character switching

[G-LOC 0]

I make a battleship an wants to control the sonar station, radar station, main gun, AA gun, SAM station, etc. Some naval sims have this options. We can make a naval simulation with ArmA.

I flying a B-17 and can go to tail gun, front gun, bomber station, pilot station etc.

G-LOC

[Metal Heart 0]

Quote[/b] ]Quote (Metal Heart @ April 04 2006,01:19)

If that were true there probably wouldn't be dialog with picture and nice camera scripts to go with it.

So based on this there should not be any in-game GUIs at all since they're all made with dialogs..

Coded in the resource.bin (.cpp, from now on referenced as resource..)..

Everything, including the mission editor..

Yes, I do know that. What I don't know is what you were trying to say with this post. I think you have understood me completely wrong. Let me explain:

-I was <span style='color:red'>NOT</span> saying that if a feature is made with dialogs, it's just a temporary thing to show off this feature or engine capabilities or whatever

-I <span style='color:green'>WAS</span> saying that if the ArmA "demo" has this dialog and the camera scripts, it's probably not just a temporary thing to show off the game that would not make it to the game as somebody was suggesting

[h - 169]

I didn't read the whole thread and that was just something that 'stuck my eye' before I posted my reply..

And one must have a quote to start a post with

[kernriver 4]

I will try out that character switching thing, when i'll be playing the campaign for the third or fourth time...

[EndersLoop 0]

OMG dudes! I never hear of this character switch before!!! It's amazing mang. This proves that BI is the next generation ready and are and is the best at making military games.

[NeMeSiS 11]

OMG dudes! I never hear of this character switch before!!! It's amazing mang. This proves that BI is the next generation ready and are and is the best at making military games.  

Well you are the first one to say that

Oh well, as long as we arent forced to use it its a great feature, but if we have to use it, well, then it ruins the game...

[lukemax 0]

I think switch charactor like Ghost recon is fantastic, MOD it into OFP!

[Metal Heart 0]

Yay! And make the character also carry 7 different rifles, 3 pistols, 2 MGs, 3 sniper rifles, couple dozen of grenades, and a few hundred kilos of AT rockets & AA missiles so you don't have to face the unfortunate situation of not having the proper weapon for every possible situation. Could you also make the character semi-invulnerable so I don't have to start the missions from the last quick save all the time. Bunny hopping and strafing fights are also a must for every MP game nowadays so that too. Thx bis u teh rox0rz!111

[CameronMcDonald 146]

Hahaha! <end spleen>

[snoops_213 75]

Seems BIS (if someone knows other wise please inform me) have started that this feature will be available after you completed the mission. This make missions more replayable imho, and if you dont like it dont use it. I have often wanted to be able to switch units in some missions just to see the battle from a different perspective. Seems BIS need to have an option to lock/disable this feature just to shut some of you guys up. How can you really flame this idea without even playing a demo atleast?

[klasodeth 0]

With how horrible this character switching thing obviously is, how did anyone make it all the way through Operation Flashpoint?

That game had character switching too, although not within the same mission.  I thought it was so totally lame that I would play as Hammer in the Battle of Houdan and move in on the border zone, then play as Gastovski in the Interdiction mission to clear some tanks out of that border zone, and right after that play as Hammer in the Spearhead mission to overrun the border zone.  I mean who are these people anyway?  Spec Ops and tank commanders?  Where's Armstrong?  It would have been so much better to leave all those extra features out and focus on being a grunt.  Who wants to be bothered with driving tanks, flying attack helicopters, and running covert ops in a wargame?  They should have focused on Armstrong and done away with all that needless variety.  Playing the role of multiple characters in separate missions really ruined the whole game for me.

Having in-mission character switching will be just as bad as Operation Flashpoint, only faster since BIS can't be bothered to wait for the mission to end before introducing another character.

Rather than experience all aspects of modern warfare, I'd much rather have disjointed missions that skip the parts where my character would be waiting for tanks, choppers, and special forces to do their jobs.  If I can't have that, I'd at least like to have missions where my character loiters around for two days waiting for the armored divisions, air support, and commandos to do their jobs so I can follow behind the next day and play janitor by mopping up survivors.  This would preserve continuity and more importantly depict some of the less dramatic parts of warfare.  It feels way too much like BF2 when I end a mission playing as Armstrong and then five minutes later I'm driving an M60 in the next mission.  It's like I threw on a different helmet and jumped into the first tank I found in the parking lot.

Please BIS, don't destroy Armed Assault the way you did Operation Flashpoint by forcing people to play multiple characters.  Why bother exploring warfare from multiple angles, when everybody knows that being a peon with a rifle is the only way to fight?

It's a shame that BIS is taking the easy way out by making a military simulation for government sales, and also making a completely different, arcadey game for commercial sales, when they could have taken the much more difficult (but also more rewarding) route of making only a military simulation and offer slight variations of it to government and consumer buyers.  It's also a shame that the problem is so bad that everyone can identify the problem from nothing more than screenshots, video clips, and translated magazine articles.  There's no need for a demo--much less the final product--to realize that Armed Assault will betray everything BIS has put out so far.

P.S.  In the interests of realism, would you please implement a feature where the game becomes unplayable when the character dies the first time?  It really destroys the immersion for me when I die, but can start the mission over again.  This whole resurrection thing doesn't really happen in warfare, and having what amounts to infinite lives is an obvious attempt to appeal to the mainstream gamer.  Thanks!

[Metal Heart 0]

Quote[/b] ]Seems BIS need to have an option to lock/disable this feature just to shut some of you guys up. How can you really flame this idea without even playing a demo atleast?

Yes, it would be a really nice to hear from BIS that character switching is disableable. Right now, nobody knows if it's even optional in order to complete missions.

How can I 'flame' the idea? Because it's so "!"#%¤!% arcadey crap that I thought it was a joke first when I saw it on a screenshot, that's why.

[stegman 3]

...I thought it was so totally lame that I would play as Hammer in the Battle of Houdan and move in on the border zone, then play as Gastovski in the Interdiction mission to clear some tanks out of that border zone, and right after that play as Hammer in the Spearhead mission to overrun the border zone....  

...Who wants to be bothered with driving tanks, flying attack helicopters, and running covert ops in a wargame?

I kind of agree. It did feel dissjointed when you switched to the other roles. But I did like James' missions a lot.

What would have worked better would have been four seperate takes on the 1985 campaign, with a new campaign for each bloke.

And also;

Quote[/b] ]P.S. In the interests of realism, would you please implement a feature where the game becomes unplayable when the character dies the first time? It really destroys the immersion for me when I die, but can start the mission over again. This whole resurrection thing doesn't really happen in warfare, and having what amounts to infinite lives is an obvious attempt to appeal to the mainstream gamer. Thanks!

It's a game. If you want it to be that real join the Army.

Seriously though, what do you want; get shot and die in a mission and the game is no longer playable? Resulting in you having a game you can no longer play and youe virtual life on 'Sarah' being over?

It would be nice for you to be able to fail a mission but still move on the next one. But diying, come on..

[whisper 0]

The switching thing is a great opportunity for mission makers: i can't remember how many times someone (me included) opened a thread at the OFPEC asking if there's a way to change the player model and side, without anyone bitching and moaning about how many archadish such feature would have be but all praying for the day a script hero would had find a solution.

As for the SP campaign that will be part of ArmA, well, the SP campaign that came along with OFP was all but realistic altough i recognize it succeed to get the player in the "right mood". The best missions/campaigns we played in OFP was made by the community and i'm sure the same will happen for ArmA.

Try to think about the already mighty Abandoned Armies by Thobson with the switching thing.....

Klavan

The nail.

Its head.

You just hit it

The simple thing to do, and that they hopefully did :

Implement a script command :

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE"><unit> switchTo <unit>

As simple as that.

After that, it's all a matter of mission maker/scripter, optional, etc...

[ade_mcc 0]

Quote[/b] ]How can I 'flame' the idea? Because it's so "!"#%¤!% arcadey crap that I thought it was a joke first when I saw it on a screenshot, that's why.

If I was showcasing my game to a load of journalists and I wanted to show them as many features and different units in a short period of time, I would implement a switch player function for that very purpose. Someone videos it and it ends up on t'internet and suddenly its 'gospel'.

Absolutely no bearing on what may or may not be in the final game. Wait for a demo or official video at least.

[CsonkaPityu 0]

Klasodeth stop trolling, its not witty or funny. You're just being lame. If you saw a row of glittering golden coins, stars and a princess in the russian video you'd probably still be saying that you can't tell what those will be doing in the final release.

Point is that the char swapping crap was clearly shown in that tech demo, it's unmistakably there in it's most arcady form, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to read the line "you can later on in the mission switch to different characters" and then observe it happen in the video. If the main campaign is trash then yes, there are mods out there but i'd like a good, realistic campaign with ArmA.

[Metal Heart 0]

Quote[/b] ]If I was showcasing my game to a load of journalists...

...I wouldn't make it seem crap with some silly feature that wouldn't be in the final game.

[klasodeth 0]

...I thought it was so totally lame that I would play as Hammer in the Battle of Houdan and move in on the border zone, then play as Gastovski in the Interdiction mission to clear some tanks out of that border zone, and right after that play as Hammer in the Spearhead mission to overrun the border zone....  

...Who wants to be bothered with driving tanks, flying attack helicopters, and running covert ops in a wargame?

I kind of agree.  It did feel dissjointed when you switched to the other roles.  But I did like James' missions a lot.

What would have worked better would have been four seperate takes on the 1985 campaign, with a new campaign for each bloke.

And also;

Quote[/b] ]P.S.  In the interests of realism, would you please implement a feature where the game becomes unplayable when the character dies the first time?  It really destroys the immersion for me when I die, but can start the mission over again.  This whole resurrection thing doesn't really happen in warfare, and having what amounts to infinite lives is an obvious attempt to appeal to the mainstream gamer.  Thanks!

It's a game.  If you want it to be that real join the Army.

Seriously though, what do you want; get shot and die in a mission and the game is no longer playable?  Resulting in you having a game you can no longer play and youe virtual life on 'Sarah' being over?  

It would be nice for you to be able to fail a mission but still move on the next one. But diying, come on..

Well, the entirety of my previous post was sarcasm, but I do like the idea of a campaign that is not totally dependent on the player successfully completing each and every mission.  A branching campaign would be nice, or even better yet a dynamically campaign with procedurally generated missions based on the success or failure of the player.  But I'll gladly settle for a linear campaign, which is what we're probably going to get.

To a point I also agree with the idea of separate campaigns for each character, although I would prefer to make separate campaigns for air and tank missions and roll all the ground pounder characters all into one campaign.  This is where I like the concept of character-switching.  It would allow the creation of missions that do not require the player to sit around waiting for some other squad to do the fun stuff AND/OR require contrived situations that conveniently make the player the main focus of all the bad guys at all times.  While in-mission switching may take away from the effect of being in the head of a single soldier, I think it would still be more immersive than getting mad because no matter where I deploy my AI sniper, he still won't shoot that bad guy in the window.

As for the "die once and the game stops working" idea...

You don't like that?!  Well then, I guess you wouldn't buy the optional wireless "kill switch".  The transmitter plugs into any available USB port, and the player wears the receiver, which is embedded in a hat.  When the player dies, the kill signal is sent from the transmitter to the receiver, which then fires a steel dart into the player's head, killing him.  It has the benefit of real "life or death" consequences, making for the ultimate in combat simulation.  It would even carry the distinction of being even more dangerous than active combat duty.  At least real soldiers have the assurance of living through several weeks of boot camp before getting shot at.  Bad players could die in the first ten minutes of gameplay!  

[stegman 3]

As for the "die once and the game stops working" idea...

You don't like that?!  Well then, I guess you wouldn't buy the optional wireless "kill switch".  

Now that would be cool. That way only good players would be left for online playing!

Also how about a backpack/harness and thigh plates that vibrate and stimulate your muscles to simulate fatigue from running? eg, Have you ever noticed how you can sprint from one end of nogova to the other non-stop?

[NeMeSiS 11]

Have you ever noticed how you can sprint from one end of nogova to the other non-stop?

But after a minute you will run slower and cant aim, so i dont really see the problem?

[KaRRiLLioN 0]

As for the "die once and the game stops working" idea...

You don't like that?!  Well then, I guess you wouldn't buy the optional wireless "kill switch".  

Now that would be cool.  That way only good players would be left for online playing!

Also how about a backpack/harness and thigh plates that vibrate and stimulate your muscles to simulate fatigue from running?  eg,  Have you ever noticed how you can sprint from one end of nogova to the other non-stop?

The big problem I see to that is the market for Game 2 would be significantly smaller since I'm certain the player base for it would be wiped out within the first week after Arma was released.  I think a shock collar would work better.

If you get injured, it shocks you less, but if you catch a bullet in the head, it'll send a few extra thousand volts into you.  First, most of us will live through that, second, it'll improve those players who stick it out or make us all so cautions that we'll low crawl from one end of the island to the other just to prevent getting hurt.

Maybe even locational shock zones would work.  Just think of the punishment you could deal to a TK'er when everyone on the team shoots him repeatedly in the crotch.

Personally, after reading the latest article, I can't wait to see what kind of goodies I can implement in RTS3 with some of these new scripting commands, and I'm certain switching units will be one of them so you can change clothes, etc.

[stegman 3]

I played a Demo of Ten Hammers last night. As well as controlling two fire teams by switching from one to the other, you could also divide each fire team in to two two man teams (and also a M2A2). While i admit FSW is more arcadeish than OFP, it's still maintained emersion and atmospheric (if a little complex to command all those teams around).

At first i was appose to the character swapping but liked the idea of swapping unit models mid mission.

Now i think it might work quite well in both situations.

I'd like to try it out. Maybe they could release a demo featuring the swap option...

[sniper pilot 36]

i dont want some Xbox360 Battlefield 2: Modern combat version on our hands....please dont ruin Op Flash....

[Metal Heart 0]

Gotta love that name Sniper Pilot, clearly a realism freak

Anyway, don't worry, ArmA will kick the arses of everything else on the market. With or without character switching. Or what ever other features they might copy from Super Mario Bros and Sonic the Hedgehog games.

[DBR_ONIX 0]

Or what ever other features they might copy from Super Mario Bros and Sonic the Hedgehog games.

Hmm, jumping on enemies heads to kill them could be fun... Maybe this would be possible via the ninja-pogostick?

I'm amazed the ammount of, for lack of a better word, bitching that has arrised due to one small, completely unconfirmed, probobaly optional "feature", from an (AFAIK) completely unoficiall video.. See my point yet?

Really,it's not a big deal at all, and (more importantly) opens new scripting/addon posibilities.. I hope character switching is in the game, and can we all stop talking about it now?

Infact, my last comment on OFP's realism. Last night me and Codarl were playing OFP online, between the two of us, carrying only two MP5s, and an AT4 (with 3 rockets, first unrealistic thing), we took out around 40 enemy soldiers (In the port on Ocean Island), 3 or 4 BMPs (3 of which were taken out by grenades).. Tell me thats not arcadish (without lying)

And enough with the character-switching-killed-my-poor-baby-flashpoint rant please

- Ben