Will we ever have a real "city" in the ArmA Series?

[NKato 0]

You say you want a massive city. Very few games give you an authentic free roaming massive city that allows you access to all buildings.

You are talking a multi-year project that would be going in a completely different direction than OFP and ARMA.

The best your going to get is a few skeleton sky scrappers from modders plastered over an island, with AI running through the walls and falling to their death.

Instead of being a detractor, why not encourage BIS to raise the bar ever higher? You're being such a wet blanket. I don't care if it takes 5 years or 10 years to make it happen, I'd like it if BIS could push themselves to pull it off.

As I see it: you are one of the many people in the target audience encouraging developers to be lazy.

An audience should always be demanding a developer to push themselves ever harder, by bringing forth great and difficult obstacles that seem herculean at first, but can become reality if you just quit bitching.

[rye1 21]

You say you want a massive city. Very few games give you an authentic free roaming massive city that allows you access to all buildings.

Plus.

You are talking a multi-year project

Minus.

be going in a completely different direction than OFP and ARMA.

Arguable.

The best your going to get is a few skeleton sky scrappers from modders plastered over an island, with AI running through the walls and falling to their death.

Opinion.

I give you an C- for being dogmatic.

[Montanaro 0]

and I'd like it if BIS stayed in business.

[rye1 21]

and I'd like it if BIS stayed in business.

Remember those money making words...

[NKato 0]

and I'd like it if BIS stayed in business.

I think that's manageable. I mean, they're developing a second game that's entirely unrelated to the ArmA series, with their military contractor work on top of that with VBS2 (and probably VBS3, if they're developing a follow-up).

I'd like to see BIS stay in business too, but I don't want them to become a one-trick pony with no real lateral flexibility in their game design and products. If they can't push the limits of their engine to handle the intensity of urban ops in a metropolitan city, maybe they should just close up shop.

I mean, BIS prides themselves on military simulations, right? Well, if we're not gonna have milsim accuracy in a domestic, urbanized environment in a game like ArmA 3 or an expansion thereof, I would begin to doubt that BIS deserves the mil-sim ranking it has.

One reason why the ArmA series has been visually taxing: No DirectX 11 support. If ArmA 3 doesn't include full DX11 support, metropolitan islands are going to remain a distant reality.

Believe me when I say this: DirectX 11 really does open up the potential for ArmA 3, if it gets implemented in the way it deserves to be.

P.S. BIS already has the graphical assets (vehicles, units, weapons, foliage) and the tools, apart from the skyscrapers themselves, to make it happen. All they need to do is tighten up their AI code, collision detection inside buildings, and other characteristics that would need to be cleaned up. That's half the game development time already accounted for. The rest of the project would be just to improve the game's code and fabricating additional assets for the metropolis.

P.P.S. Why not also add some code that tells the graphics renderer to not render the outdoor environment when the player is indoors, except when in rooms and halls that have windows? It's called buffer zone rendering. Seriously, if you people cannot use your heads to figure out straightforward rendering solutions to these sorts of problems, you really shouldn't be posting on these forums. Milsim players are supposed to be creative problem-solvers. What I am seeing is exactly the opposite.

Edited January 28, 2012 by NKato

[Montanaro 0]

Instead of being a detractor, why not encourage BIS to raise the bar ever higher? You're being such a wet blanket. I don't care if it takes 5 years or 10 years to make it happen, I'd like it if BIS could push themselves to pull it off.

As I see it: you are one of the many people in the target audience encouraging developers to be lazy.

An audience should always be demanding a developer to push themselves ever harder, by bringing forth great and difficult obstacles that seem herculean at first, but can become reality if you just quit bitching.

Lol,

you don't know what I want from ARMA.

But because I found your thread to be half about your cartoon obsession and half half-baked, you've labelled me "one of those people" who won't stop bitching?

oh, and please stop with the inspirational speeches, you're on the internet, not in front of congress.

[NKato 0]

Lol,

you don't know what I want from ARMA.

But because I found your thread to be half about your cartoon obsession and half half-baked, you've labelled me "one of those people" who won't stop bitching?

oh, and please stop with the inspirational speeches, you're on the internet, not in front of congress.

Very well, then. You are officially a troll and therefore not contributing anything of worth to the discussion. You are hereby dismissed.

P.S. In case you don't understand what means: "Don't ever come back here unless you have something actually worth spit to say."

P.P.S. Congress couldn't get off their asses to do the right thing even if you gave them an inspirational speech. Bad example, boy.

Edited January 28, 2012 by NKato

[rye1 21]

For quality urban gaming you need to expand on the features that have to be achieved.

Arma does not offer much when it comes to urban operations, it is improving but slowly.

When it comes to a topic like this creativity can take it to a whole new level, but you have to stop and start from the current. With Arma2OA what can be improved and therefore what would we like to see in Arma 3 and it's possible DLC's?

I'm asking for some creativity, not arguement. Some common problems you have come across and possible solutions.

[Montanaro 0]

Very well, then. You are officially a troll and therefore not contributing anything of worth to the discussion. You are hereby dismissed.

P.S. In case you don't understand what means: "Don't ever come back here unless you have something actually worth spit to say."

P.P.S. Congress couldn't get off their asses to do the right thing even if you gave them an inspirational speech. Bad example, boy.

:j:

So because I found your post to be convoluted and naive I'm now a Troll, a bitcher, and a boy?

Your entire thread smacks of narcissism (this coming from someone qualified to diagnose such things). Rah Rah Rah speeches, marginalizing "detractors", laughing at others (the CPU guy), condescension ("boy"), insisting the game be how you want it to be as long as you demand it, long winded rambling posts, posting the same idea in 3 different threads, and other like behavior.

Btw, someone who watches cartoons shouldn't be calling others "boy"

[NKato 0]

:j:

So because I found your post to be convoluted and naive I'm now a Troll, a bitcher, and a boy?

Your entire thread smacks of narcissism (this coming from someone qualified to diagnose such things). Rah Rah Rah speeches, marginalizing "detractors", laughing at others (the CPU guy), condescension ("boy"), insisting the game be how you want it to be as long as you demand it, long winded rambling posts, posting the same idea in 3 different threads, and other like behavior.

Btw, someone who watches cartoons shouldn't be calling others "boy"

I started this thread with the intent of provoking constructive discussion and you have done nothing but provide half-assed responses and ego-addled comments that clearly had no bearing on the thread's intent and objective: To discuss how BIS could achieve an ArmA 3 Expansion that focused on urban metropolitan military operations.

Your responses and heckling about my choice of example, a "cartoon" as you call it, weren't helpful, either, and were clearly the attempts of a troll to get me to respond and further derail the thread.

Again, if you do not have anything of worth to discuss for the thread, please do not post here. Additionally, what you perceive as "rah rah rah speeches" are genuine attempts at motivating interest in the concept, and when people are unwilling to take the road less traveled, it shows.

Edited January 28, 2012 by NKato

[rye1 21]

There are so many things you have to do to get to this stage so let's isolate it down to the key and current issues and work our way up. :)

[NKato 0]

For quality urban gaming you need to expand on the features that have to be achieved.

Arma does not offer much when it comes to urban operations, it is improving but slowly.

When it comes to a topic like this creativity can take it to a whole new level, but you have to stop and start from the current. With Arma2OA what can be improved and therefore what would we like to see in Arma 3 and it's possible DLC's?

I'm asking for some creativity, not arguement. Some common problems you have come across and possible solutions.

Let's start with the AI basics. Pathfinding in the interior is dodgy at best as far as I know, but it has improved since the original ArmA. Collision detection needs work. And then there's the fact that in most cases, AI will know where you are regardless of your position in the building, even if you take into account line-of-sight status.

I'd imagine that this would need a good deal of work, if AIs are to be used in high-rise buildings, quite possibly to the point where BIS would have to develop an entirely new subset of AI for building interiors.

[Montanaro 0]

I started this thread with the intent of provoking constructive discussion and you have done nothing but provide half-assed responses and ego-addled comments that clearly had no bearing on the thread's intent and objective: To discuss how BIS could achieve an ArmA 3 Expansion that focused on urban metropolitan military operations.

Again, if you do not have anything of worth to discuss for the thread, please do not post here. Additionally, what you perceive as "rah rah rah speeches" are genuine attempts at motivating interest in the concept, and when people are unwilling to take the road less traveled, it shows.

You don't need to motivate interest. People have wanted Urban terrain since OFP. Heck, I even stated I wanted to see it.

But it'll never happen for ARMA 3, or 4; at least not what you described in your original post.

1. The urban war market is saturated with games

2. Military isn't interested in metropolis scenarios (VBS is their cash cow). They use VBS to train communication and command, not simulate contingency plans of hostage situations in urban environments.

again, I'd like to see it, but even modders won't take it on.

[rye1 21]

Yes, the pathfinding needs work. Sometimes they walk THROUGH doors, walls, etc. There are a few wall bugs but most importantly if you destroy a building then reconnect then the building is back to 'normal'. Causes some problems. There's one error. :D

Collision detections, agreed! Your weapon automatically moving for you to 'fit' in.

AI bugs. -_-

In-building formations would be a good idea too. Buttonhook on a centre-fed door, etc.

1. The urban war market is saturated with games

2. Military isn't interested in metropolis scenarios (VBS is their cash cow). They use VBS to train communication and command, not simulate contingency plans of hostage situations in urban environments.

1. Most games, Arma is not most games and would bring a new perspective to it.

2. They should. :p

Edited January 28, 2012 by Rye

[NKato 0]

You don't need to motivate interest. People have wanted Urban terrain since OFP. Heck, I even stated I wanted to see it.

But it'll never happen for ARMA 3, or 4; at least not what you described in your original post.

1. The urban war market is saturated with games

2. Military isn't interested in metropolis scenarios (VBS is their cash cow). They use VBS to train communication and command, not simulate contingency plans of hostage situations in urban environments.

again, I'd like to see it, but even modders won't take it on.

Rebuttal:

1. The urban war market is saturated with games that are on fuckin' rails - the level design isn't open ended at all. No real open-world stuff, unless you count Saints Row: The Third and Grand Theft Auto 4. (And no, BF3 doesn't count, simply because BattleLog is a piece of shit.)

2. They'll be interested if they end up having to invade Tehran, Iran.

At the very least, the urban scenario is doable with TvT multiplayer, you have fewer collision bugs and AI glitches with that. In fact, I would love it. Who wouldn't want to have the opportunity to hole up in a skyscraper, snipe a squad, and then move elsewhere, keeping the enemy guessing in a constant game of cat and mouse?

Yes, the pathfinding needs work. Sometimes they walk THROUGH doors, walls, etc. There are a few wall bugs but most importantly if you destroy a building then reconnect then the building is back to 'normal'. Causes some problems. There's one error. :D

Collision detections, agreed! Your weapon automatically moving for you to 'fit' in.

AI bugs. -_-

In-building formations would be a good idea too. Buttonhook on a centre-fed door, etc.

I doubt in-building formations would be doable with the amount of scale we're talking about in ArmA 3. Sentry positions and tactics for building assault and defense, however, could possibly be programmed into the AI.

The building bug is probably going to be addressed in ArmA 3, if at all. On top of that, if we're to have skyscrapers and high rise buildings, you'd need to determine how those buildings would be brought down through damage. Localized damage? An overall HP bar? Doesn't come down unless it gets damaged in critical locations such as the load-bearing supports in the basement? (Would prefer to avoid encouraging explosives or jihad-jetting into the upper floors, as that would invite 9/11 comparisons)

[rye1 21]

I think it would be a mix of 'X damage in X area' = destruction of this part of the building.

[NKato 0]

I think it would be a mix of 'X damage in X area' = destruction of this part of the building.

That would generate too much of a complexity. We want to keep it simple. We're not looking for Red Faction-level destruction dynamics. I think it would be easier to design it in a way that could allow you to cut off avenues of access without destroying the building (disabling the elevator, for instance, and blowing up the stairwell). When total destruction of a building is the objective, the following means would probably suffice: C4 placed around a set number of supporting beams (For a high-rise, you'd need to blow out approx. 15 support beams) in the basement.

The idea is that you need to balance defensibility with destructability. If you're fighting people in skyscrapers in multiplayer and you can easily one-shot kill them all with a single airdropped JDAM, that defeats the combat purpose of ever having a metropolitan city in a game like ArmA.

So the basic parameters for a high rise building would be as follows:

Generic Skyscraper #1

Height: 50 floors, plus helipad.

Actual Accessible Floors: 15 (5 Ground Floors, 5 Mid-Level Floors, 5 Penthouse Floors)

Means of Access: Elevator (2), Service Access Ladders (4, situated at corners of buildings in access shafts), and a single stairwell near the elevator shaft.

Destruction Dynamics:

• Stairwell is Destructible between each set of accessible floors. Ex: Stairwell linking the first floor of the ground level to the 5th floor of the ground level are NOT destructible.
  
• Access Shafts can NOT be caved in or cut off. (However, you can throw grenades down 'em, or restrict mobility by placing Claymores at access points.)
  
• Elevator can be disabled. (One way is by shutting it off at the circuit breaker, another is demolition of the motor located on the roof or destroying the elevator shaft between floors. Deployment of explosives for demolition of shaft would probably be done while riding on top of the elevator. Or just deploying explosives in the elevator and sending it down the shaft on a timer.)
  
• 15 Support Beams in basement of skyscraper. All must be destroyed to ensure total demolition. (Objective-based, forcing players to consider strategy in TvT)
  
• Any airstrikes or launched ordinance will simply gouge out the building in predetermined quadrants, except for when the scripted mission calls for a different outcome. The power of ArmA scripting can allow for different means of demolition apart from the "hardcoded" methods described above.
  

Edited January 28, 2012 by NKato

[maturin 12]

Skyrscrapers are really boring.

[rye1 21]

A skyscraper plus firefight = ;)

An urban setting. Just win.

[NKato 0]

Skyrscrapers are really boring.

You're boring.

A skyscraper plus firefight = ;)

An urban setting. Just win.

Try combining a firefight in a skyscraper, with an enemy AH-64 or MI-24 Hind, and some C4 explosives. If I were the gunner in the Hind, I would have the option to fire rockets into the skyscraper, or using the machine gun to suppress them. Of course, THEY would have the option of very easily firing a barrage of RPGs right back at me and potentially sending us careening into a nearby Skyscraper to our fiery dooms.

[ArmAriffic 10]

You're boring.

Oh it's so on!

[NKato 0]

Oh it's so on!

Then let me give you a challenge. What would be the most interesting scenario you would encounter in a metropolitan environment using ArmA 3's engine? Think long and hard, use your imagination and anything goes.

Me, I think I would really enjoy maneuvering my helicopter between the skyscrapers, preparing to deliver my passengers to the objective rooftop via fast-rope, and evading enemy fire using the buildings as cover.

Edited January 28, 2012 by NKato

[ArmAriffic 10]

Then let me give you a challenge. What would be the most interesting scenario you would encounter in a metropolitan environment using ArmA 3's engine? Think long and hard, use your imagination and anything goes.

Me, I think I would really enjoy maneuvering my helicopter between the skyscrapers, preparing to deliver my passengers to the objective rooftop via fast-rope, and evading enemy fire using the buildings as cover.

I can think of some pretty cool ones, but they are running at 10fps from all the objects... :D

[Cripsis 10]

The Russians know how to fight in major cities -

GaFrCy9HTOM

[NKato 0]

The Russians know how to fight in major cities -

Dis shit is what I'm talkin' about, bro. Just with a lot more buildings.

I can think of some pretty cool ones, but they are running at 10fps from all the objects... :D

That would be fixed with DirectX 11, improved object render distances, and other techniques. Now, tell us!