Weight impact

[Maximus_G 0]

I've done some physical training today )

Put the ammo stores on the south-Sahriani airport and made a couple of runs along the runway. First, i took an M9 pistol and ran. It took me 3 minutes 44 seconds.

Then i added an M136 launcher tube + full load of 6 rockets. OK almost everyone knows that M136 is a disposable thing and you would just throw the tube away when used and not try to reload it with something. So we should presume that each "M136 ammo" is a separate launcher. It's a big and heavy thing, definitely not equal to a couple of 30-round stanag magazines.

Anyway, 6 M136s would weight 40-45 kg.

So i took them...

"Run, Forrest, run!..."

.......3 minutes 44 seconds.

There is no weight influence on the people in game. No change in mobility at all! Acceleration, max speed and duration are the same.

Could we have it more realistic?

A man with a lone handgun would be more agile than a person with a machine-gun, not mentioning the case of having a bunch of AT-rockets in the pocket.

So we would make another step away from the rambo-style gameplay being more weight-wise.

Please?  

[Commando84 0]

i dont know i like it the way it is but if it could be made a mission or server side option to have it that way maybe it can be fun to try it out too sometimes

I just like it that you dont have to walk slowly crouched down when having the at weapon in your hands.

would be funny maybe a bunch of a.is using handguns only flanking you at twice the speed.

[dmarkwick 261]

I've done some physical training today )

Put the ammo stores on the south-Sahriani airport and made a couple of runs along the runway. First, i took an M9 pistol and ran. It took me 3 minutes 44 seconds.

Then i added an M136 launcher tube + full load of 6 rockets. OK almost everyone knows that M136 is a disposable thing and you would just throw the tube away when used and not try to reload it with something. So we should presume that each "M136 ammo" is a separate launcher. It's a big and heavy thing, definitely not equal to a couple of 30-round stanag magazines.

Anyway, 6 M136s would weight 40-45 kg.

So i took them...

"Run, Forrest, run!..."

.......3 minutes 44 seconds.

There is no weight influence on the people in game. No change in mobility at all! Acceleration, max speed and duration are the same.

Could we have it more realistic?

A man with a lone handgun would be more agile than a person with a machine-gun, not mentioning the case of having a bunch of AT-rockets in the pocket.

So we would make another step away from the rambo-style gameplay being more weight-wise.

Please?

Yep good call.

Every item should have some weight penalty, including stuff that gets loaded onto vehicles, whether in crates or not. Might not make too much difference to some vehicles but a jeep would suffer.

I'd be in favour of incuberance penalties too for bulky or awkward objects. Like levels of noise, abilities to climb etc.

[Col. Faulkner 0]

But you'd also need to accommodate the differences between

people so "fitness" becomes a significant factor in

effectiveness. By the same token you'd really need to add

some kind of "morale" or "motivation" factor. I think I've

already said elsewhere that tabletop wargames have been

including these factors for years already. It's remarkable that

something like Arma doesn't really have it.

[neswrossi 0]

This might be possible to implement with a script.

Depending on the amount of items you have (and their weight) you can only Walk, Jog, or Sprint. And if you have too much you stay prone lol.

[dmarkwick 261]

But you'd also need to accommodate the differences between

people so "fitness" becomes a significant factor in

effectiveness. By the same token you'd really need to add

some kind of "morale" or "motivation" factor. I think I've

already said elsewhere that tabletop wargames have been

including these factors for years already. It's remarkable that

something like Arma doesn't really have it.

IM(H)O I think a level playing field of fitness would be OK. That is, all soldiers have the same level of fitness and it's purely the equipment that has an effect. To have different soldiers with different levels of fitness would be turning ArmA into an RPG which is inappropriate.

Again, IMHO

[Bad Pilot 0]

Fitness is taking it too far, unless we all had digital passports and the game replicated us as we are IRL. I'm a tall guy; it's always been a bit weird running around as short as the rest of you :P in-game.

Back to topic.., the lack of implications for carrying weight does impact on my own immersion and enjoyment of this game.

[Bingo 0]

Whilst weight-restrictions would make it more realistic it may cause friction when doing co-op. Who wants to be the AT guy or the huge Mofo of a maching gun guy if you're limping around at the back like a snail?

Nah, I want to be mobile!

[psycosmos 0]

Sounds like a kind of the "more weight=>slower soldier" idea is a part of VBS2 that's in development (and also exclusive to it):

Quote[/b] ]-Personal Inventory System (VBS2 only, under development)

The VBS1 inventory system (accessed by the map screen) has been replaced in VBS2 by realistic

load-carrying. A soldier can be ‘equipped’ in-game with items such as helmets and flak jackets.

The heavier a soldiers load the greater the rate at which the soldier fatigues

(important part made bold)

found in this pdf (Goggle Html Version).

Just informing...

[dmarkwick 261]

Whilst weight-restrictions would make it more realistic it may cause friction when doing co-op. Who wants to be the AT guy or the huge Mofo of a maching gun guy if you're limping around at the back like a snail?

Nah, I want to be mobile!

Yeah I can see how this would affect casual online gameplay, but for players who know each other or who are just teamwork-orientated it could work out OK. Not too many teams would wish to assault a defended position without covering fire from the machine gunner, and if that means waiting for him and securing his position then that's what happens. Same with the AT guys, they got an important job to do, and they need to do it pretty quick so teamwork is the thing there as well.

IMO, negating the weight penalties for the sake of online play is like pandering to the LCD (lowest common denominator), something I usually go against

But in any case it's only a minor thing that BIS may or may not implement, and I'm sure some modder will do it if he feels strongly enough about it.

[Wolfrug 0]

Hm. I never saw anywhere that people carrying more in a squad were somehow expected to walk any slower than people carrying less. Maybe our lieutenant was just a sadistic asshole, but wether you were carrying just your rifle and basic combat gear, or a mortar tube, a tent canvas, and a mine (made out of concrete, ouch for training! plus your rifle and gear, you were still expected to keep up. Actually doing it was a bit harder, but yeah. Point is : maybe the AT soldiers and the MG soldiers are simply badder mofos by default and can jog around as quick as any of the pansy-ass riflemen, or, alternatively, the pansy-ass riflemen are so used to keeping abreast with their slower cousins that they do it even when there's no-one around

I mean, your average forward observer carries a helluva lot of gear around that the rifles don't, but they're -still- supposed, even required, to keep up. And they do. They're just more bad-assed that way.

I think the point of it all is : I don't find it necessary to change speed depending on loudout, really. It'd be cool to get -tired- faster depending on loudout though! Which would limit the time and lenght one could sprint/crawl fast/do other tiring things.

Regards,

Wolfrug

[dmitri 0]

I'd like to see other simulated effects. Specific wounds. Ringing ears. Blurred vision after a grenade goes off at close range. We've got the graphics now, we need some work on the "simulation" side of things - features we haven't seen before that really set this apart from the BF2\casual FPS crowd.

[Second 0]

Hm. I never saw anywhere that people carrying more in a squad were somehow expected to walk any slower than people carrying less. Maybe our lieutenant was just a sadistic asshole, but wether you were carrying just your rifle and basic combat gear, or a mortar tube, a tent canvas, and a mine (made out of concrete, ouch for training! plus your rifle and gear, you were still expected to keep up. Actually doing it was a bit harder, but yeah. Point is : maybe the AT soldiers and the MG soldiers are simply badder mofos by default and can jog around as quick as any of the pansy-ass riflemen, or, alternatively, the pansy-ass riflemen are so used to keeping abreast with their slower cousins that they do it even when there's no-one around

I mean, your average forward observer carries a helluva lot of gear around that the rifles don't, but they're -still- supposed, even required, to keep up. And they do. They're just more bad-assed that way.

I think the point of it all is : I don't find it necessary to change speed depending on loudout, really. It'd be cool to get -tired- faster depending on loudout though! Which would limit the time and lenght one could sprint/crawl fast/do other tiring things.

Regards,

Wolfrug

Oh the times... This is the fact. Squads aren't/shouldn't be equiped so that some-one would be slowing down others because of his equipment. Individual who's carrying more that his team/squadmates just have to keep up with rest of them, and suffer from it later if his in bad shape, like too much vodka last night. When movement starts to get hamppered down because of the equipment we're talking about weights that usually come-along with some crewserved (heavy) weapons. And In ArmA those are moved by vehicles or can't be disasembled... Lucky bast*rds

Plus In ArmA there isn't a way like military usually deals with too-much-equipment or too-much-beer-last-night, which means that guys share loads: "I'll take that laucher" or "i'll take your LMG and you'll take my rifle"... Or that superiour let's his boot swing to that poor sucker's ass. Or well player can, but at the moment AI can't, it just leaves that slower guy to be left behind.

[Journeyman 0]

I think something like what is being suggested should be limited to the ability to 'sprint' only and the duration in which you could sprint. If it also affected the normal marching forwards speed of an individual in a squad this could cause problems with formations in AI as in MP and as someone just pointed out squads are supposed to keep formation IRL too regardless of individual loadouts.

[Col. Faulkner 0]

Fitness is taking it too far,

It wouldn't make it a Role Playing Game. It'd make it a more realistic wargame.

[Danbri 0]

Hidden&Dangerous 2 has a system that works really well for That game with "players" that have different stats.

[dmarkwick 261]

Hidden&Dangerous 2 has a system that works really well for That game with "players" that have different stats.

In H&D2 all anyone ever did was to identify the 4 best all-rounders with one or two good shots, and stick with those 4.

I think random attributes would be an unnecessary addition myself, there is after all an enormous number of available soldiers in ArmA, people will want to trawl the available good ones and kill off the poorer ones. It's in the nature of players and editors.

I still reckon a stable base fitness is the bast option, with penalties for equipment. Or no penalties for equipment, but still no individual attribute variation.

[dirtylarrygb 0]

Fitness is taking it too far,

It wouldn't make it a Role Playing Game. It'd make it a more realistic wargame.

Its about the only thing the Joint Op's series has over ARMA right now.

Even BF2 has a movement penalty for the machine gunners and those in combat armour over a guy with a M16 and a med kit.

Joint ops even had machine gunners able to sprint less far and for less time. i have no idea how hard this is to add to arma but it would add loads to the realism and be a pain in the butt as you will have to wait for your SAW squad member all the time.

[frederf 0]

Quote[/b] ]be a pain in the butt as you will have to wait for your SAW squad member all the time.

If you're using sprint as often as your post suggests, you're playing the game wrong. Take about 10 ridlin and don't use sprint for what it's not for.

[Madus_Maximus 0]

Joint Ops and BF2 are primarily MP based. If people ran slower based on their gear, like others have said, it'd mess up the AI formations and the like. Sticking to sprinting time and limiting it depending on load mass is the best idea, assuming such a thing is included. I'd like to see something like it to be honest, but ArmA is so vast that it'd mess game play up a hell of a lot if we had the H&D2 style "player stats". It works for that game because of the smaller scale and more story driven aspect of it. It's all condensed into relitively small area's and you actually "choose" a character to play. I can't see a system as in depth working well in ArmA, not as a standard feature at least. Maybe in specific missions or with specific server options, but hard coding it will just force players to choose the best all-rounders and ignore the rest.

[Maximus_G 0]

I think the point of it all is : I don't find it necessary to change speed depending on loudout, really. It'd be cool to get -tired- faster depending on loudout though! Which would limit the time and lenght one could sprint/crawl fast/do other tiring things.

Regards,

Wolfrug

You are right for sure. If we're talking about normal moving speed, it should be equal for everyone, for many reasons.

And i agree - IMHO, the "weight issue" should be basically about tiredness and recovery. More weight => you get tired faster and recover longer.

It would affect things like sprinting and aiming (when not recovered yet).

Anyway, i think if BIS would like to implement this all, they would do it correctly enough.

[dirtylarrygb 0]

Joint Ops and BF2 are primarily MP based. If people ran slower based on their gear, like others have said, it'd mess up the AI formations and the like. Sticking to sprinting time and limiting it depending on load mass is the best idea, assuming such a thing is included. I'd like to see something like it to be honest, but ArmA is so vast that it'd mess game play up a hell of a lot if we had the H&D2 style "player stats". It works for that game because of the smaller scale and more story driven aspect of it. It's all condensed into relitively small area's and you actually "choose" a character to play. I can't see a system as in depth working well in ArmA, not as a standard feature at least. Maybe in specific missions or with specific server options, but hard coding it will just force players to choose the best all-rounders and ignore the rest.

I agree to a point,

But in ARMA unlike most MP shooters, MG's work really well in ARMA. So unlike realife, a SAW users has a massive advantage over a guy who picks a pistol and knife.

Now either NERF the saw, like many other games do, like CS/BF make it horribly inaccurate and only good generally for making people duck. Or leave it as a killing machine like real life and have people using it, not jogging 2 miles and only being as tired as a guy carrying a water bottle.

This is a simulator and in FSX , a boeing 747 does not handle like a jet fighter.

[OrLoK 20]

lo all

I too think something has to be done about those Light Machine Guns.

They are far too powerful a weapon in game.

I often see people throwing themselves around in true rambo fashion with an LMG. Rather than using them as a support wpn.

I think it was Red Orchestra which made LMGs a joy to use (replacing hot barrels and having to set up the sticks/bipod)

I love them as weapons, but think that compared to other wpns ingame, they need alittle balancing.

my 2 pence

Rgds

LoK

[frederf 0]

lo all

I too think something has to be done about those Light Machine Guns.

They are far too powerful a weapon in game.

I often see people throwing themselves around in true rambo fashion with an LMG. Rather than using them as a support wpn.

I think it was Red Orchestra which made LMGs a joy to use (replacing hot barrels and having to set up the sticks/bipod)

I love them as weapons, but think that compared to other wpns ingame, they need alittle balancing.

my 2 pence

Rgds

LoK

As far as the BLUEFOR side goes, the only LMG in game is the M240, which is near impossible to rambo with. Ideally it should always go "weapon lowered" when in the standing position, it really is a huge gun and never be fireable like a rifle.

If you're referring to the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, then your "overpowered" cries fall on deaf ears. It's an automatic rifle and designed to be used as such. There's a reason the united states light infantry squad is based around it.

[Beagle 684]

My dear fellows

I spend quite the most of my military basic trainig as the squads machine gunner.

I carried it 20km a day, by night, on assaults, anytime.

I had to keep up in speed with the rest of the squad and I did.

They would not have assignend me as machinegunner if I were not able to do this.

Btw. speaking of a MG-3, a 11 kg Monster of a Machinegun.

So why not just pretend that your ArmA M-Gunner ist fitter than your average Riflemen.