Damage system sucks - fix needed

[progamer 14]

If I remember correctly, developers repeatedly stated that Arma 3 IS a shooter game that balanced for PvP, not a combat simulator. And I personally find it quite hard to disagree with them, especially since all that Arma 3 simulates is just some futuristic, boring and unconvincing Crysis-style "super-tech".

But you're right, Arma 3 is nearly unplayable for almost two months due to those experiments with soldier protection (a soldier survives 5.56mm shot directly at the lower part of his forehead - seriously?!). And since it's higly doubtful that BI will ever implement a proper reaction to a hit I guess that the best they can do now is return the old system until the new one is ready.

Were was this said? Source?

[-Coulum- 35]

Arma 3 IS a shooter game that balanced for PvP, not a combat simulator.

Were was this said? Source?

First part, about PVP I never heard and I seriously seriously doubt it was ever said. Second part about "not a combat simulator" has been said many, many times. People just choose to ignore it. Just have to look at Chortles sig for those quotes.

EDIT:

Ahh it ain't there no more. Something about "Arma is a military sandbox which happens to have realistic features but isn't a simulator". I'll try to find it.

because other than ballistics(flight path), it doesn't really simulate anything properly?

Pretty much. You can give them credit for the penetration system as well (could be considered flight path). But for the most part, most features have extremely simplistic simulation. What has been attracting the realism crowd, I think, is the mods, moddability, scale and openess of the game plus the lack of unrealistic features. My opinion at least.

Its not necessarily unrealistic. Its just not a simulator.

Edited January 15, 2014 by -Coulum-

[semiconductor 309]

Were was this said? Source?

First part, about PVP I never heard and I seriously seriously doubt it was ever said.

Though I vaguely recall some huge discussion about PvP balancing I can't find it anywhere now, so it seems that I unintentionally arrogated this statement to developers. My mistake, sorry.

But concerning "not a combat simulator" I'm pretty sure that it was stated numerous times. For example, check out this post:

Nop, it's a game, with simulation elements. VBS is a simulator. :cool:

In my opinion, the main reason why vanilla Arma 3 can't be called "simulator" is the futuristic setting and non-existing equipment. If we consider Arma 3 as some sort of future-combat simulator then we will have to agree that when BI implemented new protection system, they actually decided to simulate another version of the future, more convenient gameplay-wise. Previous system, in turn, was accurate simulation of yet another version of the future in which vests and helmets are useless. So, one can implement any unrealistic feature and then call it "simulation" because nobody knows what the future holds. :D Edited January 15, 2014 by Semiconductor

[-Coulum- 35]

In my opinion, the main reason why vanilla Arma 3 can't be called "simulator" is the futuristic setting and non-existing equipment. If we consider Arma 3 as some sort of future-combat simulator then we will have to agree that when BI implemented new protection system, they actually decided to simulate another version of the future, more convenient gameplay-wise. Previous system, in turn, was accurate simulation of yet another version of the future in which vests and helmets are useless. So one can implement any unrealistic feature and then call it "simulation" because nobody knows what the future holds.

Well... yeah... but thats some very twisted logic. I think its simpler to say that neither are a simulation. You can shoot someone straight between the eyes with a pistol in arma 3 and he won't die. I would prefer to say there is a lack of simulation rather than it is a perfect simulation of forcefields around the head that transfer only a portion of a shots energy to the head.

Even VBS doesn't appear to be much of a simulator in comparison to something like DCS. There just isn't enough detail in each feature for it to be. But, generally, both arma and VBS do produce gameplay and dynamics similar to that of real life - Well at least compared to other games they. Its just the means of getting there is far from realistic/simulator level.

[MavericK96 0]

My biggest issue with the game right now is how accurately AI return fire while they are currently being shot. Not shot at...actually hit by bullets. They are able to accurately headshot you from 100m+ while being shot themselves in the face/chest.

[semiconductor 309]

Well... yeah... but thats some very twisted logic. I think its simpler to say that neither are a simulation. You can shoot someone straight between the eyes with a pistol in arma 3 and he won't die. I would prefer to say there is a lack of simulation rather than it is a perfect simulation of forcefields around the head that transfer only a portion of a shots energy to the head.

I actually agree. :) I meant that fictional stuff can't be simulated otherwise almost everything can be considered as an absolutely accurate simulation and that is obviously not the case.

Hope my English didn't failed me. :D

Even VBS doesn't appear to be much of a simulator in comparison to something like DCS. There just isn't enough detail in each feature for it to be. But, generally, both arma and VBS do produce gameplay and dynamics similar to that of real life - Well at least compared to other games they. Its just the means of getting there is far from realistic/simulator level.

As far as I know VBS at least tries to embrace as many aspects of combat as possible and represent them accurately, whilst most important part of Arma is gameplay and representation of reality can be easily tweaked for sake of positive gameplay experience and friendliness to a new players. But I agree that among the other games only Arma can provide such unique experience "with simulation elements".

[rye1 22]

My biggest issue with the game right now is how accurately AI return fire while they are currently being shot. Not shot at...actually hit by bullets. They are able to accurately headshot you from 100m+ while being shot themselves in the face/chest.

You see this especially in close combat.

[mathias_eichinger 64]

I just did a little test in the editor:

A stock Iranian with his Sci-Fi-Helmet takes 8(!) rounds right in the face from 2 meters away when fired from a silenced Katiba 6.5 mm rifle, and still 4 rounds in the face from a non-silenced Katiba. Generally, units with cap seem to absorb "only" 2-3 rounds, and I have made the observation that you can kill a soldier with a cap with 1 shot into the neck whereas he takes aforementioned rounds into the face. The only addon I have installed are massi's Russian Spetznaz and they work like we all know from ArmA2: Headshot = kill.

How can a shooter game be finished and have the shooting part fundamentally broken?? Right now, stealth missions with silenced weapons are an impossibility, and regular missions are a frustrating PITA. I don't get how they took something that worked in ArmA2 only to screw it up. That's why I am sticking with ArmA2, minimize my ArmA3 gaming and hope for future missions with addons that get right what was working in the game before (ArmA2).

[13islucky 10]

Just to put this out there, suppressors don't seem to slow down bullets anymore in devbranch.

Just putting that out there.

Yep.

[Zipper5 74]

Just to put this out there, suppressors don't seem to slow down bullets anymore in devbranch.

Just putting that out there.

Yep.

The development branch is the development branch. You are given a warning about possible issues with it on each loading screen when using it. You are free to cry foul if/when it appears in the default branch. :)

[rye1 22]

Just to put this out there, suppressors don't seem to slow down bullets anymore in devbranch.

Just putting that out there.

Yep.

Freebore boost.

[roshnak 41]

The development branch is the development branch. You are given a warning about possible issues with it on each loading screen when using it. You are free to cry foul if/when it appears in the default branch. :)

Pretty sure he's saying that's a good thing, not crying foul, since it is realistic behavior.

[chompster 29]

I actually agree. :) I meant that fictional stuff can't be simulated otherwise almost everything can be considered as an absolutely accurate simulation and that is obviously not the case.

As much as people bitch and complain about arma3 being in the future, it really isn't all that futuristic. Just because there aren't any M4s or AKs suddenly it's some star trek future sim? oh please..

Arma 3 still uses everything we use today, maybe not 100% identical, but functionality wise they're the same. So there really isn't anything futuristic to simulate.

Edited January 16, 2014 by Chompster

[-Coulum- 35]

As much as people bitch and complain about arma3 being in the future, it really isn't all that futuristic. Just because there aren't any M4s or AKs suddenly it's some star trek future sim? oh please..

Yeah pretty much. But even if BI did put us into "laser tech future" it could still be a realistic sim... if they did tonnes of research and had a very intimate knowledge of low level physics and were able to simulate those low level phenomena - obviously not going to happen. But often simulators are meant specifically for simulating possible future events. For example I am sure there have been many simulations of say, how structurally sound building materials and designs are - even though the structure has never been built before, it is possible to use simulations to predict how it will stand in the future. The question is, is your sim complex enough to accurately produce realistic results. In arma, the simple answer is no. Its not even complex enough to recreate events in the past, let alone the future. Anyhow, I am rambling.

Moral of the story, arma is not a simulator(tion). In fact, in the protection feedback thread the devs basically said "sorry, we tried to make it realistic and complex, we were unable to, and now we need to know what you guys like best for gameplay purposes". Forget simulation or even realism... for now. Best we can do currently, is get the damages to generally result in generally realistic gameplay.

You see this especially in close combat.

I don't think this is only when they get hit though. In general, the ai seem to be overly accurate in close combat. Its just all the more frustrating when you are hitting them as well. How do you think they should be changed?

Edited January 16, 2014 by -Coulum-

[roshnak 41]

As far as bullet damage to humans go, it's pretty much impossible to make a truly accurate simulation in a game of this scale. The human body is pretty complicated. People have been shot 5 or 6 times in the torso and survived, while others have been shot once in the thigh and bled out in minutes, while others have been shot many times in the thigh and not bled out at all. What we can have is a fairly accurate approximation of the expected results of shooting someone in different locations. Oddly enough, this has never been a strong point of the Arma series. Location based damage has been pretty minimal, and the results of being shot by different weapons have been strange, to say the least. I would personally like to see a more defined location based damage model. I think it would be pretty reasonable to have separate effects for upper and lower arms and legs and even upper and lower torso.

As for whether Arma is a sim, the word simulation seems to be used pretty loosely in this particular genre, and really seems to just mean "realistic." Simulations usually deal with accurately representing systems and machines, i.e. flight sims, driving sims, etc. What would Arma be simulating? People? That seems like a pretty tall order, and definitely not something that the game seems to be trying to do. It's not attempting to simulate weapon or vehicle systems to any degree. I see the term "milsim" thrown around a lot and, while there are some groups that seem interested in simulating the experience of being in the military (to a degree), it's certainly not something the game has ever tried to do. Besides, there are groups that like to pretend they are in the military in almost every multiplayer military shooter. What Arma does seem to do, is offer a more realistic gameplay style than other shooters, as well as a massive world and more opportunity for choice.

[rye1 22]

I don't think this is only when they get hit though. In general, the ai seem to be overly accurate in close combat. Its just all the more frustrating when you are hitting them as well. How do you think they should be changed?

Rofl, I'd be dreaming if they could get it right.

[semiconductor 309]

As much as people bitch and complain about arma3 being in the future, it really isn't all that futuristic. Just because there aren't any M4s or AKs suddenly it's some star trek future sim? oh please..

Arma 3 still uses everything we use today, maybe not 100% identical, but functionality wise they're the same. So there really isn't anything futuristic to simulate.

Yes, but that's not the point. The futuristic setting itself allows playing with properties of gear and weapons without coming into contradiction with today's reality. Therefore anybody can significantly alter any property of any object and still call it "simulation" because there is always a possibility that thanks to some scientific breakthrough such object (like a magazine with integrated 3D-printer that prints new cartrige after every shot) can actually exist. But is it an actual simulation or some sort of science fiction? After some consideration I have agreed with Coulum: it's possible to simualte something that not exists, but the simulation should be accurate, complex and based on some strong research otherwise it's an inaccurate simulation at best.

[roshnak 41]

No they can't because that's not what a simulation is. Why is everyone so obsessed with the idea that Arma is a simulation, anyway?

[progamer 14]

No they can't because that's not what a simulation is. Why is everyone so obsessed with the idea that Arma is a simulation, anyway?

Because people got fed up with the constant buffs and nerfs along with "noob weapons" that other games have. Arma is also the only combined arms simulation that exists currently.

Just wait until a game comes around that actual lives up to the name military combined arms simulation. Then Arma may be in trouble if it doesn't have players who don't like simulations.

[[evo] dan 79]

Because people got fed up with the constant buffs and nerfs along with "noob weapons" that other games have. Arma is also the only combined arms simulation that exists currently.

Just wait until a game comes around that actual lives up to the name military combined arms simulation. Then Arma may be in trouble if it doesn't have players who don't like simulations.

Its unlikely they will ever get competition, unless the VBS guys make a polished version of VBS that could pass as a game rather than just a training program. Otherwise its probably not going to happen (Unless you write your own game on something like unity perhaps)

[roshnak 41]

Because people got fed up with the constant buffs and nerfs along with "noob weapons" that other games have. Arma is also the only combined arms simulation that exists currently.

Just wait until a game comes around that actual lives up to the name military combined arms simulation. Then Arma may be in trouble if it doesn't have players who don't like simulations.

This is not really a reply to what I was saying. I made a huge post on the last page detailing why Arma isn't and can't really be a true simulation. What I wanted to know was why so many people want so badly to label this game a simulation instead of just calling it a pretty realistic game. Especially since I'm not clear what exactly Arma is supposed to be simulating.

Edited January 17, 2014 by roshnak
new page apparently

[UltimateBawb 1]

The development branch is the development branch. You are given a warning about possible issues with it on each loading screen when using it. You are free to cry foul if/when it appears in the default branch. :)

I swear if this gets changed back to the suppressors magically slowing bullets I will cry. 13isLucky is completely wrong if he thinks suppressors should behave that way, please BIS keep the dev. branch change!

[MavericK96 0]

I hope this helps fix the issue I mentioned:

Impacts of bullets cause soldiers to ragdoll a bit (flinch) even if they are fully absorbed by armor

[dnk 13]

It just always disappoints me that a game made 13 years ago (Ghost Recon) had a better damage system with better injury animations and bullet hit impact effects than the 4th iteration of this game in 2013-4.

[roshnak 41]

It just always disappoints me that a game made 13 years ago (Ghost Recon) had a better damage system with better injury animations and bullet hit impact effects than the 4th iteration of this game in 2013-4.

Yeah, but the AI was even worse about insta-murdering you the second you came around a corner.