL. (assuming you are not a guerrilla). This is where reality rubs up against someone's fantasy.

Anyone who drops his issue weapon just to "upgrade": to another weapon is going to get screwed and prosecuted, after all he's signed for that thing. That's different than when you are back at base and you select certain kit to bring with you as mission dictates. (such as bringing an AK vs an M4 to appear covert.)

Likewise the team is kitted out with certain weapons, typically all the same caliber. (excluding crew served etc). This way you can swap magazines during consolidation and reorganization. Now here you are having ditched your own stuff for something of a different caliber and now no one has anything to give you. Then there is the issue of you also have to swap out the web gear. After all AK mags don't fit in M4/M16 pouches.

SO then you have to take all your stuff off, and btw nowadays your Molle pouches may be physically attached to your body armor. So you throw out your $600 custom rig and perhaps your armor too and don some piece of crab webbing that Ahmed has been carrying around. So not only do you loose that but all your cool stuff, like your pogey bait. Unless of course your team wants to sit around for 15 minutes while you reconfigure. It's not something to be taken lightly that's for sure.

These kit decisions are typically made before the mission starts. In a survival situation? Sure. Upgrading because it's col to press a button in COD and get new stuff. Silly.

Los <grin>

For most of ArmA II you played a Force Recon soldier/group who went behind enemy lines for much of the game; little contact with USMC forces. You had to do what you could to maintain cover and stay alive whilst completing the mission. In a small-scale group like Razor with the same task, I'd like to hear your argument. An AK-107 would be a godsend because that's both an effective combat rifle and the tool of the enemy, and with 3 men close beside you in constant communications, they'd be able to arm up too.

And moreso with Guerilla forces.

And I don't quite get your complaint about 'fantasy' here. I'm merely suggesting being able to tone it up or down, default is definately no-grabbing, so...?

But this isn't reality; it's a game. I don't see why there is even an argument here. This behavior can be scripted easily if the mission demands it.

Agreed.

It doesn't matter what you bring into a fight, you just remember that you don't throw away your issue weapon in the field that easy.

Which is why it should be adjustable via mission editor so it's simple! :bounce3:

Some tallywacker shot at me a while back with a SAW, and you can be sure he ruined someone's EDL to get it. It definitely happens.

If I was in dire straits, then I'd grab anything that shoots. AK mags fit in cargo pockets and dump pouches.

They can only NJP you if you survive.

Real-military type of deal where you were shot at?

And Again, I never said some guy should swap his HK-416 for some 60 year old AK-47 lying on the ground. With resourcefulness, he CAN if it's life or death, or if out of ammo, or not at all. I think of it as an ADJUSTABLE feature. It opens Mission Editor's possibilities.

This would be easy for developers to script into the game from the get-go and not really need to worry about it; if anything it would give them more mission opportunities. It's something that would be cool to have in game, and adjustability or original game-code scripting really isn't that hard, is it?

Now, I've mostly been arguing why a BLUFOR/OPFOR Regular Army soldier would rather have an enemy weapon than his own, but for an Irregular of any kind, it would be much more likely. I don't see why people don't like this idea. It wouldn't be a hassle at all for the developers to code-in.

Edited July 16, 2011 by David Schofield

[Montanaro 0]

Bud, BIS isn't going to create a whole new Artificial Intelligence behavior for picking up weapons in "life or death situations"

It's hardly a concise issue and thus would require a lot of time to create and tweak to make it somewhat acceptable.

The better solution is to have the ai check squad members for unused magazines.

As a side note, I've never encountered the AI running out of ammo unless I specifically set it up in the editor.

[David Schofield 10]

Bud, BIS isn't going to create a whole new Artificial Intelligence behavior for picking up weapons in "life or death situations"

It's hardly a concise issue and thus would require a lot of time to create and tweak to make it somewhat acceptable.

The better solution is to have the ai check squad members for unused magazines.

As a side note, I've never encountered the AI running out of ammo unless I specifically set it up in the editor.

I don't think you're getting the gist of what I'm trying to say; the potential this kind of thing could create much more than just "life or death situations", friend. It's cool that you'd rather argue against it, and I'd like to give 'movie' examples, but I know I'm not going to change your mind with The Hurt Locker. It's a good idea, and there are plenty of ways to program it to work, and plenty of situations where it's possible it could work out. It's not something that's going to take a whole year to create, either, in the hands of an experienced script-writer. And again, since the default could be as-is with Arma 2 and OA, the settings could be adjusted for AI. Otherwise, why is your own character able to loot dead corpses and stashes? Pretty unrealistic already, is it not?

And AI checking eachother's magazines is a totally different thing from picking up a Stanag from a fallen comrade.

[Montanaro 0]

I don't think you're getting the gist of what I'm trying to say; the potential this kind of thing could create much more than just "life or death situations", friend. It's cool that you'd rather argue against it, and I'd like to give 'movie' examples, but I know I'm not going to change your mind with The Hurt Locker. It's a good idea, and there are plenty of ways to program it to work, and plenty of situations where it's possible it could work out. It's not something that's going to take a whole year to create, either, in the hands of an experienced script-writer. And again, since the default could be as-is with Arma 2 and OA, the settings could be adjusted for AI. Otherwise, why is your own character able to loot dead corpses and stashes? Pretty unrealistic already, is it not?

And AI checking eachother's magazines is a totally different thing from picking up a Stanag from a fallen comrade.

1. You were the one who brought up "life and death" as an example

2. No, movie references are not empirical data

3. I don't think you get the implications of what you are asking to be put into the game. Good luck balancing all the variables

4. As been stated, it's already doable by anyone willing to look up arma mission editor websites

5. I can do a lot of unrealistic things the AI can't; that doesn't mean the AI should be given those options

[dmarkwick 261]

I think the idea is a generally good one. The option to have AI that can replenish itself has obvious uses and advantages, and would give the player new things to think about, like is it a good idea to leave your dead squadmate fully armed. In fact leaving dead squadmates at all is not a "real" situation, we must not forget that this is a game. As such, maximum flexibility is what we like.

[David Schofield 10]

1. You were the one who brought up "life and death" as an example

2. No, movie references are not empirical data

3. I don't think you get the implications of what you are asking to be put into the game. Good luck balancing all the variables

4. As been stated, it's already doable by anyone willing to look up arma mission editor websites

5. I can do a lot of unrealistic things the AI can't; that doesn't mean the AI should be given those options

1. Yeah? And I mentioned more possiblities that this could come into play.

2. Have you had service in the military and/or live experience in a combat situation?

3. It's really that hard to task AI to loot a specific-faction corpse in distance x<50 for magazines

4. Yeah, your point? In the new mission creator contest that BIS is making, you aren't allowed to use mods. I myself play only Vanilla Arma and never download anything but new maps, graphics upgrades, and sound upgrades for a better playing experience for myself. If you create a mission for a squad surviving in enemy territory starting with pistols, it sure as hell defeats the purpose if you can pick up a KSVK or something while your AI are handicapped and won't touch an AK on the ground unless you select the command from the panel (And what if you're not squad leader then?). Realistic? No. Possible? Anything is. I don't see what your problem with this idea is.

5. How do you justify that your character should be able to do all these fancy things, but an AI cannot even have an optional adjustment?