Level of Realism Poll

[StrongHarm 13]

This poll is targeted toward getting a feeling from the community on preference of realism. In my Close Air Support missions (newest being ECAS http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?176453-Close-Air-Support-ECAS ) I try to go full MilSim and make it as realistic as possible. I've received some feedback saying it's too difficult to identify target positions from the air, etc. For future development I wanted to get a better feel for what the community wants. Answer the poll as honestly as possible and I'll target the consensus for future missions.

Edited April 25, 2014 by StrongHarm

[UltimateBawb 1]

In my opinion this game is supposed to be hard, it should make you its bitch given anything beyond slight error.

[WolfeUK 1]

i love realism, if i shoot someone at 150m they should drop down dead, if i order my team to suppress a target he should stay hidden, but at the same time i play games for enjoyment, think you can have both in a game

[the_demongod 31]

holy shit, ECAS is my favorite mission in arma, ever. The radio chatter does wonders, it's like an entirely new game. just goes to show how much BI needs to fix the sound.

perhaps it's my AI settings, time in DCS, or both, but I actually found the mission rather easy. With the UAV feed at my disposal, I found it really easy to get a good feel of the spread of the enemy forces, and I was able to kill them all quite fast. maybe I'm just good with orientation, but It wasn't hard for me. Additionally, when you use the cam feed and know where to look, it's much easier to spot the infantry. you can even see them running.

thanks for the amazing mission,

the_Demongod

[Bouben 3]

I will not vote because I don't like how the poll is done.

"I like full realism, with no targeting or mission aid. The harder the better"

This has nothing to do with realism as you have to have some aids and compromises in the game to indicate stuff that are perceived in reality but impossible to simulate in virtual worlds. For example: until the AI is able to give me an exact description of the enemy/movement positions and communicate this with me properly (not possible in near future) you will need some visual aids to show you what they "mean" etc.

Playing without crosshair is another good example of pseudo-realism in games. It is stupid and missing bigger context of things.

But yeah, I like the game to be challenging (even hardcore hard) but fair and rational and logical.

Edited April 25, 2014 by Bouben

[StrongHarm 13]

Bouben, in context of my mission (which this is) I have a CCT talking the pilot down on targets. It's real audio from a real ECAS mission. Someone suggested that I *additionally* addsubtitles so you can follow the radio chatter easier and target indicators (ala red squares). So allow me to restate the question for you: *If a mission has other means of target identification* should that mission also include in game mission targeting aid and mission aid to make it easier... is this making sense to you?

I'm trying to grasp whether people are interested in simulating the fog of war.. or if they really just want to 'play' a mission and blow stuff up. Please tell me if I need to break this down further.

[the_demongod 31]

I do see what he means though, it would be nice if the poll said "full-fidelity weapons management system," because that's what everyone really wants. just for clarity's sake.

[Bouben 3]

Bouben, in context of my mission (which this is) I have a CCT talking the pilot down on targets. It's real audio from a real ECAS mission. Someone suggested that I *additionally* addsubtitles so you can follow the radio chatter easier and target indicators (ala red squares). So allow me to restate the question for you: *If a mission has other means of target identification* should that mission also include in game mission targeting aid and mission aid to make it easier... is this making sense to you?

I'm trying to grasp whether people are interested in simulating the fog of war.. or if they really just want to 'play' a mission and blow stuff up. Please tell me if I need to break this down further.

OK, thanks for your explanation.

I personally thing this is a tricky one to solve. Subtitles should be definitely included for non-native-english players. Another thing is that you have to test your mission with different graphics settings in order to see how easy/hard is to identify targets in the game. LODs can change a lot. Virtual environments are seriously limiting our real-world skills.

I guess you cannot go wrong with enough options for various players.

[StrongHarm 13]

Those are good points... I haven't planned for other languages in my missions but I should have. The mechanism that BIS provides for Multilanguage is really awesome, I should take advantage.

[JestersDead 2]

The biggest issue I had with the mission was that once the troops start moving, I have no idea who is enemy anymore. Not having a TGP view in cockpit makes it rather difficult to keep track of contacts, but that's an arma thing, not your mission.

If the aircraft were simulated more realistically, you'd be able to hook a coordinate and line up on it with the HUD, or lase a spot on the ground with the drone that you'd be able to lock onto with the aircraft sensors and use it to help you ID the targets.

It's a great mission though, just like your others. The only constructive criticism I'd give would be to make it possible to skip the text screens when linking the drone to your aircraft before taking off. When you're on the 10th playthrough, you just want to get in the air :P

[tortuosit 486]

Who is the target audience? The by far vast minority here? Nowadays ArmA players are not here (you find them in Youtube channels for instance), cannot write, are 11 years old, play Altis Life and their idea of realism is lip gloss and purple weapon skins. 99% of all ArmA players.

[StrongHarm 13]

I think most of those people won't find my Close Air Support missions, unless they see a vid review. I hope they do find them and it brings them over from the dark side hehe. I really wanted to get a feel for whether I should trim back the realism a little bit. The poll, so far, shows that I may be on the right track.

---------- Post added at 02:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:41 PM ----------

Little secret Jester.. you don't have to go through the calibration with all the text after the first play through. The shortcut is still provided. You can align the camera from the cockpit without calibrating at the computer. It was just a little something to provide sortie prep and get people in the zone.

As for troop movement, you can see that the enemy is coming from the grove if you switch UAV to thermal.. and also BLUFOR is popping white smoke in their path. Just clear south of the smoke with a few bursts, then only fire upon grove to smoke.. staying well north of the smoke. You'll see a hint that clarifies that (one of the few hints I used as I didn't want to break the urgency and tenseness of the moment).

The biggest issue I had with the mission was that once the troops start moving, I have no idea who is enemy anymore. Not having a TGP view in cockpit makes it rather difficult to keep track of contacts, but that's an arma thing, not your mission.

If the aircraft were simulated more realistically, you'd be able to hook a coordinate and line up on it with the HUD, or lase a spot on the ground with the drone that you'd be able to lock onto with the aircraft sensors and use it to help you ID the targets.

It's a great mission though, just like your others. The only constructive criticism I'd give would be to make it possible to skip the text screens when linking the drone to your aircraft before taking off. When you're on the 10th playthrough, you just want to get in the air :P

[JestersDead 2]

Good to know about the UAV uplink, thanks!

[kilroy the nerd 14]

I like realism, if it adds to gameplay. If MilSim level realism can bring a lot of fun, maybe bringing certain challenging limits and opening new opportunities in gameplay, then that's good. But if all it does is make the game feel boring or clunky, then no. Although, that second one is probably more about UI than realism (hint: action menu).

[Bouben 3]

Those are good points... I haven't planned for other languages in my missions but I should have. The mechanism that BIS provides for Multilanguage is really awesome, I should take advantage.

I did not necessarily mean multi-language support. Just english subtitles to the english voiceovers so that less skilled non-native english speakers can check the text to be sure.

[Westonsammy 1]

I like realism in terms of realistic gameplay (realisitc ballistic model, body armor, vehicles physics, ect) and mission design (feasible loadouts, enemy opposition, enemy responses, ect)

What I don't want i realism in terms of "THAT'S SERGEANT TO YOU, PRIVATE"

[StrongHarm 13]

Yes I see Westonsammy.. militarily accurate in form and function, while remembering that we're not career soldiers and not taking it too far hehe no doubt.

[[evo] dan 79]

I like realism in terms of realistic gameplay (realisitc ballistic model, body armor, vehicles physics, ect) and mission design (feasible loadouts, enemy opposition, enemy responses, ect)

What I don't want i realism in terms of "THAT'S SERGEANT TO YOU, PRIVATE"

^this, ACE 2 was very close to this.

[StrongHarm 13]

Well, if this is accurate it looks like only 13% of the community has a problem with realism. 52% preferring hardcore realism and 35% preferring more practical realism. So this answered my question of: am I on the right track with my Close Air Support Missions? I'm happy I can continue in the same spirit. Anyone have any suggestions on features you'd like to see that make the realism more practical for the Arma3 experience in CAS missions?