Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Wiki

Damage system sucks - fix needed

Recommended Posts

I hope this helps fix the issue I mentioned:

Unfortunately it does very little/nothing to help.

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.

Not saying the ghost recon system was bad, or that arma system is cutting edge, but I really don't remember ghost recon having realistic armour. It was just super unforgiving. Not exactly realistic.

But I did like the fact that GR wasn't so hitpointish. Now matter what the gun there was always a chance of the guy dying instantly or taking several rounds. Better guns tended to perform better but there was no guarantee. Really added to the tension. That aspect was pretty realistic imo. But not the armour. But the hit reactions were pretty damn awesome too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

I was actually being positive about it. I was subtly hoping that it would help me in my quest to convert people to devbranchism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goddamn it!!!

God knows how much I hate counter strike for its shitty gameplay and shitty damage system, but here is something I couldn't believe possible:

ArmA 3 is as much unrealistic as counter strike is.

Even games like BF and CoD are much more realistic!

Why the fuck BIS dev didn't keep the ArmA 2 damage system?

I'm so fucking pissed off seeing a guy who can take 15000 bullets and not die, then turn around and make 1 shot 1 kill on me!

Or a guy take a grenade RGO or 40mm HE in the feet and not die!

Just like counter shit!

This fucking system NEED and MUST be fixed ASAP!

It MUST be BIS priority number 1!!!

I don't give a shit about new game mode, new weapons, new vehicles.... AS LONG AS THE FUCKING DAMAGE SYSTEM IS NOT FIXED!

It fucking ruines the whole game experience!!!

DO IT NOW GODDAMN IT, FIX THAT SHIT!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
goddamn it!!!

God knows how much i hate counter strike for its shitty gameplay and shitty damage system, but here is something i couldn't believe possible:

Arma 3 is as much unrealistic as counter strike is.

Even games like bf and cod are much more realistic!

Why the fuck bis dev didn't keep the arma 2 damage system?

I'm so fucking pissed off seeing a guy who can take 15000 bullets and not die, then turn around and make 1 shot 1 kill on me!

Or a guy take a grenade rgo or 40mm he in the feet and not die!

Just like counter shit!

This fucking system need and must be fixed asap!

It must be bis priority number 1!!!

I don't give a shit about new game mode, new weapons, new vehicles.... As long as the fucking damage system is not fixed!

It fucking ruines the whole game experience!!!

Do it now goddamn it, fix that shit!!!!

What he said, but with more swearing and excessive punctuation marks! lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ghost Recon had good wounding effects, where you would get sort of spun around a bit, and the AI would react in a visually pleasing manner when you shot them. And armour did seem to work. But there was a bug where you couldn't deal any further damage to an AI while he was playing his hit animation. If you wounded a guy and he flinched, and then you shot him again while the flinch animation was in progress, that last round wouldn't damage him at all.

Visually though, GR had alot of great effects. Such as fairly precise wound textures that appeared more or less where you shot the guy (Rogue Spear had pinpoint-accuracy in this regard). Also a different set of textures for grenade wounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But there was a bug where you couldn't deal any further damage to an AI while he was playing his hit animation. If you wounded a guy and he flinched, and then you shot him again while the flinch animation was in progress, that last round wouldn't damage him at all.

Pretty sure that was an error in the first version of the game only. Playing v1.4 none of my GR community ever had that problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They are almost exactly the same...

Pretty much. If anything, the arma 3 system is better - bullets can actually pass through limbs and hit the torso. Glancing hits are actually less damaging than direct hits.

The actual meat of the system is better than arma 2. And as for lethality, in arma 2, a 556 took two shots or so to the torso to drop someone. In arma one shot from a 556 and the guy drops, every time.

Its just the damn armour that makes it so weird. It would be okay if there were weak spots to aim for or angles that expose vital one shot locations, but that's not the case (and apparently isn't possible at this time). And the problem is compounded by the ai's reactions to being hit.

Anyway, everyone unhappy with it tell them how you feel in the soldier protection thread! The devs seem to want to make it better. Its all about finding the right balance - You don't want armour to have no benefits, but at the same time you don't(EDIT) want lethal one shot type gameplay.

Edited by -Coulum-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its all about finding the right balance - You don't want armour to have no benefits, but at the same time you don't want lethal one shot type gameplay.

It's verrrrry simple to me -- make the AI (and players, I guess) have a visible negative reaction to hits. Do something like GRAW where the AI fall to the ground after taking a hit or something simpler like the Ghost Recon 1 flinch that actually slowed the enemy's reaction to getting nailed in center mass by a volley of gunfire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's verrrrry simple to me -- make the AI (and players, I guess) have a visible negative reaction to hits. Do something like GRAW where the AI fall to the ground after taking a hit or something simpler like the Ghost Recon 1 flinch that actually slowed the enemy's reaction to getting nailed in center mass by a volley of gunfire.

I mistyped in that quote, should be

You don't want armour to have no benefits, but at the same time you want lethal one shot type gameplay.
Regardless. Yeah you are right. If they could add some hit reactions and make armour actually cover realistic portions of the body the system would be near perfect. And both of these have been suggested many times here and on the development forums. Problem is the devs have already said several times in the development forums that they can't do this at the moment (though they claim "the fight is far from over"). Thus for the time being, I repeat:

Its all about finding the right balance - You don't want armour to have no benefits, but at the same time you want lethal one shot type gameplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you want lethal one shot type gameplay.

I don't think you really do. Shot placement should be important, as it is in the real world (definitely not to the degree that is in the real world, though). The problem is, there aren't that many negative consequences for being shot right now. You either die or you don't. Can you even lose your legs anymore? I don't think being shot in the arms affects your aim anymore. Even if those things were still in the game, though, it wouldn't really be enough. A bleeding system would be nice to have at the very least.

The other thing is, ballistic plates don't cover your entire torso, and kevlar isn't going to stop a 5.56 at closer ranges, so armor overall is pretty overpowered right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, unless it's some big coincidence getting shot in the arms gives you MASSIVE sway, so there is a disadvantage to that. Not sure that the AI are affected, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think you really do. Shot placement should be important, as it is in the real world (definitely not to the degree that is in the real world, though).

Yeah your right. What I should have said is "you want the possibility for lethal one shot gameplay". Basically there should alsways be a way to get around the armour if you are good enough and set up the scene right. Now there is not due to the limitations of the game.

The problem is, there aren't that many negative consequences for being shot right now. You either die or you don't. Can you even lose your legs anymore? I don't think being shot in the arms affects your aim anymore. Even if those things were still in the game, though, it wouldn't really be enough. A bleeding system would be nice to have at the very least.

Your legs can be shot out (but only prevents you from running) and getting shot in the arm does decrease aim - but like you say that is pretty minimal. Especially when a FAK and 3 seconds will fix that all. I do remember in arma 2 when your arms were shot out and you were exhausted - now that was some negative effects. Bleeding is good to though it doesn't really act as a penalty on your combat ability. But for a realitsic wounding system, concsiousness and bleeding are definitely a must.

The other thing is, ballistic plates don't cover your entire torso, and kevlar isn't going to stop a 5.56 at closer ranges, so armor overall is pretty overpowered right now.

Yep. That is really the biggest problem. It would be great if they solved it. Then you would be able to shoot guys in the side or in the shoulders when they are prone and the bulllet would go straight into their torso with lethal strength. Right now you shoot a guy where the the collor bones meet - a place that is very vulnerable and be very crippling and likely lead to death in little time... and it makes no difference. He flinches and acts as if he took it in the plate.

It is clear that things are lacking to fill our need for "allz teh tihngs1!!!". But the devs do know this. And though I doubt they are going to make a simulation of all the arteries in the body and each scratch in a plate, I do think that they want to and are putting time into improving it. Its just these things aren't something you just "put in". You have to figure out how to put it in. Quotes like this aren't promises but they give me hope:

As said previously. This whole thing is just one thing we can do more or less immediately.

That one thing doesn't mean it's all and by far not the end of the story. But for now we should probably stay away from the "could-be's" and "should-be's" in this topic - let's keep it more about tweaking the current status, more about stronger/weaker, better/worse.

For now we just have ignore realism and suggest to them how to improve the system for gameplay by simply making armour better or worse. Because at this time its all they can change. Hopefully with time that will change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, unless it's some big coincidence getting shot in the arms gives you MASSIVE sway, so there is a disadvantage to that. Not sure that the AI are affected, though.

They should be. I think I remember setting the AI's damage to -1 causing them to be less accurate in OFP.

Bleeding is good to though it doesn't really act as a penalty on your combat ability.

I kind of liked America's Army's system of more activity causing you to bleed faster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AI also doesn't seem to be affected by fatigue, recoil or weapon sway like the player does

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really don't remember ghost recon having realistic armour. It was just super unforgiving. Not exactly realistic.

But I did like the fact that GR wasn't so hitpointish. Now matter what the gun there was always a chance of the guy dying instantly or taking several rounds. Better guns tended to perform better but there was no guarantee. Really added to the tension. That aspect was pretty realistic imo. But not the armour. But the hit reactions were pretty damn awesome too.

Here's the thing about realism: you sort of can choose with modern armor (not so much earlier ones) to have either realistic Armor modeling OR realistic Gameplay.

What I mean is that in GR1 (and in Arma when it's got weaker armor) I was a lot more worried about exposing myself to shots. I knew I couldn't just twitch reflex my way out of a snafu because I'll be dead before I turned 90 degrees. With the current armor system, though, I can just run through a hail of bullets, come out the other side, and probably kill whoever was silly enough to shoot at me in the meantime. If you're playing on any sort of game mode that allows "healing", you can end up living through many many hits without issue.

So, ok, armor is as "realistic" in its protection as ever, but the gameplay has suffered greatly. Now, if it was that armor was properly modeled, so a shot to an unprotected area would hurt me more greatly, or be immediately incapacitating, I'd adjust my gameplay back towards "realistic". Or even if there was a great enough effect of bullet impact (2sec ragdoll for some shots, more ppeffects or damn near anything negative other than a minor flinch sometimes).

Ghost Recon had good wounding effects, where you would get sort of spun around a bit, and the AI would react in a visually pleasing manner when you shot them.

Visually though, GR had alot of great effects. Such as fairly precise wound textures that appeared more or less where you shot the guy (Rogue Spear had pinpoint-accuracy in this regard). Also a different set of textures for grenade wounds.

Yeah, I think I've always sort of appraised Arma's quality in this realm to GR1, which was my first "realistic"(ish) mil game. It's always been a disappointing comparison. Some of those wound textures -for the time- were quite dreadful looking. The animations were top-notch for the day, and since Arma has no injury animations, I guess they far surpass even A3's... by default.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's the thing about realism: you sort of can choose with modern armor (not so much earlier ones) to have either realistic Armor modeling OR realistic Gameplay.

What I mean is that in GR1 (and in Arma when it's got weaker armor) I was a lot more worried about exposing myself to shots. I knew I couldn't just twitch reflex my way out of a snafu because I'll be dead before I turned 90 degrees. With the current armor system, though, I can just run through a hail of bullets, come out the other side, and probably kill whoever was silly enough to shoot at me in the meantime. If you're playing on any sort of game mode that allows "healing", you can end up living through many many hits without issue.

So, ok, armor is as "realistic" in its protection as ever, but the gameplay has suffered greatly. Now, if it was that armor was properly modeled, so a shot to an unprotected area would hurt me more greatly, or be immediately incapacitating, I'd adjust my gameplay back towards "realistic". Or even if there was a great enough effect of bullet impact (2sec ragdoll for some shots, more ppeffects or damn near anything negative other than a minor flinch sometimes).

Yeah pretty much. Arma body armour isn't at all realistic. But it is there. In games like GR1, arma 2 its just ignored. But I am totally in agreement that it results in a dumb thought process for players. Because in real life people are worried about being shot period. Doesn't matter if its in the head neck vest arms or legs nobody want to get shot. In game world however it is different. Nobody wants to die. A shot that is nonlethal is not an issue, especially when they have a FAK. And when it takes at least two shots to die, sometimes even more, people act different. And, well, ai act like ai.

This relates to what roshnak was saying earlier, the penalty for getting shot (but not dying), is not high enough. The only thing people are worried about is immediate death. All that said though I don't think it is impossible to have the both realistic armour and realistic gameplay (at least on par with arma 2). The system just needs to be ALOT more detailed.

Visually though, GR had alot of great effects. Such as fairly precise wound textures that appeared more or less where you shot the guy (Rogue Spear had pinpoint-accuracy in this regard). Also a different set of textures for grenade wounds.

That was awesome. I believe your clothes would even visually get wet when you waded through water, aswell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That was awesome. I believe your clothes would even visually get wet when you waded through water, aswell.

That's true

Regarding the body armor/injuries I think it should not even be possible to heal someone 100%.

You may stop one from bleeding, you may give one a painkiller/morphine, you may give one a banana, but thats it.

If you got wounded, even just by falling down from an obstacle, you become slower, less agile or unsteady aiming.

Adrenaline might make you ignore pain for a short time and you might be able to run (and this situation would be very hard to simulate), but if someone is not taking care of his virtual life, he should pay the price for it being slow or even stops the whole squad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't believe they left it in this state before they went on xmas vacations, and there still haven't been any changes with the latest dev build update. It takes more bullets to kill an enemy in Arma3 than it does in Battlefield 4 or even Duke Nukem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's true

Regarding the body armor/injuries I think it should not even be possible to heal someone 100%.

You may stop one from bleeding, you may give one a painkiller/morphine, you may give one a banana, but thats it.

If you got wounded, even just by falling down from an obstacle, you become slower, less agile or unsteady aiming.

Adrenaline might make you ignore pain for a short time and you might be able to run (and this situation would be very hard to simulate), but if someone is not taking care of his virtual life, he should pay the price for it being slow or even stops the whole squad.

Only medics can do full heals. FAKs only restore health up to a certain percentage. Although I believe they remove negative effects which is probably not ideal.

As for permanent damage, we are getting into not fun territory here. For one thing, you have to remember that the game isn't always played in multiplayer. In a singleplayer environment, if I get hurt so bad that I am permanently crippled, I'm just going to load, because I might as well be dead. Also, you can't permanently remove the player's ability to aim and fire his or her weapon, especially not in singleplayer. What good is a player who can't effectively engage the enemy in a war game?

Just to be clear, it's not the effects themselves that I take issue with, but their permanence.

EDIT:

in the older games, you got a medic to patch your wounds, or you crawled your way through, or you reloaded. all of these are better alternatives to taking magic pills.

Yeah, but medics should be allowed to fully heal you. Like I said, if you are going to permanently cripple the player, you may as well kill them, because that is effectively what you are doing.

Edited by roshnak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in the older games, you got a medic to patch your wounds, or you crawled your way through, or you reloaded. all of these are better alternatives to taking magic pills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In DayZ Standalone, they're actually trying to implement a somewhat complex health/blood/energy/hydration/fatigue system...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talking of the damage system. Please fix the cars.

Hit a wooden pole(fence-pole), wheels magically disappears. Fix the physics!

You can also damage your car if you hit those reflex markers next to roads.

Hit something else, like a bush, car starts turning left or right again for no reason at all. It´s a small bush not a f*cking concrete block.

And cars do not explode because you had a crash. If that was the case there would be a 100% mortality rate for car crashes and virtually all the billions spent on vehicle crash safety would be a waste of money.

I know it looks cool and everything but please let´s stay in reality and not lalaland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And cars do not explode because you had a crash

But what about all those Hollywood movies? Everything I know is a lie!

Hit a wooden pole(fence-pole), wheels magically disappears. Fix the physics!

You can also damage your car if you hit those reflex markers next to roads.

Yeah, I would think the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle of 2035 is going to be able to hit bushes/pebbles/small dogs crossing the road/etc. without its tires falling off or exploding in 10mph collisions.

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  

×