We need worse weapon systems

[Leg 10]

People like you are few and far, but the vast majority will just complain that it's too hard afterwards even if they tweaked this. I personally agree with the easiness of using lock-on AT launchers though. Having a lock on launcher up close really makes it impossible to blow up an easy-hit target such as a vehicle moving through some buildings as well. Learning to use an RPG and manually aim it is invaluable in close quarters or even to shoot down slow moving aircraft.

[the_demongod 31]

Agreed. When I play as Zeus for my friends, I rarely give them advanced weapons (FLIR devices, MBTs, Titan Missiles, etc) because I believe they detract from the core infantry experience. Those items all have their places, but they should be generally far more rare/special weapons. They are very specialized weapons.

For example, I would only deploy a unit armed with a Titan AT missile for a mission where the players are pinned down by armor and they need immediate and effective support. Similarly, FLIR optics (in my opinion) belong in air vehicles, where finding infantry targets would otherwise be impossible. I have experienced firsthand how a laser designator can ruin a counter-sniping mission by making it extremely easy, requiring little to no effort to find the hidden enemy.

Yes, it is definitely fun to call airstrikes and wreck tanks from long range and be practically omniscient (with a FLIR device), and certain missions are perfect for such things. Don't get me wrong, I love the high-tech aspects of warfare, I just wish they required more coordination and skill to use. The way it is now, anybody who can look at a tank, press 'T' and click can instantly defeat a tank, a devastatingly useful asset on the battlefield. All I ask is that these weapons require more involved techniques to utilize. I know I have said it a lot, but I still believe my example of the NLOS Titan employment is a great example (link). It requires other advanced tech to extend the effectiveness of the platform.

An AT missile specialist can defeat tanks in his line of sight with high effectivity. However, a tank should be able to save itself from inescapable doom by moving behind a building or hill, especially since its countermeasures don't even work. If the missile specialist and/or his team desire that this tank be neutralized, then they must go the extra step and send either a drone (if they have one) or risk the life of a recon JTAC and send him to lase the tank, allowing for it to be engaged.

Another example (more of the same, skip if you wish)

If the radar wasn't magical and didn't show colors, it would add a whole additional layer of realism and a requirement for high levels of coordination and communication within a team. If a radar contact is observed, a team can dispatch units to determine the type of contact, be it friendly, foe, air, ground, etc. The player viewing the unit will have to be familiar with the enemy force's vehicles and paint schemes, adding a very fundamental skill requirement, the same one we use to tell a BLUFOR rifleman from an OPFOR one. The game wouldn't be required to do much more besides allow the observer to select the radar contact in question and mark it as either friend or foe, causing it to show up as either green or red on the radar. The extra step would be to allow the player to enter additional information about the contact, including type of vehicle, surrounding environment/units, and other remarks. Other players could access this information via some sort of radar database. I suppose there could even be some sort of commander's tablet that would show a path created from each sighting of the contact in question, allowing for high-level decision making. However, these types of features almost definitely would need to be covered by nodders or part of a much later DLC.

So, I need you guys' help. Give me as many suggestions and ideas as you can, and I will put them in the original post. Hopefully we can draw the attention of some developers, both from BI and the modding community.

Edited June 3, 2014 by the_Demongod

[maturin 12]

Here, here!

[Leg 10]

The problem is that no one really wants to die, but if you're not on the receiving end you wouldn't mind any advantage(s) that you have (i.e. being an infantry soldier facing a tank, and being able to lock on with T from far away). I would much rather have a lock on AT rocket as long as the tank is further than 600M away and pending on if its moving, otherwise give me a manually aimed system.

[roshnak 41]

Maybe we'll see the introduction of new gameplay features in one of the DLC's, but I think the reason BI have implemented the tab-lock system (or just one button lock system) is because they make a combined arms game, and they want you to be able to play as infantryman, gunner, pilot etc, without having to learn to much in terms of how to operate guns and vehicles. The one button lock system allows you to play as pretty much anything, once you master the basic controls of Arma, which on itself isn't really a bad concept.

This might be the reason, but it could just as easily be an action menu situation, where the current system is a relic of an earlier time that for whatever reason BIS has decided is too much work to be worth replacing.

This also really isn't a problem the community can solve. ACE and Mando Missiles did some cool stuff and the developers of those mods did the best they could, but they -- especially Mando Missiles -- were largely too cumbersome to be worth using. If we want a really good and streamlined system it really has to be done by the developers.

The problem is that no one really wants to die, but if you're not on the receiving end you wouldn't mind any advantage(s) that you have (i.e. being an infantry soldier facing a tank, and being able to lock on with T from far away). I would much rather have a lock on AT rocket as long as the tank is further than 600M away and pending on if its moving, otherwise give me a manually aimed system.

Lock-on missiles are fine. It would just be nice if you had to do more than push a single button to lock a target. It could be as complex as the gating method shown in the Javelin video or as simple as requiring players to hold their crosshair over the target for a few seconds. As it is now you only have to be facing roughly in the direction of a vehicle and you can cycle through a bunch of targets with tab.

[CyclonicTuna 87]

This might be the reason, but it could just as easily be an action menu situation, where the current system is a relic of an earlier time that for whatever reason BIS has decided is too much work to be worth replacing.

Perhaps you're right but I think introducing more advanced weapons simulation isn't the major problem for BI, the did it in VBS aswell and I know you aren't allowed to really compare the two, but their core code is pretty similair so I don't think its, how you say it, a "relic".

Just like Leg said, if they were to introduce things that some mods in the past have done, like MM and ACE, then they would probably alienate a portion of the gamers that they have gained, especially after DayZ. Because features like that are most interesting for people who play hardcore milsim in clans. Because it allows for them to assign specific roles and really get that realistic military command feel. Some people aren't really into that.

[nodunit 397]

Then they shouldn't be playing a game thats not meant for them, simple as that...yeah I said it, and I understand it makes me sound like an insensitive a-hole but I'm tired of this "we have to consolidate for everyone".

The idea that the potential of certain games must be held back because "some people may not like it". It's bloody missile system, its supposed to be somewhat complex, if you can't wrap your head around it then there are plenty of other things to play with.

I realize how that might make me sound like an elitist prick but god forbid we stand by the notion that "Hey, this is some sophisticated hardware, it should have a degree of sophistication to offset its devastating capability, and heck, it even has those in the real world so win win."

Here's the thing...in the current state, battlefield is more challenging with its weapon systems than Arma, and to a degree more authentic!

Now I know that when you fire a missile it doesn't behave like a fly by wire in that you can guide it all manually, instead I think of the crosshair movement system as though you were moving the optic sensor to guide the missile to its target, but ultimately you actually have to GUIDE it yourself even if you can fire, fly off and guide it still...its a step up from what we currently have.

Problem is that outside of fixed wing and anti air units, no vehicle really has a radar, the blackfoot isn't equipped with a radar, hell it isn't even equipped with an actual optic system but that can be excused.

The kajiman doesn't have a radar and neither do any of the transport helo's, as best they would have air survivability equipment and map displays for data they have soaked in but you can't just not have a radar, pick a target you can't see and lob a missile at it, it doesn't work that way.

Tab lock itself could stay in that it makes handling the AI a bit easier, it just needs to be disconnected from its ability to also guide weaponry.

And when you have a game that is specificly made to be as open to everyone such as battlefield is able to beat your weapon systems in terms of how challenging and rewarding they feel then something is REALLY wrong.

Edited June 3, 2014 by NodUnit

[CyclonicTuna 87]

Then they shouldn't be playing a game thats not meant for them, simple as that...yeah I said it, and I understand it makes me sound like an insensitive a-hole but I'm tired of this "we have to consolidate for everyone".

The idea that the potential of certain games must be held back because "some people may not like it". It's bloody missile system, its supposed to be somewhat complex, if you can't wrap your head around it then there are plenty of other things to play with.

Here's the thing...in the current state, battlefield is more challenging with its weapon systems than Arma, and to a degree more authentic! Now I know that when you fire a missile it doesn't behave like a fly by wire in that you can guide it all manually, instead I think of the crosshair movement system as though you were moving the optic sensor to guide the missile to its target, but ultimately you actually have to GUIDE it yourself even if you can fire, fly off and guide it still...its a step up from what we currently have...tab lock itself could stay in that it makes handling the AI a bit easier, it just needs to be disconnected from its ability to also guide weaponry.

Problem is that outside of fixed wing and anti air units, no vehicle really has a radar, the blackfoot isn't equipped with a radar, hell it isn't even equipped with an actual optic system but that can be excused. The kajiman doesn't have a radar and neither do any of the transport helo's, as best they would have air survivability equipment and map displays for data they have soaked in but you can't just not have a radar, pick a target you can't see and lob a missile at it, it doesn't work that way.

And when you have a game that is specificly made to be as open to everyone such at battlefield able to beat your weapon systems in terms of how challenging and rewarding they feel then something is REALLY wrong.

Yeah well, I kinda agree. But I'm not a developer :p But I fear it might not be as easy as choosing one group of gamers over the other. Longevity wise it might be better for BI to focus on hardcore milsim, at the same time developing these games costs money and recources that have to be payed at one point, and you need a projected amount of sales based on your concept when you develop game, otherwise it gets very difficult to maintain a profitable business model. So I guess there will always have to be a middle ground.

But I'm still hopefull that if we show enough interest in these area's from the community, then perhaps BI will do something about it later on, or provide the modders with better tools, give them more access to the game, and make it easier to make major adjustments rather than fiddle with the base code.

Edited June 3, 2014 by CyclonicTuna

[raspu86 92]

I wouldn't say we need worse but more complex weapon systems. Personally I take a lot more fun out of a game if I actually have to learn how stuff works and how it is employed in the best way. I had so much fun learning and operating mortars and artillery guns in ACE2. What do we have now? Point, click and shoot. Not really satisfying at all.

[Bee8190 10]

I still haven't figured out how to use the artillery in ACE lol but have not had bothered much anyways. Still, the joy of when you figure out in time how to use an important asset well IMO greatly outweighs learning a simple shortcut / or a key.

That is / was what set sims apart of casual games.

I don't even think its the complexity and the use of these assets that BI would have to worry about, as not to alienate any newcomers, as long as it is intuitive and makes sense. And yes, even complex things can be made intuitive and make sense. Unfortunately I wouldn't consider the ingame menu UI as one of them though

[[evo] dan 79]

I did like the ACE way of doing most things, such as Laser guided weapons as it made the skill level for most weapons just that bit higher. I think the mortar setup would be too much, maybe just remove the arty computer and give a lookup table to aim by.

[the_demongod 31]

I still haven't figured out how to use the artillery in ACE lol but have not had bothered much anyways. Still, the joy of when you figure out in time how to use an important asset well IMO greatly outweighs learning a simple shortcut / or a key.

That is / was what set sims apart of casual games.

This is an important part of my argument. Making the systems in game harder to use will make the game more fun and interesting for everyone using them.

I wouldn't say we need worse but more complex weapon systems. Personally I take a lot more fun out of a game if I actually have to learn how stuff works and how it is employed in the best way. I had so much fun learning and operating mortars and artillery guns in ACE2. What do we have now? Point, click and shoot. Not really satisfying at all.

Well, to be honest the title was just a (seemingly effective) attention grabber.

I too find a game much more fun if you have to learn how to play it. A perfect example of this is DCS A-10. I do not have the hardware, time, or energy to learn the finer points of DCS. It's simply too complex. But I am able to fly basic missions moderately effectively. However: in DCS, the fun/excitement/satisfaction of the simple act of destroying a tank with a maverick is as great as a whole CAS mission is in arma. why? because of the sheer coordination, knowledge, and practice it took to learn the technique.

[roshnak 41]

Perhaps you're right but I think introducing more advanced weapons simulation isn't the major problem for BI, the did it in VBS aswell and I know you aren't allowed to really compare the two, but their core code is pretty similair so I don't think its, how you say it, a "relic".

I didn't say anything about the code being a relic. I said the system was a relic. It's been around with zero changes since 2001. How is that not a relic?

I also think you are either underestimating gamers or overestimating how much complexity needs to be added. Weapons systems don't need to be confusing or hard to use. We don't need the depth of the ACE artillery system. We just need weapons to be more "active" and allow users more input in the outcome of employing weapons systems. It was incredibly fun and rewarding to use LAWs in OFP. You had to judge range and the target's speed and adjust for both. You could also screw it up, and if you did, it was your fault. I still remember when a group of my friends were playing and the last guy with a LAW had never used it before. He asked how to aim it and we said, "Use the second line in the reticle." He responded with, "Wait -- two from the top or two from the bottom?" right before firing a rocket into the ground and killing himself. It was a good time. We all had a good laugh, and no one was put off by the system being too hard or confusing.

None of that can happen with a Titan. You point your character so that a vehicle is somewhere within a 180 degree arc in front of you and press tab, then you click the mouse button and everything is out of your hands. The missile might hit and kill your target, but, since you can't even change whether the missile is firing in top-attack or direct modes, there's a pretty good chance that the missile will slam into the ground trying to hit the target. Boy, that sure was fun, right?

DCS: A-10C is fun

While I don't think that it's particularly difficult to employ the weapons systems in modern aircraft, I don't think it's really reasonable to expect that we will have weapon systems even close to what DCS has. I doubt we will ever even have targeting pods. The thing is, it starts requiring a whole specialized control system that it just isn't reasonable to expect the average Arma player to have at his or her disposal.

Edited June 3, 2014 by roshnak

[the_demongod 31]

None of that can happen with a Titan. You point your character so that a vehicle is somewhere within a 180 degree arc in front of you and press tab, then you click the mouse button and everything is out of your hands. The missile might hit and kill your target, but, since you can't even change whether the missile is firing in top-attack or direct modes, there's a pretty good chance that the missile will slam into the ground trying to hit the target. Boy, that sure was fun, right?

Correction: as long as you have acquired the target, it doesn't matter where you aim. you can aim directly away from the target, and the missile will fly a wild arc and hit the target behind you.

While I don't think that it's particularly difficult to employ the weapons systems in modern aircraft, I don't think it's really reasonable to expect that we will have weapon systems even close to what DCS has. I doubt we will ever even have targeting pods. The thing is, it starts requiring a whole specialized control system that it just isn't reasonable to expect the average Arma player to have at his or her disposal.

I know it's unrealistic to expect anything near DCS level complexity, but imo it's better to aim high and shoot low. Obviously we shouldn't have devs attempting to add TGPs and stuff (although John Spartan & Saul's F-18 mod has a great replacement in the 2-seater version). Obviously, DCS has a limited player base because few of us have the time, patience, equipment, etc to play it well. Arma is a good middle ground between Battlefield and DCS, which is why I believe it has such high potential. It is both moderately realistic but not impossible to play.

[Bee8190 10]

The self acquiring targets and ease of use along with when nearly every soldier is carrying javelin or carl gustav can really prove difficult for vehicle warfare in arma. Heavy vehicles like tanks and apc's are more of an bounty targets for both Ai and players now and the somewhat flat and open , partly hilly terrain of altis doesn't help to avoid all these weapons. I do miss old launchers like in arma 2

[Brisse 78]

There is no Javelin, nor Carl Gustaf in the vanilla game, but otherwise I agree with you :)

[Grumpy Old Man 3540]

I really miss low budget units like the Takistani Locals from OA.

Nothing better than wreaking havoc with a trusty lee-enfield and a rpg-7.

[the_demongod 31]

ahh, the lee-enfield. I loved that gun.

I don't even mind high-tech, high-budget units/systems, but the player really needs to have to do more work than just press 'T' and click to win.

[Sub-Human 10]

I agree with some of your points. I remember WarMod for the original ArmA with its revamped tank controls (no longer do you just point and shoot). However there needs to be difference between micro-management and actual skill. Looking back at the Javelin video, ArmA's controls don't make it inherintely less 'skillful', but just less management. You still have to point at the right direction and wait for the lock-on.

Imagine if instead of opening your map with 'M', you had to pull it out of your pocket first, then unfold it multiple times using the action menu or different keys. And instead of magically zooming you had to pull out a second map. Is that more realistic? Yes. More fun? Doubt it.

[roshnak 41]

That would be true if you had to point your weapon at a vehicle before it would lock on. Instead, the vehicle just has to be somewhere within your FOV when you hit the lock button. The reason this takes less skill is that you don't have to actually find or even know where the vehicle is to kill it. If you really wanted you could just spin in a circle hitting the lock button and the game would find the target for you.

As for it being less management, first of all, you have to remember that this is Arma, and a lot of people are looking for more management. Second, I would argue that firing missiles right now is simplified to the point of being boring. It requires a minimal amount of player input.

Also, the new system of making missiles take a while to lock on all the way is just an artificial restriction designed (I guess) to approximate the time a player would spend actively locking a target. Allowing players some form of finding and locking targets themselves would eliminate the need for that feature, and also give them the opportunity to potentially become skilled enough with the system that they could find and lock targets quicker than their opponent can.

[Sub-Human 10]

Instead, the vehicle just has to be somewhere within your FOV when you hit the lock button.

Didn't realize that... In that case, I agree.

[the_demongod 31]

Didn't realize that... In that case, I agree.

And what's worse? You can fire the missile in any direction - even the opposite one. The missile will fly in a big arc overhead and still hit the target. It's ridiculous.

[roshnak 41]

Well, it might hit the target. The missiles still try and level out and perform a direct attack, so if the vehicle is behind a chest high sandbag, the missile will probably hit that instead.

I mean, at the very least we should be able to select between direct- and top-attack modes, right?

[mordeaniischaos 3]

Grab yourself the RH packs, the HLC packs, CAF Aggressors, and a couple of other little packs and you're good to go. I would like to see some more realistic contemporary launchers but otherwise, the options already exist, you just have to find them.

[roshnak 41]

You should probably read the OP. This thread isn't about wanting contemporary weapons.