Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Rytuklis

ArmA III suggestion: A problem that appeared on previous Arma games

Recommended Posts

The problem with older ARma Games, except OFP/ArmA cold War Assault , was that soldiers acted really unrealistic, i mean, the way they move, their actions. But one of the most unrealistic things was the radio. In the first game, (CWA that is), the radio was pretty fine, linear and realistic. Now in the arma games after that, radio chatter sounded like it was being done by robots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's procedural chatter not pre-recorded chatter, that's why it sounds like that. To be honest, I'd prefer it to be procedural than pre-recorded. But, it could do with some attention I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chatter in OFP was even more robotic than Arma 2. Look at OFP with an unbiased eye and you´ll see that it´s worse in every regard. Units don´t take cover. Units don´t use suppressive fire, and ignore incoming rounds. They charge head on against tanks. They don´t go into buildings, etc, etc, etc. I mean, I love OFP, but the great part of that game was the campaign design. The AI was great at the time, but today, it´s inadequate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Units don´t take cover. Units don´t use suppressive fire, and ignore incoming rounds. They charge head on against tanks. They don´t go into buildings, etc, etc, etc.

Exactly the same as in ArmA2. Sadly. But at least they did obey your orders, which they hardly do now.

Edited by ProfTournesol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah the radio chatter was crap. I understand the way they did it, which was extremely time effective, but id rather have it sound more real or non at all. i hardly even used it and just turned the volume for it down in game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AFAIK they are working on improving it for ArmA3. If you listen carefully to the gamestar e3 videos it sounds like they've made it sound more natural and there is more static/interference. I think the videos were the infantry and supports showcases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would disagree that Cold War Assault had more robotic radio. I mean the sentence sounded linear like "5 oclock, enemy soldier, 200 hundred". Now at ArmA its something like "200,meters,Enemy Soldier,West"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. One of the few things Dragon Rising did better than ArmA was radio chatter. Not only the dialogue itself is annoying, but the combinations that are spoken are often just plain silly. For example, when I gave my driver command to move to a remote corner of the map, my character said "3, move, very far":). A real Marine (this was AII campaign) would've most likely responded with a snarky variation on "And how "very far" would that be?" instead of reading my mind and driving to the correct location. I'd expect to say something like "Driver, move to grid xxxxxx". And of course, in the forest: "4, move to, that, tree". Makes me laugh every time I hear it. Also, IFVs are routinely called tanks and helos are called planes (really, they could at least use "armor" and "aircraft"). The point is, the dialogue is in dire need of improvement in every field.

I've heard voice synthesizers more natural than that, not to mention I had to leave waypoints on HUD on just to make out where exactly the AI commander wants me to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly. One of the few things Dragon Rising did better than ArmA was radio chatter. Not only the dialogue itself is annoying, but the combinations that are spoken are often just plain silly. For example, when I gave my driver command to move to a remote corner of the map, my character said "3, move, very far":). A real Marine (this was AII campaign) would've most likely responded with a snarky variation on "And how "very far" would that be?" instead of reading my mind and driving to the correct location. I'd expect to say something like "Driver, move to grid xxxxxx". And of course, in the forest: "4, move to, that, tree". Makes me laugh every time I hear it. Also, IFVs are routinely called tanks and helos are called planes (really, they could at least use "armor" and "aircraft"). The point is, the dialogue is in dire need of improvement in every field.

I've heard voice synthesizers more natural than that, not to mention I had to leave waypoints on HUD on just to make out where exactly the AI commander wants me to go.

Clock direction plus distance rounded to 50m would suffice :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In that case, "very far" meant "to the other side of the map". Far enough to use grid coords and cardinal directions. Clock direction + distance works in well in firefights, and there's no problem with that. It'd actually be preferable if it was used consistently, instead of "that tree" orders AI tends to give.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clock directions don't work with the AI because the team leader might be looking in a completely random direction. We need cardinal directions or numerical compass bearings. Movement distances for under 50m would be nice as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As with the "radio chatter" thread, I'm personally preferential to numerical compass bearings akin to that in aerial vehicles (i.e. turn to 285) as the call-out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't A2 originally have the "Enemy Man at 7683247568347563487" thing and everybody hated it because it made absolutely no sense at all and demanded to have the old OFP style o'clock thing back. But now you want the unwanted back.. :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, in ArmA it was right, left and front. It has never been according to compass, which is the only viable choice for an AI that can't intuitively sense the orientation of the squad at all times (minus such novelties as the floating o'clock reminder from OA).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't find the grid or o'clock-based callouts helpful at all personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clock directions don't work with the AI because the team leader might be looking in a completely random direction. We need cardinal directions or numerical compass bearings. Movement distances for under 50m would be nice as well.

Definitely agree with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The clock system would be fine if it were just more robust and consistent. It's main problem is that it's subject to sudden reorientation, causing massive confusion, but, it is a genuine military method so it really ought to be used. A tiered orientation priority needs to be in place. I have suggested:

1. Direction of player-placed map marker.

2. Direction of next waypoint.

3. Direction of movement over last 100m (or whatever distance).

4. Direction of first contact.

I think that covers all likely situations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the compass direction and angular mil are in common use by most if not all military organizations. The clock system only works well if all face the same direction. Btw its also possible to call some general directions like "Contact! Enemy infantry, 200m, to your left behind the big compound!". Would be nice if AI will use compass direction (or mil) most of the time, grid coordinates if contact is far away and perhaps general directions (left,front,right,rear) only if contact is in very close range ~50m or ~100m.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well the compass direction and angular mil are in common use by most if not all military organizations. The clock system only works well if all face the same direction. Btw its also possible to call some general directions like "Contact! Enemy infantry, 200m, to your left behind the big compound!". Would be nice if AI will use compass direction (or mil) most of the time, grid coordinates if contact is far away and perhaps general directions (left,front,right,rear) only if contact is in very close range ~50m or ~100m.

Using the compass points would solve a lot of problems. Unless the player has no compass natch :) or map I suppose. General direction like front back left right suffer from the same shortcomings as the clock system, i.e. depends on the orientation of the unit.

However, seeing as the "watch direction" commands use the compass points even for units with no compass, maybe it's worth considering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or references objects if they were correctly named... Not "tree" but "barracks", "bunker", "hangar" to the X.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@DMarkwick: How does one now the watch/clock direction of the other if this guy is behind a object/hill or in an building or simply out of very close + visual range? Its imo better if BIS will include more clear and descriptive AI reports. Perhaps even add "to my/your/our left/right/front/rear .... " = no need to guess anymore when enemies are close. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@DMarkwick: How does one now the watch/clock direction of the other if this guy is behind a object/hill or in an building or simply out of very close + visual range? Its imo better if BIS will include more clear and descriptive AI reports. Perhaps even add "to my/your/our left/right/front/rear .... " = no need to guess anymore when enemies are close. :)

Well this is a general problem in deciding how much to game & how much to simulate IMO. Even an absolute compass direction & distance is not too useful if the leader giving the direction is far from your current position. It might be argued that any leader/unit outside of your hearing range shouldn't pass you information at all, but as I said at some point you got to game it. But I think we can all agree that any direction system used should be at the very least consistent over time and not arbitrarily variable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree that the compass direction or angular mil would be the best choice for all! Clock system mainly-only for vehicles, general directions only if contact is (very) close and grid coordinates only if contact is (very) far away.

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  

×