Some ?s before I buy ArmA in U.S....

[Kyle_K_ski 1]

Wow.

I thought that with all of this "extended development time" that BIS has had since they've first released the game that they would have better addressed some of the poor AI capabilities that I've read about. Especially since, in my own humble opinion, all of this extra time is being paid for by hardcore OFP fans who have purchased a title that should have sat in development for a good while longer than it did.

I didn't pay as much attention to the bug reports because my primary point of aggravation with OFP has always been the AI.

Quote[/b] ]BIS should, in my opinion, spend a lot of time getting the AI to act believably rather than relying on super human reactions to balance AI with humans, once most of the bugs are out of the way.

This statement perfectly summarizes the sad state of the vast majority of first person shooters when it comes to how they devise their AI.

Without question, I'd much rather give up "state of the art" graphics and gain instead state of the art AI. One is definitely more satisfying than the other when it comes to gameplay, and this same element without question also extends the life and replayability of a title, but of course I'm speaking from my own perspective, many gamers seem to primarily focus on graphics, and that's quite shortsighted.

Of course, perhaps we're only being told by the gaming industry that all we players care about are the graphics as some form of lame excuse for sub-par gameplay, because it's been my experience that game after game, their forums are filled with threads that criticize AI and game design.

About the only graphics glitch that's raised the hair on the back of the neck is the fact that players are still being forced to suffer with clipping issues. OFP was the only title that I've ever played that was so badly plagued with that bug, and I'm just floored that it's still present in ArmA.

Honestly, after reading what I have so far, about the only thing that'll draw me to ArmA is the next incarnation of SLX. For those of you that haven't tried it yet, please do yourself a [/b]huge favor by giving OFP a try with it installed. It really amplifies everything that was good already with OFP and then adds features that it sorely needed. The AI is much more cunning and ruthless, and the use of suppression fire is an immediate "classic" feature that you'll probably want in every game you'll ever play again.

I'm happy to hear that there are some community members who are already hard at work making a mod that integrates suppressing fire into the game, but that will only go so far with AI that seems to avoid using cover due to ArmA's poor collision detection. Aye carumba, from what's being said here, ArmA sounds like a inexplicable schizophrenic to me.

I just keeping looking at the list of negative responses to my list of questions, and it just baffles me. After all, didn't the completely scripted railshooter Call of Duty integrate leaning AI into their game years ago now?

I'm not going to pretend that I know even a fraction of anything regarding the complexities of AI programming, but isn't it possible to have OFP's/ArmA's AI shift their "open range/MOUT" procedures to one of "close quarter battle" whenever they get within 200 m. of any village-like or larger community, or to have it turned on when they cross a trigger/marker that's assignable in the editor? Whenever they'd get into such an environment, they'd keep their bodies 0.5-1.0 m. away from walls to help avoid ricochets, and whenever an edge was detected, they would lean to scan for enemies, and then take another step out before leaning out again to check around the corner? If the lean/step combination was randomly assigned to a number of checks (somewhere between 1-4 times) before they'd move en masse around a corner then that degree of unpredictability in the AI's behavior would greatly enhance the replayability of any mission. By limiting when the AI would enter the more demanding CQB procedure one boosts the performance of the game in general while giving a much more immersing experience.

How well is ballistic penetration integrated into the game? For example, if a target is seeking cover/concealment in a standardly constructed building, and they're shot at by someone using 7.62 rounds then those rounds should penetrate the walls and still deliver some serious damage to said target, armored or not.

I miss my days of online playing the Infiltration total conversion for the original Unreal Tournament. While said TC did not have vehicles implemented, it didn't "need" them either, as it was just a brutal assessment of one player's skill against another's while using the most accurate infantry "simulator" yet made. Me cry now for the good old days of having a cable connection...

I'm grateful that I made this post and the number of responses that it's getting, and I hope that it's proving to be an insightful read for those who are in a position similar to mine.

[dirtylarrygb 0]

Wow.

I thought that with all of this "extended development time" that BIS has had since they've first released the game that they would have better addressed some of the poor AI capabilities that I've read about. Especially since, in my own humble opinion, all of this extra time is being paid for by hardcore OFP fans who have purchased a title that should have sat in development for a good while longer than it did.

I didn't pay as much attention to the bug reports because my primary point of aggravation with OFP has always been the AI.

Quote[/b] ]BIS should, in my opinion, spend a lot of time getting the AI to act believably rather than relying on super human reactions to balance AI with humans, once most of the bugs are out of the way.

This statement perfectly summarizes the sad state of the vast majority of first person shooters when it comes to how they devise their AI.

Without question, I'd much rather give up "state of the art" graphics and gain instead state of the art AI. One is definitely more satisfying than the other when it comes to gameplay, and this same element without question also extends the life and replayability of a title, but of course I'm speaking from my own perspective, many gamers seem to primarily focus on graphics, and that's quite shortsighted.

Of course, perhaps we're only being told by the gaming industry that all we players care about are the graphics as some form of lame excuse for sub-par gameplay, because it's been my experience that game after game, their forums are filled with threads that criticize AI and game design.

About the only graphics glitch that's raised the hair on the back of the neck is the fact that players are still being forced to suffer with clipping issues. OFP was the only title that I've ever played that was so badly plagued with that bug, and I'm just floored that it's still present in ArmA.

Honestly, after reading what I have so far, about the only thing that'll draw me to ArmA is the next incarnation of SLX. For those of you that haven't tried it yet, please do yourself a [/b]huge favor by giving OFP a try with it installed. It really amplifies everything that was good already with OFP and then adds features that it sorely needed. The AI is much more cunning and ruthless, and the use of suppression fire is an immediate "classic" feature that you'll probably want in every game you'll ever play again.

I'm happy to hear that there are some community members who are already hard at work making a mod that integrates suppressing fire into the game, but that will only go so far with AI that seems to avoid using cover due to ArmA's poor collision detection. Aye carumba, from what's being said here, ArmA sounds like a inexplicable schizophrenic to me.

I just keeping looking at the list of negative responses to my list of questions, and it just baffles me. After all, didn't the completely scripted railshooter Call of Duty integrate leaning AI into their game years ago now?

I'm not going to pretend that I know even a fraction of anything regarding the complexities of AI programming, but isn't it possible to have OFP's/ArmA's AI shift their "open range/MOUT" procedures to one of "close quarter battle" whenever they get within 200 m. of any village-like or larger community, or to have it turned on when they cross a trigger/marker that's assignable in the editor? Whenever they'd get into such an environment, they'd keep their bodies 0.5-1.0 m. away from walls to help avoid ricochets, and whenever an edge was detected, they would lean to scan for enemies, and then take another step out before leaning out again to check around the corner? If the lean/step combination was randomly assigned to a number of checks (somewhere between 1-4 times) before they'd move en masse around a corner then that degree of unpredictability in the AI's behavior would greatly enhance the replayability of any mission. By limiting when the AI would enter the more demanding CQB procedure one boosts the performance of the game in general while giving a much more immersing experience.

How well is ballistic penetration integrated into the game? For example, if a target is seeking cover/concealment in a standardly constructed building, and they're shot at by someone using 7.62 rounds then those rounds should penetrate the walls and still deliver some serious damage to said target, armored or not.

I miss my days of online playing the Infiltration total conversion for the original Unreal Tournament. While said TC did not have vehicles implemented, it didn't "need" them either, as it was just a brutal assessment of one player's skill against another's while using the most accurate infantry "simulator" yet made. Me cry now for the good old days of having a cable connection...

I'm grateful that I made this post and the number of responses that it's getting, and I hope that it's proving to be an insightful read for those who are in a position similar to mine.

Your right karl, Ai in games needs massive development and improvement.

but then is it needed?

Multiplayer get rounds this issue as Human player prove to be either cannon fodder or cunning swines sniping you for 1.5 km's.

Bless BIH for not just dropping SP like EA DICE have amd Novalogic and making ARMA purely MP.

The same goes for RTS games even the best AI is never as smart as a human, you can find patterns then defeat AI in any RTS given time. Humans adapt, Ai code currently doesn't and would probably need HUGE cpu power.

Simply put Human players in games are like Cylons from battlestar galactica, they die learn and (generally) improve. No game has yet shown adaptive learning AI.

Human players also have emotions and will hunt down and traget the guy who killed them, even ignoring other targets.

Almost all AI in any game has issues with pathfinding let alone getting grumpy then hunting down a player who just killed them.

[Panzeh 0]

The reason the AI avoids objects is so that it doesn't get stuck.

It is nearly impossible to create an AI behavior that finds cover and uses it without being told precisely where the cover is(which is what's done in most FPSs).

As with the OFP AI, the Arma AI is much, much better in the open than in any kind of city or village. From my experience leading AI squads and using AI in this game the worst thing you can do with the bots is use them as infantry in cities. It's better to keep them in vehicles where it's safe and they can scram.

This isn't to say they're totally useless. They do have good aim, particularly at the close ranges of CQB and decent reaction times.

In order to make them good at CQB you'd pretty much have to either pre-script them paths close to buildings, walls, and other cover or spend a LOT of cpu cycles trying to convince them to do it heuristically.

[4 IN 1 0]

here is my idea for a perfect "AI":

plug a human head into your computer(and i dont care how you do that)

sounds nonsence? thats what i think when i hear these "extended development time" bollocks

[4 IN 1 0]

The reason the AI avoids objects is so that it doesn't get stuck.

It is nearly impossible to create an AI behavior that finds cover and uses it without being told precisely where the cover is(which is what's done in most FPSs).

As with the OFP AI, the Arma AI is much, much better in the open than in any kind of city or village.  From my experience leading AI squads and using AI in this game the worst thing you can do with the bots is use them as infantry in cities.  It's better to keep them in vehicles where it's safe and they can scram.

This isn't to say they're totally useless.  They do have good aim, particularly at the close ranges of CQB and decent reaction times.  

In order to make them good at CQB you'd pretty much have to either pre-script them paths close to buildings, walls, and other cover or spend a LOT of cpu cycles trying to convince them to do it heuristically.

the main problem of your squad AI is that it always try to keep in that fixed point in your formation instead of fellowing your path, same for the AI as most of the time you only need the squad leader to lead the way while others fellowing him and cover his arse

[NeMeSiS 11]

Quote[/b] ]BIS should, in my opinion, spend a lot of time getting the AI to act believably rather than relying on super human reactions to balance AI with humans, once most of the bugs are out of the way.  

This statement perfectly summarizes the sad state of the vast majority of first person shooters when it comes to how they devise their AI.

Explain their superpowers, i really havent seen any and i play at least 90% SP, if i ever play MP its coop so i would have noticed some kind of superpowers.

If you are talking about their shooting skills: Fixed with changing just 1 value, but im not going to explain that again because i already did that 70 times before and you people just want to say the same things over and over again without any knowledge or research.

But even without changing that value their shooting skills are more or less as good as any experienced ArmA player, they usually need 1-3 shots to take someone down on 300m distance when they are lying on the ground and their knowsabout you is at the max value, which is quite comparable to what most experienced humans can do ingame.

(I prefer a bit less perfect shooting AI and reconfigured the dispersion for longer firefights and IMO BI should change the default values too.)

The AI itself is quite impressive compared to other games (AI ALWAYS sucks compared to RL), AI squads not only give orders within their groups but now also cover eachother when advancing in an open area without other cover (when there is cover they crawl in a bush instead), we still got 4 useable behaviour modes (+1 which is only usefull for mission editors in certain cases), and all the other things i mentioned at least 70 times before.

The only thing the AI really lacks is the capabality to make decisions, right now they act like women sometimes and they sometimes have problems deciding if (for example) they want to lay on the ground or stand up so they change between both every 2 steps (yeah, quite rare but still hapens every once in a while). Their pathfinding is quite lacking but at least they can plan paths, in games like BF1942 they always run on predefined paths or the maps are so small that the AI can barely move anyway.

[MBot 0]

Your right karl,  Ai in games needs massive development and improvement.

but then is it needed?

Multiplayer get rounds this issue as Human player prove to be either cannon fodder or cunning swines sniping you for 1.5 km's.

Bless BIH for not just dropping SP like EA DICE have amd Novalogic and making ARMA purely MP.

I think that MP will never substitute for good AI, as human players simply can't take up all roles in a game with the same professionalism and discipline that the AI potentialy can.

After getting fustrated by SP I have been playing MP for the past few weaks, searching for the "ArmA is all about MP" expierience that I have heard so many times about. In those many hours I had a hard time finding some good gameplay.

First the vast majority of MP games are still coops, so AI obviously still plays a large role here. In those massvie coops that are very popular right now, the real challange is to organise logistics. There is lot of waiting involved, lots of driving around and almost zero teamwork. The combat itselfe is mostly about hunting AIs that are lieing on streets or walk around a bit. The only true challange they provide are their shooting skills. Additionaly there is the massive fustration caused by thousands of idiot *human* players that try to spoil the fun for everyone else ( teamkilling, destroying vehicles ).

I also seeked some good player vs. player action, but I couldn't realy find it. All I found are CTF and BF2 style fragfests with almost zero teamwork involved. Of course this can be fun, but other games - dedicated to that style of play - do a lot better job at it. Thats not why I brought ArmA.

I have not found a place where there is good and tactical team vs. team action. Someone will say "join a squad" now. That can't be the solution. Playing in a squad takes up massive amount of time, you have to make trainings to learn ( or teach ) the tactics, make apointments days ahead so everyone has time etc. You can't simply load up the game and have fun with a team of professionals against a enemy of professionals. Plus I am already involved in a Lock On squad and simply have no time to enter a dozen of squads/clands/etc for all games that have no decent AI.

So as a conclusion and to come to a point I think that MP can be a aspect of a game, but will never replace the options singleplayer and a good AI can provide. Especialy for a game like ArmA that calls itselfe a realistic combat game/simulator, AI provides the professialism that a all-human MP session will never have ( well, if the AI would be decent that is ).

[Animal-22 0]

Your right karl,  Ai in games needs massive development and improvement.

but then is it needed?

Multiplayer get rounds this issue as Human player prove to be either cannon fodder or cunning swines sniping you for 1.5 km's.

Bless BIH for not just dropping SP like EA DICE have amd Novalogic and making ARMA purely MP.

I think that MP will never substitute for good AI, as human players simply can't take up all roles in a game with the same professionalism and discipline that the AI potentialy can.

After getting fustrated by SP I have been playing MP for the past few weaks, searching for the "ArmA is all about MP" expierience that I have heard so many times about. In those many hours I had a hard time finding some good gameplay.

First the vast majority of MP games are still coops, so AI obviously still plays a large role here. In those massvie coops that are very popular right now, the real challange is to organise logistics. There is lot of waiting involved, lots of driving around and almost zero teamwork. The combat itselfe is mostly about hunting AIs that are lieing on streets or walk around a bit. The only true challange they provide are their shooting skills. Additionaly there is the massive fustration caused by thousands of idiot *human* players that try to spoil the fun for everyone else ( teamkilling, destroying vehicles ).

I also seeked some good player vs. player action, but I couldn't realy find it. All I found are CTF and BF2 style fragfests with almost zero teamwork involved. Of course this can be fun, but other games - dedicated to that style of play - do a lot better job at it. Thats not why I brought ArmA.

I have not found a place where there is good and tactical team vs. team action. Someone will say "join a squad" now. That can't be the solution. Playing in a squad takes up massive amount of time, you have to make trainings to learn ( or teach ) the tactics, make apointments days ahead so everyone has time etc. You can't simply load up the game and have fun with a team of professionals against a enemy of professionals. Plus I am already involved in a Lock On squad and simply have no time to enter a dozen of squads/clands/etc for all games that have no decent AI.

So as a conclusion and to come to a point I think that MP can be a aspect of a game, but will never replace the options singleplayer and a good AI can provide. Especialy for a game like ArmA that calls itselfe a realistic combat game/simulator, AI provides the professialism that a all-human MP session will never have ( well, if the AI would be decent that is ).

You need to check out ArmA Interactive. I am much like you and since joining, I have had a blast. It is the best MP experience I've had in any combat game, so far. OFP included.

http://www.armainteractive.com

[Kyle_K_ski 1]

This is my first post in a long long time, and it's been many months since I last lurked around here. BIS' official alpha release was inexcusable in my book, and I still haven't yet purchased ArmA, but have read some good things since the 1.14 patch, and with the recent releases of mods such as SLX, ACE, ECS and the Add On Compilation for More Realism and Immersion, my curiosity has been strongly rekindled into finally purchasing the game. But the questions that I had at the top of this thread remain, so I'm reposting them with small modifications below. If there's one mod/combination of mods that have adequately addressed my concerns, and if enough of these issues have been addressed by this community's brilliant modmakers, then I'll buy the game. If not, I'll somehow bide my time and save my hard earned dollars for Ground Branch.

(1) Does the AI effectively lean around cover?

(2) Is the AI capable of effective close quarter combat?

(3) Do they take advantage of enterable structures during a battle?

(4) Can the AI strafe? Please note that I am not hoping for "Counter Strike" or "Half-Life" type strafing tactics, but something that is realistic. In OFP the AI could never strafe so they were stuck doing their stupid "slow pivot on heels" maneuver before they could bring their gun to bear on their target, when it would've been much quicker and much more believable for them to strafe just a teeny tiny bit to take out an enemy in a more reasonable and sane fashion.

(5) Do the AI scan their environments more thoroughly than in OFP?

(6) Do the AI wisely use smoke grenades?

(7) Do they use suppressing fire, and suffer from its effects when directed towards them?

(8) Is the AI trying to rescue downed comrades?

(9) Do [/b]most substances have penetration values assigned to them? I'm talking about more than the few wooden or tin shacks or signs being shot through as seen in the ArmA promo videos. I mean is it possible to shoot rounds through walls and strike targets, with 7.62 rounds having more penetration capabilities than the 5.56 rounds? Tank shells blowing through structures. Do hardened structures hold up better than conventionally built homes? Etc., etc....

My fingers are crossed that the results will be more positive than last. I know that right from the very start, Ground Branch is being engineered to be able to do the things that I've listed above, but I miss my OFP+great mods experience, and I'm keen to do so while the summer months give me a bit more time to play around. Again, if there's a mod that adds or significantly improves any of the features that I've listed above, I'd be very grateful if you'd list them in your responses.

Thanks in advance!

Yours,

Kyle

June 14, 2008

[nubbin77 0]

I was going to elaborate on my responses more below, but I just don't have time. Partly because your questions are a little open ended - for each question, you kind of need to give a baseline.

1) No, cover is still one of the things that I don't think can be resolved with mods and patches. I am hopeful that their next game will resolve or partially resolve this issue though based on information released about the upcoming game.

2) Yes and no. Would need a baseline game for comparison. Using certain mods (released and unreleased) the AI can fight somewhat effectivley at close range.

3) By default, no. Depending on mission scripting and mods used, the AI will use buildings. Effectively? not really.

4) sort of but again, not really.

In regards to 1,2, 3, and 4 it sounds like you want a normal FPS that is dedicated to CQB - that's not Arma. It sounds like you liked and played ofp. Each of these aspects is improved from ofp, but I don't think the change, even with mods, is remarkable enough if you have a real problem with this. I'm sorry, but I'd rather you be given an honest answer if this is enough for you not to buy the game, then so be it. I think this is really something you just need to accept with this game for now and once you accept that, there are so many other areas that this game excels at. If you exploit the game for the areas it excels at rather then fighting it and trying to make it do things it is not good at, you would be much happier with the game.

5) Yes definately. With certain mods they observe fairly realistically.

6) With some mods they use smoke shells pretty well. Wisely? no, wisdom comes with experience. AI is only programmed to do things when it is told. The cool factor is when they throw them unexpectedly and it blocks your view. That's what's important. When it "seems" like they did it intelligently.

7) Yes with mods (especially a certain unreleased mod).

8) With certain mods - sort of.

9) for the most part, but I don't have scientific evidence to say the caliber and penetration values are perfect. I think they are good enough for a game.

Ground branch does look cool. But the information related to that game is minimal and it looks like the scope of that game will be extremely limited in comparison to Arma. So once again, you'll be able to say "this game or that game does something better then Arma" but then again, Arma will still have 20 things that will not be available in Ground Branch. If funds are limited, you'll have to make a choice. If you can afford both, that's the best solution, especially since Arma can be had pretty cheap now.

Lastly any comparison to an unreleased game (one that doesn't even have screenshots) to a game that's already 2 years old is a bit unfair.

[Colossus 2]

1) No, still no leaning. However, this will be implanted in ArmA 2 as far as I know.

2) Nope. The SLX does give you (the player) a knife but that's only used by the player, not the AI.

3) No, but the SLX mod have this feature. This will also be implanted in ArmA 2.

....

5) Yes, they do, but not as good as a living person of course

7) No, but I think SLX have it. In any case, there are still a few scripts/addons/mods to cover that area.

8) No, only in SLX as far as I know. If an AI gets wounded and lies down calling for a medic another AI will try to reach him and drag him a away, after that he will "patch him up".

9) Penetration is one of the ArmA features, but I'm not sure how much impact each type of bullet/shell have on objects. I suppose you need to look in to the scripts to see that in detail.

[leckig 0]

so how many mods you guys use? how do you keep track of all of them. Many public servers dont allow mods, how do you use them in that case?

this seems awfully complicated, you mentioned a mod for every AI action!

[kklownboy 43]

so how many mods you guys use? how do you keep track of all of them. Many public servers dont allow mods, how do you use them in that case?

this seems awfully complicated, you mentioned a mod for every AI action!

yoma

[Kyle_K_ski 1]

lecking,

I'm way out of the loop in regards to which mods will do exactly what, which is why I reposted my purchasing concerns. OFP had one of the most phenomenal modding communities ever, and I knew they'd work their hearts and guts out on improving ArmA when it was officially released; I just didn't know at the time how much work ArmA really needed. I'm not at all surprised that maybe one mod here addressed one issue, while another mod there took care of another. In the "last" days of OFP, mods such as SLX, FFUR, and others were able to become "global" packages because of how much groundwork that was laid out before by others. I'm sure that the same will be true for ArmA.

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

nubbin77 and colussus,

Thanks for the time you put into your replies. It's greatly appreciated.

From nubbin77:

Quote[/b] ]Lastly any comparison to an unreleased game (one that doesn't even have screenshots) to a game that's already 2 years old is a bit unfair.

On one level I agree with you, while on another I don't. Ground Branch does have a ways to go, but at the same time I cannot recall of another title that's been so active in consulting its potential customers during its development phase, save perhaps for Mount&Blade. I'm talking about an actual conversation going on here, and not a simple press release saying what's being engineered and then in the end, it's not (remember BIS' long lines of promises that were either not working or completely absent when ArmA was released?). My comparison between the two companies and my faith in Ground Branch might seem foolish now, but it's hard for me to fathom that Ground Branch is going to come out with huge chunks of it still being in an alpha stage of development like ArmA had. Is it possible? Sure. But again, the lengthy dialog its developers are having with its most rabid of genre fans is pretty much unprecedented, and makes it highly implausible that that's going to happen. Plus Beppo's on the development team, his role in developing and maintaining Infiltration was critical, and Infiltration was a groundbreaking total conversion that did many firsts that have yet to appear in commercial titles, and knowing that he's got his brilliant fingers working on this puts my mind greatly at ease.

My understanding as to why Ground Branch has been low on images is that the studio's main concerns are with getting the game mechanics right. Adding the final models & pretty pixels will come in later, and it's hard for me to argue with that design approach. I'd rather buy a sub par game graphics wise and be blessed with above par gameplay.

I agree with you, Ground Branch is definitely not going for OFP's style of gameplay, as it's highly focused on squad-level infantry tactics. But you know what? If they achieve just three quarters of what the community is asking for, they'll have kick@ss infantry AI and game mechanics that tightly integrates stamina and weapon penetration that will be unparalleled by any other title. If they're capable of accomplishing that then scaling up the magnitude of the battlefield to OFP proportions should be readily attainable.

But this is getting kind of pointless, isn't it? We're comparing an imaginary (yet hopeful) apple to a game that was alpha released, and developed to a more proper maturity at the expense of a good faith community.

A good deal of my trepidation in purchasing ArmA is due to how it was released. BIS is not the first company to do what it did, but I'm sick of the new "industry standard" that game developers have established. I'm a rabid Star Wars fan, and yet it has been years since I purchased a Lucasarts game, and it's because of how readily they abuse their fans' wallets.

Perhaps game developers need to look at how TaleWorlds is handling their terrific title Mount&Blade. The game's not finished, yet they charge less for the unofficial release to those that buy it now. The more developed the game gets, the more they charge. The developers are motivated to stay actively engaged in dialog with their community because their community is their alpha/beta testers. They also pull the best modders from their community and put them to work for them. It's also their community's word of mouth (free advertising that's worth more than its weight in gold) that's driving people to try out their title, and then once tried, keep playing it. Everything's up front, honest, and fair. And in my book, those three words are worth paying good hard-earned money for.

Time to go. It looks like ArmA's one title that I won't purchase, and it really pains me to say that. I admire this community tremendously, and your honest assessments and feedback here are just another reason why I'm going to miss being an active member of it.

BIS just better be grateful for guys such as you, because it'll primarily be because of the community that I'll check out ArmA 2. My fingers are just crossed that BIS will finally deliver the "next generation" of OFP's progeny.

Yours,

Kyle

June 15, 2008

[Jex =TE= 0]

After getting fustrated by SP I have been playing MP for the past few weaks, searching for the "ArmA is all about MP" expierience that I have heard so many times about. In those many hours I had a hard time finding some good gameplay.

First the vast majority of MP games are still coops, so AI obviously still plays a large role here. In those massvie coops that are very popular right now, the real challange is to organise logistics. There is lot of waiting involved, lots of driving around and almost zero teamwork. The combat itselfe is mostly about hunting AIs that are lieing on streets or walk around a bit. The only true challange they provide are their shooting skills. Additionaly there is the massive fustration caused by thousands of idiot *human* players that try to spoil the fun for everyone else ( teamkilling, destroying vehicles ).

For some better gameplay involving teamwork and tactics, try www.tacticalgamer.com.

We play coops working together to conquer the objective. Lonewolfs and idiots are not welcome. It's not a clan, there's no affiliation or commitment and you only need to register (free) on the forums and read the rules.

[Jex =TE= 0]

I know we all want better AI but how complex are the current subroutines to how complex they'll need to be to give us what we want?

In other words, AI skill uses CPU cycles. Up those cycles for each individual unit x number of units placed on the map and will we start to see a slow down in performance?

[max power 21]

Penetration values in ArmA are modelled as a unit of distance it takes to slow some object down some unit of velocity. Since it only takes into account distance and velocity, other factors such as projectile mass (and by extension, energy and momentum), shape, and substance are not taken into account. So if the projectile is a depleted uranium sabot or a 5.56 soft lead dum dum round, the same material will slow it down the same amount over the same distance.

This trait can be applied to anything with an rvmat (bis's material file), though, I think. These files are applied to everything in the 3d world, but I think that the objects that have this penetration trait are rare. This is just my personal experience. Ballistics in arma are complicated because the bullets lose velocity over distance (and damage is also calculated based on velocity, incidentally). I have not noticed heavy machineguns penetrating junked cars or washing machines through-and-through.

[whisper 0]

Yes, penetration is not the strongest point of ArmA, it's a "little addition" that is far from the core of the game.

Honestly, in a game that enables such a scale of fighting, penetration values is amongst the least of my concerns

The main trait of OFP, ArmA and the whole serie, imho, is scale.

Poseidon was developped with this in head, from what I understood from Suma's interview : making the biggest living world possible, and making things alive in it.

If you dismiss this as the main point of the game, and try to re-center the gameplay on something else, because of side aspects of OFP that appealed to you, you're going to be disappointed.

[ShrubMiK 0]

"The main trait of OFP, ArmA and the whole serie, imho, is scale."

Absolutely spot on.

[maddogx 13]

"The main trait of OFP, ArmA and the whole serie, imho, is scale."

Absolutely spot on.

+1

Although I believe with ArmA2 we'll be seeing a lot of stuff get fully implemented, such as penetration. If you look at the rvmat files, you see a lot of stuff there that isn't used, but already hints at a lot of possible future functionality.

Sadly stuff like that isn't really modable in ArmA, but the AI at least has been seeing a lot of attention from the community. Seriously though, CQB is not a strength of the AI, even with mods. If you're looking for fast first-person-shooter like close quarters gameplay in ArmA, you will be disappointed.