Jump to content
solzenicyn

Soldier protection (dev branch)

Recommended Posts

Let's be real here, those who are unhappy with how 5.56 handles (in stable branch) against combatants wearing plate carrier body armor are looking more for fun than authenticity. Standard steel and/or ceramic plates can take several (5-7) 5.56mm shots before penetration will occur. That is authenticity. Now, how can you make it fun AND somewhat authentic? Make it so it take 3 shots to take somewhat out. This of course means that advanced plate carrier armor technology has never actually advanced in this "futuristic world" that is Arma 3 and that really cuts into things.

SAPI plates do not cover your entire torso. Anything that is not covered by the ceramic insert is just soft kevlar that is easily penetrable by rifle rounds. The current system does not allow for an authentic representation of body armor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SAPI plates do not cover your entire torso. Anything that is not covered by the ceramic insert is just soft kevlar that is easily penetrable by rifle rounds. The current system does not allow for an authentic representation of body armor.

This too which again makes combatants seem more "terminator" and again less fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll just tell that to my mate who took a 7.62R (not NATO, but just as powerful) round to his back plate from 10m away then shall I? Because I seem to remember him getting back up and fighting back.

That's great for him (I am genuinely glad to hear it) but one experience doesn't mean that what I said isn't true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We appreciate all the feedback, but any feature must be designed carefully, because ArmA is:

A) a game and thus should be fun

B) ArmA and should be as authentic as possible

These two conditions could form the following outcomes:

A) is fun and is authentic - which is an ideal state

B) is fun but is not completely authentic - this is an acceptable state, as fun has priority over authenticity

C) is not fun but is authentic - which is an unacceptable state

D) is not fun nor authentic - which is epic fail

This is one of the reasons why we have a "Task force balance" - to find the point where the fun and authenticity are in an ideal correlation.

So, please, stay patient, this feature is still under development.

I think in order to hit the sweet spot, it might need some programmer attention as right now increasing the protection value of armour just leads to people going 'i shot 3081890 rounds into a guy and he's still up' while having the plates absorb x amount of shots before breaking + units (particularly AI) actually suffering from the impact will lead to more authenticate gameplay and fun at the same time.

Like completely different genre but you guys should look at how armour works in jagged alliance 2 1.13 mod, as IMO that's probably the best 'fun' simulation of armour I've seen as a heavily armoured unit can shrug off a round or two (sans stamina loss) but if someone unloads full auto 5.56 into them they'll at the very least fall unconcious and have a broken plate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We appreciate all the feedback, but any feature must be designed carefully, because ArmA is:

A) a game and thus should be fun

B) ArmA and should be as authentic as possible

These two conditions could form the following outcomes:

A) is fun and is authentic - which is an ideal state

B) is fun but is not completely authentic - this is an acceptable state, as fun has priority over authenticity

C) is not fun but is authentic - which is an unacceptable state

D) is not fun nor authentic - which is epic fail

This is one of the reasons why we have a "Task force balance" - to find the point where the fun and authenticity are in an ideal correlation.

So, please, stay patient, this feature is still under development.

What is considered "fun" is different to everybody. To say one way is fun and the other is not fun, is completely wrong. The ideal solution is to have options for all gameplay rather than a neutral and bland base game that has to be modded to go into specific indepth gameplay. A good example of how what us fun is done right, are games like Assetto Corsa which feature settings ranging from Hardcore ultra realistic to arcade gamey gameplay. The current case of what is fun in Arma 3 seems to be what new players from games like Battleifield and Call of Duty would like.

If aspects of the simulation cannot be done, at least try to leave ways for modders to do it and/or help modders to do it.

And why did Arma 2 never need "Task Force Balance"?

Edited by ProGamer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is considered "fun" is different to everybody. To say one way is fun and the other is not fun, is completely wrong. The ideal solution is to have options for all gameplay rather than a neutral and bland base game that has to be modded to go into specific indepth gameplay. A good example of how what us fun is done right, are games like Assetto Corsa which feature settings ranging from Hardcore ultra realistic to arcade gamey gameplay. The current case of what is fun in Arma 3 seems to be what new players from games like Battleifield and Call of Duty would like.

If aspects of the simulation cannot be done, at least try to leave ways for modders to do it and/or help modders to do it.

And why did Arma 2 never need "Task Force Balance"?

Man soon as I saw that post I knew you'd be on it like a blood hound.

You should probably actually play COD and battlefield because arma 3 is nothing like them nor attempting to achieve anything like them. You actually die faster in those games (compared to arma 3) so I don't know what the hell you're on about. Arma has always had barebones realism systems where things behave kinda as they should but are not simulated properly (Hitpoints for vehicles is an incredibly obvious one), you seem to have this warped perception where arma 2 and ace were this one entity, when in reality they were two completely different games in the end.

How are they not? If you don't like the armour system, create your own using a handledamage event handler.

It probably did, look at the vanilla Russian faction vs. USMC, they have pretty much the 'same' stuff with variations in between. There were more factions in the game than the arrowhead ones you know? I think he's referring to balancing realism/authenticity vs. fun and yeah that existed in arma 2 aswell which is why you have such simple radar systems and an 'engine on' action instead of a lengthy startup sequence and all sorts of other stuff that realism lovers foam at the mouth for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I'd like 2/3rds realism here, which is to say model reality in terms of armor, then add a 67% modifier to their protection. 556 can do 7-8 shots, now it's down to 5 or so. 762 can do 3-4, now it's 2-3. That's what we had before (about, I think 556 was a wee bit more lethal), and it felt like a good balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Kerc Kasha I was suggesting rather than make it a certain amount of authenticity vs "fun", to instead make multiple version from highly realistic to less realistic. Doing that could stop this debate and make everyone happy. And that saying what is fun means nothing because fun is different to many people. Look at DCS for example, many people find it fun. So fun is matter of definition that changes from person to person.

I believe you many a warped perception of what I am saying here based on reading posts I made a while ago. I am saying rather than focus on one perception of fun, to instead have multiple versions. Your telling me to mod the game to make my own realistic body armor, but has it ever occurred to you that the reason things aren't done by modders is because it's either impossible, lack of engine support creates issues or that it would take way to long to accomplish. And this is that same modders will fix it philosophy.

Edited by ProGamer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"It will be out of balance," "Do not be fun" ... Why? Imagine that you have created a good simulation of armor. How many shots actually? Answer: no more - 2-3 5.56mm. Why? Because body armor protects a small part of the body! What is "armored" frontal area man who lies (prone)? The answer is 0%. What is the "armored" in the side area of ​​human? 100%? No. Answer- 10-30%.

Not necessary talking about the fun. Do it right - to be fun. Leave as it is now - is not be fun (3-5 5.56mm always). Do as how in ARMA1 (1 5.56mm) - will not authentic (and fun, maybe).

The decision ... Make a good realistic simulation of armor. It is fun and authentic.

Edited by Kirill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Kerc Kasha I was suggesting rather than make it a certain amount of authenticity vs "fun", to instead make multiple version from highly realistic to less realistic. Doing that could stop this debate and make everyone happy. And that saying what is fun means nothing because fun is different to many people. Look at DCS for example, many people find it fun. So fun is matter of definition that changes from person to person.

I believe you many a warped perception of what I am saying here based on reading comments I made a while ago. Your telling me to mod the game to make my own realistic body armor, but has it ever occurred to you that the reason things aren't done by modders is because it's either impossible, lack of engine support creates issues or that it would take way to long to accomplish. And this is that same modders will fix it philosophy.

Another game tried to do that, Red Orchestra 2, look how well that turned out. If there's anything I've learnt it's that you can't make everyone happy so there's no point in trying. Arma is about striking a balance between realism and actual good gameplay, in some cases I feel BI has failed at this (the hitpoint system) but on the opposite end of the spectrum there are many features in say, ACE, that are realism for the sake of realism and detract greatly from gameplay and add absolutely nothing to it. This is something that needs to be avoided.

Fun is subjective word, don't use it and it was probably a bad idea for WattyWatts to use it as some people find watching a barely interactive cutscene fun for some damn reason. Authenticity vs. Usability is probably more appropriate.

I would prefer that modders didn't have to do it, I was more commenting on the fact you were making it sound as if BI is making it harder for modders to implement their own armour simulation when it's about as hard was it was in arma 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually thought that ACE struck a pretty good balance, and can't think of many things that were done just because it was realistic, but that's not really the topic of this thread.

On the topic of armor implementation, if we have to work within the system we have now, my only suggestion would be get rid of it. There just isn't any way I can think of to properly implement an armor system without either more detailed hitboxes or some greater penalty to both players and the AI for being shot in the less armored extremities (preferably both). The system as it is now is neither authentic or fun or even usable, especially against AI.

It's just a little ridiculous that I can't justify using anything less powerful than a 7.62 because it's the only way to kill the enemy AI before they kill me. The primary reason for deciding to use a higher caliber weapon should be extending effective range, not stopping power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably the ideal way to do it for arma - is to use the armour system that tanks are using

basicly each helmet , vest and body armour has Fire Geometry and then if the item gets few hits then it loses his protection because body armour is damaged or totally ruined - same way as tank armour

http://i.imgur.com/pC4UaCHl.jpg

Same idea as InstaGoat > http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?169985-Soldier-protection&p=2577279&viewfull=1#post2577279

Edited by RobertHammer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+100 This is the only normal way. During the time that the developer trying to set up the current system ... they could do the normal defense system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have already stated that there are difficulties with this issue (that something is currently impossible to implement properly).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Probably the ideal way to do it for arma - is to use the armour system that tanks are using

basicly each helmet , vest and body armour has Fire Geometry and then if the item gets few hits then it loses his protection because body armour is damaged or totally ruined - same way as tank armour

http://i.imgur.com/pC4UaCHl.jpg

Same idea as InstaGoat > http://forums.bistudio.com/showthrea...=1#post2577279

Devs already acknowledge that this would probably be the ideal way to do it.

We'd all like more detailed and better simulated protection using the fire geometry, however, the proper implementation of it has currently been impossible. We are investigating possibilities, but I'd like to stay away from details and promises as long as we can't clearly say "Hey, we've done it and its working" or vice versa.

They tried and are trying. But at the moment they can't get it to work apparently. Right now the immediate thing they are limited to is making armour soak up more or less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I actually thought that ACE struck a pretty good balance, and can't think of many things that were done just because it was realistic, but that's not really the topic of this thread.

On the topic of armor implementation, if we have to work within the system we have now, my only suggestion would be get rid of it. There just isn't any way I can think of to properly implement an armor system without either more detailed hitboxes or some greater penalty to both players and the AI for being shot in the less armored extremities (preferably both). The system as it is now is neither authentic or fun or even usable, especially against AI.

It's just a little ridiculous that I can't justify using anything less powerful than a 7.62 because it's the only way to kill the enemy AI before they kill me. The primary reason for deciding to use a higher caliber weapon should be extending effective range, not stopping power.

I have to echo this man's complaints. Right now, the 5.56mm and 6.5mm weapons just seem entirely worthless. I have to plug and plug and plug away at an enemy before they go down, and it really detracts from the gameplay. The same goes for 7.62mm weapons (!!!!), but not quite to the extent of the intermediate calibers.

I agree with RobertHammer's idea re: using the vehicle armour system for infantry, if it's even possible. Anyway, I'm not a game dev - so don't understand the inherent difficulties being presented - but it does feel to me like the current system is not up to par.

As always, thanks to BIS for even listening to us in the first place! This is why you guys are my favorite developer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Increased density of soldiers’ bodies to improve headshot lethality

I don't know about others, but I think this latest tweak did it for headshots. Too me they are pretty balanced. Basically rifle will kill with one direct hit. At close range, a 556 glancing hit will not kill. 6.5 glancing hits will not kill at longer ranges in one shot, and 7.62 glancing hits will not kill at even longer ranges than that. Pretty solid. I think its as balanced/realistic as headshot are going to get at the moment. Good work.

Now for vests.

In theory vests are "alright" as is. But it still ruins the enjoyment at times. I can understand 556 being relatively ineffective. And 6.5 I can also see being just average. But I don't know, having to put two 762's into a guy to drop him throws me off. I want it to be one. But at the same time armour would,, and should have benefits even against 762...

Maybe, would it be possible to make it so the 762 is one shot kill in the torso but loses this ability at ranges over, say, 300m? I really don't know. I will have to think and test on it some more. What do others think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have AP 12.7mm. You can add AP for 7.62. And the idea about 300m for 7.62 (not AP) - good.

Yesterday (developer version) could not kill men in the chest... 408. (9mm long). This needs to be fixed precisely. Now I can not kill a man in a light vest for a very simple house wall. It is unrealistic for 408. and 12.7mm

---------- Post added at 10:00 ---------- Previous post was at 09:27 ----------

They tried and are trying. But at the moment they can't get it to work apparently. Right now the immediate thing they are limited to is making armour soak up more or less.

If it is not connected with the engine ... maybe ... need to do an open or close discussion of experienced modders. Maybe devs do not see the solution, but it is. Maybe they need help? I'm not kidding. Time is running out and there are no changes.

Edited by Kirill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally don't think 7.62x51 should be that powerful (take out even people wearing plates with one shot)

Level III armor plate today are capable to defeat non-ap 7.62 NATO already, imaging the body armor would be in 21 years...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I personally don't think 7.62x51 should be that powerful (take out even people wearing plates with one shot)

Level III armor plate today are capable to defeat non-ap 7.62 NATO already, imaging the body armor would be in 21 years...

From a realism standpoint, I totally agree. Bullets are inherently limited in their potential for growth due to the dimensions of the bullet and its related ballistic statistics. On paper, I'd say that the potential for growth in 21 years offers much higher potential than that for growth of the 5.56, 6.5, and 7.62 rounds.

However, from a gameplay perspective, I think the playerbase's protest at soldiers being too resilient really illustrates (to me at least) that this is a necessary concession for the game's enjoyment. Its totally possible for future body armor to repeatedly take hits from 7.62x51 (in theory, because its the future, unexpected developments etc). But that doesnt mean it sucks any less to shoot someone 3 times with said round and have them still standing :P

This thus illustrates the overall poor modelling of traumatic impacts etc. "If they dont die from 3 rounds, shouldnt they at least fall down or be stunned/" and such. These are totally valid points, and in a best case scenario I think it'd be utterly fantastic to have that kind of infantry damage model ingame. But it just doesnt seem very likely at this point to have a damage model everyone is satisfied with.

Thus it seems more popular to side with those who desire similar damage from small arms as those featured in OFP, ArmA, and ArmA2. It all stems down to modelling superior/advanced body armor as simply soaking more bullets being unsatisfactory when the traumatic impacts of hits, stunning, knockdown and all arent modeled. Its an unfortunate design decision that would require alot of workarounds and tweaks, when just making bullets hit harder achieves a more desirable result in many player's eyes; the target drops.

Edited by Nerdwing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I personally don't think 7.62x51 should be that powerful (take out even people wearing plates with one shot)

Level III armor plate today are capable to defeat non-ap 7.62 NATO already, imaging the body armor would be in 21 years...

You are right but even bullets would be stronger if not even stronger than the body armour because just look at 5.56 - there been created new variants that are more effective

So i can imagine same for 6.5mm and 7.62x51 - i doubt that in the future will use the same old bullet variant from 90's , since now everybody are using those newest ones at least in US army

Also thats why i said - to add AP variants would be good idea

Edited by RobertHammer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its totally possible for future body armor to repeatedly take hits from 7.62x51 (in theory, because its the future, unexpected developments etc). But that doesnt mean it sucks any less to shoot someone 3 times with said round and have them still standing :P

Even the supposedly useless Interceptor body armor in service right now can do that routinely. Not the future, not even the cutting edge of the present. And 7.62x54 even, from point blank.

Other than that, yes you're right.

If BIS isn't going to add knock-down or wounding effects, or fix the coverage issue, I would be in favour of a 40% failure rate for armor, simulating both hits in gaps in the plate and failure of defective plates. This would be frustrating for people who try to line up good shoulder or pelvis shots at close quarters, but would fix the gameplay issues by restoring fear of bullets and creating gameplay that is realistic when averaged out over many encounters.

Edit: Everyone in ArmA 3 is already shooting AP rounds at each other. Ball is for coaxials and hollowpoint is for cops. Soldiers use AP.

Edited by maturin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know about others, but I think this latest tweak did it for headshots. Too me they are pretty balanced. Basically rifle will kill with one direct hit. At close range, a 556 glancing hit will not kill. 6.5 glancing hits will not kill at longer ranges in one shot, and 7.62 glancing hits will not kill at even longer ranges than that. Pretty solid. I think its as balanced/realistic as headshot are going to get at the moment. Good work.

Now for vests.

In theory vests are "alright" as is. But it still ruins the enjoyment at times. I can understand 556 being relatively ineffective. And 6.5 I can also see being just average. But I don't know, having to put two 762's into a guy to drop him throws me off. I want it to be one. But at the same time armour would,, and should have benefits even against 762...

Maybe, would it be possible to make it so the 762 is one shot kill in the torso but loses this ability at ranges over, say, 300m? I really don't know. I will have to think and test on it some more. What do others think?

The problem is that the whole torso gets covered by the vest. Side shots, or hits in the shoulder area don´t matter at all.

Something like this would be really awesome:

http://i.imgur.com/pC4UaCHl.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: Everyone in ArmA 3 is already shooting AP rounds at each other. Ball is for coaxials and hollowpoint is for cops. Soldiers use AP.

I wouldn't say that , because in config - they are just regular Ball , not AP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For anybody wondering how these plates perform, here's the video again:

The plate is pretty beat up by the time they get to the heavy rounds, and even in its beat up state it -stops- the 7.62 bullets. Only when shooting into already existing impact cavities does the 5.56 penetrate. Shooting at somebody wearing bodyarmor with these plates forces you to shoot somewhere else, rather than the plates. There is another test elsewhere, where a steel+soft backing level IV plate was tested. They shot it ~30 times with 5.56 military ball ammo from close range before achieving penetration.

This is why plates need to be part of the fire geometry: otherwise they would be much too powerful. Armoring the whole torso like this would be crazy. Realistically, the plates only cover the vitals, and depending on the carrier, only front and back, only front, or have smaller plates. You can't even really make up averages because the coverage of the vests varies so greatly from all angles. Anything but fire geometry should be considered nothing but a stop-gap measure, I hope.

Mind, there is a difference between being killed outright and being knocked down. I ride, and people sometimes get reckless because they are wearing protective gear, helmets, vests, etc, and then end up with broken bones. Plates are not there to stop you from getting hurt, injured and knocked down. They are there to protect you from being killed on the spot. Being hit by a 7.62 from point blank is no joke (The plate there weighs 3~ ish kilograms, and look how it gets knocked around!). Flinching, bruising, shortness of breath, pain, whiplash, all those things will probably occur and impair you until you get it checked out or adrenaline stops you from noticing.

Again, we would need animations for wound states. For example, leg wounds force you to walk slowly right now: but you still walk with that unbelievable swagger. Limping animations are necessary! Similarily, being hit in the arm should prevent you from using your primary weapon unless prone: loose the arm, switch to pistol and use it single handed.

That pretty much is the challenge: Rifle plate geometry, and wound state animations for all stances and weapons. Not easy. :(

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

×