ARMA 2: OA beta build 85478

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Overall it felt a lot more satisfying however with less WTF moments, where enemies would be hit again and again without dying only to kill you in one shot in return.

The WTF moments we had before could have been avoided if we only saw blood splatter on hits > 0.5 damage or a hit that caused death, with the abstraction that "if you didn't see blood splatter you kinda missed because unit was prone and hard to hit".

This is fantastic and a great improvement. Out of a sudden, you really consider buying an assault rifle over a battle rifle or sniper in Warfare games, because they are much more effective on average combat distances than before. Previously, the advantage in ammo capacity was totally negated by the lousy damage. This is no longer the case.

And yet, real world soldiers complain about the stopping power of the 5.56 round. And these days US soldiers aren't exactly fighting modern armies using heavy ballistic vests. Why shouldn't we? Flip it around - what possible purpose does the M14 in the hands of a squad marksman have anymore? The 5.56 is supposed to feel inadequate unless you get up close and personal with the enemy - it's not designed for distant fighting.

That's not because the NATO soldiers are incredibly inaccurate, it's because the enemy is in cover and there isn't actually line of sight between the two sides. They are firing at positions because the Taliban have (nearly) human intelligence and always fight from cover or concealment. If they waddled around in the open like ArmA AI (it is, by the way, impossible to code them to use cover as effectively and consistently as a human), they would be slaughtered as well. Play against humans to mimic firefights like the ones on youtube. The AI are better at human wave attacks and furious CQB.

"Nearly" :p I saw a youtube video of british infantrymen being engaged from three sides, one of which eventually got shot in the face (probably a 7.62 from PK or AK47), but lived to tell the tale (7.62 headshot != instakill all the time, but it increases the chances for it to happen). These guys I would say severely messed up because they were caught completely in the open.

As for accuracy, in real life you have to worry about how you pull the trigger and how you breathe and steady up for a long range shot. In the game it only takes 0.1-0.2 secs of exposure to setup for a well aimed shot once you know where the enemy is. Jerk up the trigger action and you'll miss your target. The JCove Lite figure of eight gun movement that you can slowly stop using breath control, is a very good abstraction for the concept of setting up a well aimed shot you also have to expose yourself for a longer time to do so.

In real wars, a lot of bullets are spent to get kills. People seem to expect a kill per bullet spent in the game. Why do I as a SAW gunner have to intentionally miss (or perform a lot of blind fire) to get suppression effects working, with the end result appearing to be a fierce firefight? I don't know, but I think something needs to be done regarding battlefield efficiency.

Edited October 17, 2011 by CarlGustaffa

[turin turambar 0]

I think the fixes within the latest 2-3 beta builds are another step into the right direction. Sure bullet damage tweaks change gameplay quite a lot, but even with some concerns it's a welcome change to me.

AI vs. AI wise combat effectiveness has definetely improved in my test.

Units skill is starting to show some effect on the battlefield.

Of course firefights are now in average shorter due to higher lethality, that meaning lower accuracy settings may be needed to arrange things.

There are still many things i would see tweaked/fixed with infantry AI, my top 5 being:

* incoming fire detection / reaction: AI is completely unable to detect (see, hear) incoming fire from distance. It should be able to hear shots / to see nearby bullets impact and it should change stance / move away accordingly. This may be modded (it is taxing), but i think that's a core feature deserving a proper fix by BIS.

* AA/AT weapons: in a infantry vs. infantry scenario, AI units keep switching to AT and back for no reason (no vehicles around).

* CQB: units still tend not to fire quickly onto nearby known threats. I think the problem it's related to how the danger.fsm related "CAN FIRE" event is handled: seems to me some pretty high timeout is preventing AI from (re-)detecting known threats coming back into line of sight.

* cover: AI units do stick into cover behind many objects, couching and/or peeking. Problem is they don't go prone anymore when suppressed. It would be minor, except for the fact AI units use as cover fences and other stuff not giving any kind of protection. Also metallic fences are still treated as "hard" cover and AI is being shot in the back when "hiding" behind them. Pretty sad.

* withdrawal: AI units may individually flee, but they are unable to quickly withdraw as a group from the field, which is quite a limitation on the tactical side.

I think the AI bohemia devs should have a private meeting with Fabrizio, he is the AI expert around here :D

[Baron von Beer 0]

Be reasonable though, "death" in game is more like incapacitated in real terms (Be it dead or "just" seriously injured).

You can get shot in the head and survive, but 99% of the time, you are most definitely out of the fight and destined for a long stay in a medical facility. In game the worst "injured" state is still able to fight, with reduced accuracy from weapon shaking and possibly the inability to walk, but can still see, spot, communicate, and fire your weapon.

That said, I do agree that combat in game is far too lethal. This is more a matter of weapon accuracy/ease of targeting, and most game terrain surfaces being relatively "flat". Also the ease of players to spot targets. IMO the implemented method of "Sinking" to provide "concealment" in vegetation is largely useless. At distance in game it is the contrast that stands out, so instead of seeing X highly contrasted pixels we see 1/2 X. A slight opacity to soften at range would do much better, and provide a much more realistic result.

Edited October 17, 2011 by Baron von Beer

[nkenny 1057]

And yet, real world soldiers complain about the stopping power of the 5.56 round. And these days US soldiers aren't exactly fighting modern armies using heavy ballistic vests. Why shouldn't we?

Anecdotal. The French, German, Isreali, British, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian(etc) aren't complaining. Much of the argument comes from the distinctly American '9mm isn't enough'-crowd and various online grognards.

Flip it around - what possible purpose does the M14 in the hands of a squad marksman have anymore? The 5.56 is supposed to feel inadequate unless you get up close and personal with the enemy - it's not designed for distant fighting.

Whats up close and personal? At 200 meters the 5.56 is more than adequate, In Arma it(5.56) only becomes a less consisten round at ranges beyond 400meters. This seems to be a reasonable abstraction given the distance limitations of the engine.

The M14 permits those shots out to (and beyond) 400 meters, offers superior material penetration, and a one-shot-knockdown power an M16 cannot hope to match. The price is reduced ammunition capacity, greater recoil, and ammunition-incompatability with the rest of the squad.

In real wars, a lot of bullets are spent to get kills. People seem to expect a kill per bullet spent in the game. Why do I as a SAW gunner have to intentionally miss (or perform a lot of blind fire) to get suppression effects working, with the end result appearing to be a fierce firefight? I don't know, but I think something needs to be done regarding battlefield efficiency.

"Covering fire" isn't random fire in the vague direction of the enemy. Only accurate(read deadly) fire has any effect. If you believe that spraying with a the SAW turns you into mr-suppression; you are doing it wrong. There is nothing inherently 'suppressive' with the SAW. Only effective rounds on target surpresses.

I believe the AIs issues can be narrowed down to five simple points.

1) Detection ranges are a bit short. And the AI lacks some intuition* such as being able to recognize that if one person is enemy-- the guy right next to him probably is to.

2) AI in Danger mode expose themselves by standing up too often.

3) AI wastes time toggling between stances, sidearms, binoculars, AT launchers, Grenade launchers(which they never hit with), and such.

4) Stealth mode isn't stealthy.

5) From a player control perspective it is impossible to get the AI to disengage or flee.

Get these under wraps and the AI will become a much more potent adversary!

-k

*Don't get me wrong. I believe 7.62 NATO is probably a better military round... for certain environments. In a Great War-- Small arms aren't the big killers anyhow. Projected HE and (to a certain extent) Machineguns(7.62) are the killers.

**The importance of this 'intuition' cannot be understated. Get that the AI is ultimately naive. As a human you KNOW you will face an enemy-- an AI in aware isn't. As a human you've READ the briefing or played the mission before-- the AI treats every new playthrough as just that.