Community: LOOK AT YOURSELVES!

[shinRaiden 0]

Add these to the list...

<span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>6. Baseless speculation :</span>

How about instead of auto-assuming that BIS is lying sacks of hooey like the rest of the industry, that we toss a coin and give them at least a 50/50 chance of telling the truth?

Case in point :

BIs announces that Multiple gunner positions will be supported ages ago. The community, with no knowledge of what BIS was doing, auto-assumes BIS is lying.

Incidental pictures are released and noted as not being representative of the final product, and showing obvious placeholders. General community interpretation is that not only is that the pictures do show final content, that it is also evidence of willful and deliberate leeching and extortion of VBS and OFP, despite protests to the contrary from VBS developers.

Other incidental pictures are released, intended to showcase other tech improvements, but not in anyway intended to comment on or showcase multiple turrets. Therefore we can clearly see that it is blatently obvious that BIS has no intentions whatsoever of honoring their promise of multiple turrets, because they weren't automagiclly displayed on all vehicles on day one when Armed Assault was announced. We all know that games aren't announced until they're all done, Games magically develop themselves overnight and the developers just sit on their arse for two years playing space invaders to avoid market saturation.

Or maybe, BIS has kept their promise, prioritized the development as appropiate, and only commented on the details of how multiple turrets are logically constructed because only now are they stabilized. I see a lot of enthusiasm for the announced information, but no apologies for the baseless accusations and sharp attacks founded on utterly baseless speculation.

<span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>7. Willful Ignorance :</span>

I'm going to try and put a mercy bullet in this rabies-infested beast, but I'm not sure that even nuclear disintegration on the molecular level is sufficent.

My primary beef is with the VBS=ArmA pundits. Do you know how VBS1 content is made? Obviously not. Do you know the BI relationship? Evidently not. Have you ever asked? My inbox is silent, and so are the public forums on the VBS Resources site.

There are several hundred significant engine functionality changes in VBS, not one of which to the best of my knowledge alters the rendering engine or content formats from the BI specifications for Resistance. The changes are limited to additional scripting commands, scripting related functionality, additional config parameters, and external functionality like HLA distributed simulation network code interfacing. The implementations, while functional, are either designed in such a way as to offer advanced capability for dynamic military training that would be entirely inappropiate in unregulated public gaming, or interim functionality patching in advance of a total system redesign in the next generation platform. Case in point is the VBS1 vs ArmA multiple turrets. There was a method added in VBS1 to make pseudo-multiple turrets. It is adequate enough for current customer requirements, but was only intended as a stop-gap for meeting immediate requirements until the next-generation platform becomes available.

There is no normal-map capability or HDR or all the other announced rendering engine functionality in VBS1. There never has, and I doubt there ever will be, in VBS1. VBS2 will be commented on as appropiate, when appropiate. While a lot of Resistance content has been ported to VBS, what's not apparent from mere screenshots is the significant amount of work that was involved in optimizing the textures and geometry based on lessons learned from OFP. Although optimized, they still remain prior generation content.

BIS has announced that prior generation content will be portable / upgradeable to some as-yet unannounced degree for the next generation platform. BIS has also announced that they will provide a Wiki and instructions. Yet I get the sense that there's a lot of unfounded doubting.

<span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>8. Senseless self-limitation :</span>

Here's where the realism part comes in. Is BIS trying to make a precisely realistic re-enactment of actual historical operations? That would be news to me. Last I checked it's all alternate reality fiction. So they can put in whatever suits their fancy. If the community wants to make historical reenactments, they're more than welcome to make the content needed.

See the problem is that a lot of you limit yourselves to only looking for and expecting a product. How much thought have you really given to the idea that an alternate perspective would be to look at BIS as shipping a platform, with some sample content to fritter away your time and get you psyched up to build on that platform.

Furthermore, imho it's rather unreasonable to expect that they'd provide a hyper-realistic representation of actual orders of battle. The playable entertainment is intended to be just that. Yes it's more mature than BF2 or Halo, but it's supposed to be entertainment, not simulation. Real war's not supposed to be fair much to the dismay of the liberal commie lotus eaters. But a 'fair' fight is so far the only practical way to drag out the scenario to make it entertaining. If you want realistic, you can in your own time make a map of Fallujah and make a mission that repeats the same house clearing drill over and over and over again in a weeklong realtime scenario. For business viability, how many BF2 kiddie customers is that going to attract?

Is the selection of equipment accurately reflective of certain real life current military units? No, does it need to be? I don't think so. It's a balanced variety. It's sufficent for the task at hand, and can be expanded on and added to for the whims of the community. I'd rather BIS focuses on tuning the platform to it's best, and leave the content mill to the community.

--------------------------------------

So that's my rant there. And I might as well drone on again with my warning to follow BIS's directions or shoot yourself in the foot when it comes to jumping the gun on next generation content development.

[scary 0]

Yes it is only a freakin game but OFP is unlike any that are on the shelves at this present time. The way this game is heading it's becoming one of those of the shelf games. Thats just how i see it that's all...

I think you may be missing the point. You do not know the way the game is heading, you are merely speculating, mostly by taking the words 'character switching' and completely ignoring the evidence attached to them.

Quote[/b] ]Oh and i visited the recruitment office over 15 years ago and i served in the Britsh armed forces so don't tell me i don't know what realism is...

The point i suggested that will make OFP the same as ArmAs was the fact when your AT squad mate gets shot you still have to get his AT weapon. Nothing to do with visuals that we've seen in the videos..

Pay more attention to the action in the videos and you will get some clues as to the functioning of the character switching, which appears to be very much different to your speculation.

Quote[/b] ]Refering to the statement about taking the AT weapon was because the AI wont get it so you have to. If in a squad the MG soldier is killed a rifleman has to pick the MG up so you have your suppressive fire ability-the same goes for the AT weapon.

The AI will get it if you tell them to, and you have no idea whether or not the AI in ArmA will do it without you needing to tell them. It doesn't change the fact that you wouldn't go looking for weapons on the battlefield. You would take them if you know they are there and have a reasonable chance of getting them, or you would leave them.

Now, excuse me while I get back to my dinner.

[Friedchiken 0]

But a 'fair' fight is so far the only practical way to drag out the scenario to make it entertaining. If you want realistic, you can in your own time make a map of Fallujah and make a mission that repeats the same house clearing drill over and over and over again in a weeklong realtime scenario. For business viability, how many BF2 kiddie customers is that going to attract?

You know, you are absolutely right about creating a game. If I just relax my own personal expectations about AA's ORBAT (do to my student interest in the subject), I would also enjoy playing a relaxed shoot-em-up assault scenarios that were well enjoyed in OFP.

Well, I hope someone has the time and insanity to make an entire campaign about a week-long Fallujah type of scenario. If not, hopefully I can lay out buildings that are enterable and start placing random enemies for fun.

[Journeyman 0]

Nice post shinRaider! You missed something though:

<span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>9. Tunnel vision :</span>

Most people who are whining in these forums have this age-old problem of only seeing what they want to see and only hearing what they want to hear. The ability to take in the broader picture does not come easy for some, and having to believe that this video is old or that screenie is WIP cannot be comprehended. Understanding that ArmA is a above all a game for entertainment of a cross section of war sim fanatics and not just for dedicated realism perfectionists also deludes many! ArmA is a game that has to fulfil many different peoples expectations of entertainment vs reality. ArmA has to be challenging but above all needs to be fun! It's a war game! Ask anyone whose ever fought in a war if it was fun! So it is a balance between reality and entertainment! Total reality cannot be achieved in a PC game ......see the bigger picture!  

[Friedchiken 0]

I'm just going to be grateful that I can't contract PTSD from Armed Assault.

That would really interfere with college studying.

[sanctuary 19]

The community, with no knowledge of what BIS was doing, auto-assumes BIS is lying.

How about you all using this "community want this"... "community say this" etc ... get some perspectives and stop assimilating 8 or 9 people from this forum own opinion to a whole community wish/rant/whatever.

"vocal" people is never equal to "all" the people

[klasodeth 0]

This is a direct quote from the review.

Quote[/b] ]This is where another new feature comes into play. In the original OFP death would mean the end of the mission. ArmA, on the other hand, takes the death cam around to the next in command and you enter his boots to continue the battle. This is something any Rainbow Six player should be familiar with.

The "playable" character is for switching soldiers, not the soldier you jump into upon your death.

OK, you got me there.  I don't mind the idea of being able to switch between different characters within a mission, but I don't like the idea of having multiple lives.  If they're going to do something to make the game more accessible, I'd rather see a more forgiving save system than the whole multiple lives thing.  Then again, if they do implement the whole multiple lives feature, my perfectionist streak will still prevent me from accepting a dozen casualties just to get the mission done.  Multiple lives is annoying, but not a deal breaker for me.

By the way, Mr Reality, I very much appreciate the fact that you didn't jump straight down my throat when you caught my mistake.  I never have a problem with being wrong in the face of a rational argument.  

[Garcia 0]

Quote[/b] ]The only in-game footage of character switching that we have seen shows switching to units in a completely different squad on different parts of the battlefield, each with their own mission objectives to complete. Again, judging from the information available, no you will not be able to switch to the tank gunner to take out the tank that is pinning down your infantryman. You will be able to switch in order to attempt to complete the objectives of the unit you have just switched into

Umm, well then you should watch some more movies. I've got a movie right here on my HDD where you can see a guy at E3 playing a mission. He can switch whenever he wants to between a sniper, a tank gunner and a squad leader. The squad leader starts a bit out of a town, the tank starts a bit out of the same town, and the sniper is on a hilltop a bit from the town. They all got the same objective, to take the town. You can actually see the squad your leading when you're controlling the tank gunner.

[raedor 8]

The community, with no knowledge of what BIS was doing, auto-assumes BIS is lying.

How about you all using this "community want this"... "community say this" etc ... get some perspectives and stop assimilating 8 or 9 people from this forum own opinion to a whole community wish/rant/whatever.

"vocal" people is never equal to "all" the people

Good point, it is not the whole part of the community; but there are still many people complaining. So when he reformulates to "Many people, with no knowledge of what BIS was doing, auto-assumes BIS is lying." it is correct.

[shinRaiden 0]

The community, with no knowledge of what BIS was doing, auto-assumes BIS is lying.

How about you all using this "community want this"... "community say this" etc ... get some perspectives and stop assimilating 8 or 9 people from this forum own opinion to a whole community wish/rant/whatever.

"vocal" people is never equal to "all" the people

Good point, it is not the whole part of the community; but there are still many people complaining. So when he reformulates to "Many people, with no knowledge of what BIS was doing, auto-assumes BIS is lying." it is correct.

Painting myself with the same broad brush of "the community" as is appropiate, it's just as easy for me to draw conclusions of my own determination as it is for anyone else. Where speculation gets you into trouble is where you maintain old assumptions and bias, layer those over limited knowledge of new scenarios, and derive a position based strictly on those assumptions, ignorant of reality.

It's as easy for me to do that as it is for you. I can pull one early pic out, point to one model, and declare with absolute conviction that not only does the model not have multiple turrets, but it is plainly clear and obviously self-evident that BIS is sending a clear and deliberate message that there will not be multiple turret support in the engine.

An even more poignent example would be the fact how that while everyone has been either praising, nitpicking, or speculating about the new trees, there has only been a couple incidental posts about the lack of forests. Interesting irony of not being able to see the forests for the trees.

Furthermore, there was some concern that the MapFact discussion did not adequately address the various concerns many content developers have. Although I was not there, my understanding is that the discussion was not so much about the implementation of content, as it was more on the organization and logic of the content. It would be counter-productive in many regards for BIS to focus on the implementation, the community has proved itself amply capable of delivering in the past.

I do look at the various comments subsequent to the various image postings. I do try to put myself in other people's shoes, and I can see how various assumptions can be reinforced by the inadvertant presence or lack of a particular item of interest to the individual. All that I can properly respond to that is don't you the community determine the limits, let the bounds-setting remain with BIS to decide. Sometimes the answer is not yes or no, it's 42. The problem with thinking outside the box is you're still using the box as a reference point.

As a relevant aside, professional customers who use games as part of serious games initiatives don't expect developers to ship products that meet their total requirements. They expect that the developers will ship a platform that their communities will expand to meet the interests of their communities.

I'm not looking to throw stones, or target anyone specificly or genericly. All I'm saying is put it on pause for a second, step back, think about how stuff get's developed, think about all of BIS's audiences, think about what BIS is trying to say with the image, and discuss those ideas with others. I'm not going to guess what's in your mind, good luck guessing what's in mine, and let's let BIS be BIS and suprise us all as they do so well.

[Ukraineboy 0]

Nowadays AT weapons are so good that tanks are pretty vulnerable to infantry in the right terrain. Tanks are good support for infantry and they can withstand nukes thats why they are still around.

Wrong. OFP had a shitty health system where enough grenades would kill a tank. M1 Abrams, and any Russian tank with ERA, are basically invincible to HEAT rounds because of their armor designs (ERA nullifies the penetrating force of the HEAT round while Chobham armour burns the HEAT round away). There are cases where a single T-72 with ERA managed to survive something like 15 simultenous RPG hits. Right now, the only thing Infantry can do to even do anything to a tank is detrack it. Or, if they have a real dedicated ATGM such as an AT-14 Kornet, or whatever, then maybe. But hand-held AT weapons, like the RPG and LAW cant do that much to a tank.

[Uziyahu--IDF 0]

Uh, there was a case of an M1 Abrams rendered inoperable by some kind of mysterios spike that DID penetrate the armor. Armor always has its "chinks", just as Achilles had his heel.

It is true that you shouldn't be able to destroy an M1 with enough 5.56mm NATO, but you could probably render it immobile with enough .50 BMG fire.

As for getting players to fear for their lives in a computer game, the way to do it is to make the game an RPG. Few players want to give up the rank and skill gained from days and days of using a single character.

The careless players would die stupidly, just as many human beings do.

[Ukraineboy 0]

Uh, there was a case of an M1 Abrams rendered inoperable by some kind of mysterios spike that DID penetrate the armor. Armor always has its "chinks", just as Achilles had his heel.

Inoperable, not destroyed. Thats my point. You might be able to detrack and immobilize it, but not destroy it and kill the crew.

[Talyn 33]

As for getting players to fear for their lives in a computer game, the way to do it is to make the game an RPG. Few players want to give up the rank and skill gained from days and days of using a single character.

Unfortunately that also encourages the use of cheats in an online game.

[Cifu 0]

Uh, there was a case of an M1 Abrams rendered inoperable by some kind of mysterios spike that DID penetrate the armor. Armor always has its "chinks", just as Achilles had his heel.

Inoperable, not destroyed. Thats my point. You might be able to detrack and immobilize it, but not destroy it and kill the crew.

In this case we want such tank simulation like the Steel Beasts Pro PE? And then such aerial simulation like Lock-On: Flaming Cliffs? And such maritime simulation like Dangerous Waters? And more precise infantry simulation with weapon jams, richochet, fully disassemble of the weapons, even cleaning them, etc.?

I really like such a game. But lets remain to reality. The ArmA is a popularity oriented game, as a tactical game can be. If you want a good tank simulator, you need to buy the Steel Beasts Pro PE. If you want a true fighter simulator, i need to buy the Flaming Cliffs. If you want a decent maritime warfare simulator, you need to buy the Dangerous Waters.

Until we wont create a game, wich include a full allaround battlefield simulation experience.

[Friedchiken 0]

Well, if anyone remembers Seal Team, there could be a fun difficulty option for crazy people where if you die, your savegame becomes a shadow, and you can't load it anymore.

Now, Seal Team's system was easily cheated by just shutting off the game before your death was logged, but I joke that such a system could be a fun extra for people fond of "iron-man" type gameplay.

Even though such systems are infinitely cheatable, they are fun in the way that you are just a little more careful of where you run.

[scary 0]

Umm, well then you should watch some more movies. I've got a movie right here on my HDD where you can see a guy at E3 playing a mission.

Umm, well you've got exactly the same movie as everyone else and you should pay more attention to it.

Quote[/b] ]He can switch whenever he wants to

He is playing the battle for Somato mission. We have seen the briefing for that mission, it states quite clearly that:

At a later stage you can switch to other supporting units and play as sniper or tank gunner

so he has either already got to 'a later stage' - whether that is a time period in the mission or after the mission has been completed in one role, we don't yet know - or, as he is using a development version, he may be able to do whatever the hell he likes. Whatever 'a later stage' it is clear that it is a function a mission designer can turn on if and when they like. It also stands to reason that if they can turn it on, they can turn it off too, whenever they like.

Quote[/b] ]between a sniper, a tank gunner and a squad leader.

Sniper, tank gunner and rifleman actually, not squad leader.

Quote[/b] ]The squad leader starts a bit out of a town, the tank starts a bit out of the same town, and the sniper is on a hilltop a bit from the town.

The rifleman starts from the south of the town, along with two other squads, the tank starts from the west of the town and the sniper is on a hill to the north of the town.

Quote[/b] ]They all got the same objective, to take the town.

Well seeing as they are all involved in the same assault obviously they will all have the same ultimate objective, which is to seize and hold the city. That doesn't change the fact that each has their own space on the battlefield, their own role and their own individual objectives. Neither the tank gunner or the sniper is likely to have the role of 'cover soldier A'.

The tank gunner is being driven around the battlefield according to where the AI commander decides to go, and fires on the targets assigned by the same AI commander. The tanks main role is likely to be anti-armour, with a secondary role of groups of infantry. The gunner has very little control over any aspect of the tank and will be far more interested in keeping the tank operational to be involved in anything such as:

Quote[/b] ]So now instead of trying to find that AT weapon all by yourself in the field of battle you now just have to switch to the tank gunner and hey-presto the tank is dead, now i'll just switch back to my squad soldier coz i've got rid of that peskie tank.

The rifleman (still not a squad leader) is himself being given orders by the real squad leader, and will likely have the primary role of taking out small pockets of infantry, embedded infantry and any of the other targets a tank would find difficult to engage. And also has to try and stay alive.

The sniper will likely be kept busy mopping up fleeing soldiers and taking out threats to the infantry and armour. And staying alive.

Each unit combines to create a much more realistic battlefield than ever existed in Opf.

Quote[/b] ]You can actually see the squad your leading when you're controlling the tank gunner.

When you are the tank gunner, you are the tank gunner. Everyone else on the field is AI. And no you can't see the squad he was a rifleman in when he switches to the gunner. The only time you can see the other playable characters is toward the end, when they have exited the north side of the town.

Some people seem to have completely missed the point about the entirely optional character switching. To quote the IDEA rep at E3

"It's not about one soldier. It's about the mission; the role you have to play".

At the same time, I think those same people have also forgotten what Opf was: a tactical simulator, not a fps. It also had character switching, just in between missions rather than mid-mission.

[mr reality 0]

At the same time, I think those same people have also forgotten what Opf was: a tactical simulator, not a fps. It also had character switching, just in between missions rather than mid-mission.

I do agree with what your saying but my only concern was that i didn't like character switching in OFP and ArmAs has taken it to a new level. That's just my personal thought on the switching part as for me it takes away the immersion in the campaign. Many people will like this new feature and i can live with that.

I prefer to be a soldier in a squad and not the commander, but i accept for the game-play you need to switch so you have differant weapons and vehicles at your disposal. I'm a little too realistic for my own good....

[Ukraineboy 0]

At the same time, I think those same people have also forgotten what Opf was: a tactical simulator, not a fps. It also had character switching, just in between missions rather than mid-mission.

I do agree with what your saying but my only concern was that i didn't like character switching in OFP and ArmAs has taken it to a new level. That's just my personal thought on the switching part as for me it takes away the immersion in the campaign. Many people will like this new feature and i can live with that.

I prefer to be a soldier in a squad and not the commander, but i accept for the game-play you need to switch so you have differant weapons and vehicles at your disposal. I'm a little too realistic for my own good....

Then don't use it. Problem solved.

[codarl 1]

At the same time, I think those same people have also forgotten what Opf was: a tactical simulator, not a fps. It also had character switching, just in between missions rather than mid-mission.

I do agree with what your saying but my only concern was that i didn't like character switching in OFP and ArmAs has taken it to a new level. That's just my personal thought on the switching part as for me it takes away the immersion in the campaign. Many people will like this new feature and i can live with that.

I prefer to be a soldier in a squad and not the commander, but i accept for the game-play you need to switch so you have differant weapons and vehicles at your disposal. I'm a little too realistic for my own good....

Then don't use it. Problem solved.

quoted for truth, and this goes for about all other options Bis implemented (CQB style aiming, etc).

The only change that I see you're actually bound to is the more solid collision detection ; everything else can be disabled/reverted

Oh, and about the immersion thing: remember what we saw whas most likely a singleplayer mission a-la Ambush. if Bis wants to include this in their campaign then most likely I'll ignore the offer, but try it on the second attempt or something;.

[CameronMcDonald 146]

Hear, hear!

[Journeyman 0]

Hear, hear!

... Nice post!       

[CameronMcDonald 146]

Same to you too, clown.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Play nice.

[meyamoti 0]

*gets out a leather belt* Whose first?

Yeah..cheating is a big issue nowadays..of course you look at games that are cheated and they have what? Ranks,you get rid of the ranks then nobody would want to cheat because they have nothing to cheat for,other than of couse being a sore looser and having to absolutely win a round.