Balancing in ArmA

[Beagle 684]

Just play in "cadet" mode!

[Noraf 0]

Hunter @ May 14 2007,00:51)]

But pleeease PRIO 1:

Turn off each engine if no player oder ai is inside it.

A multiplayer game is unplayable if only 10 players get out of their jeeps and these eniges are running. It makes my crazy if I hear each running engine.

*sign*

well, if the folks use get out, instead of eject, the engines will shut down, and, you allways got the engine off option too i'm glad you now have the ability to leave cars\armoured and even choppers with the engine running.

just imagine, a late night, you've sneaked into a town, and an enemy patrol is closing in on the same town\ village. start up a car or 2 and it will be mutch harder for them to hear you moving around, getting in posission for the kill

[DVD 0]

I don't understand why BI does everything to turn ArmA into a nerve-killing, annoying, rigidly thing.

They should have a look into OFP and learn from it.

Adding a "feature", like a endless runnig engines without adding a option (like in OFP) to order the own AI to turn off the engine, is one of these nerve-killing & annoyings crap in ArmA.

Multiplayer in ArmA is less fun as OFP MP games...

[frederf 0]

Quote[/b] ]Adding a "feature", like a endless runnig engines without adding a option (like in OFP) to order the own AI to turn off the engine, is one of these nerve-killing & annoyings crap in ArmA.

Ordering an AI to disembark is the same as "get out" right? If the driver "gets out" of a vehicle whose engine is on then the engine gets auto shut off, no problem. It's only eject that leaves the engine on.

[max power 21]

Quote[/b] ]It's a game and it is meant to be fun and make money.

The issue here is that for a huge portion of ArmA customers means "having fun" that they have a realistic simulator. The discussion is to which extend.

I would say: As far as possible with this engine, the rest you can put into the wish list or into mantis.

If you're argument is that ArmA isn't everything to everyone, I would tend to agree.

[ColonelSandersLite 0]

Quote[/b] ]Adding a "feature", like a endless runnig engines without adding a option (like in OFP) to order the own AI to turn off the engine, is one of these nerve-killing & annoyings crap in ArmA.

Ordering an AI to disembark is the same as "get out" right? If the driver "gets out" of a vehicle whose engine is on then the engine gets auto shut off, no problem. It's only eject that leaves the engine on.

When I just "get out" of a stopped vehicle without turning the engine off, the engine stays on.

I think, but I'm not positive, that my AI's do the same too.

Bug?

[xnodunitx 0]

Maybe, of course controlling the AI has been a bit of a difficulty since apparently some of the "actions" commands are not apparent, such as telling the AI to turn off the engine, turn on lights, and so on. Guess those ungrateful tards whined about it and so BIS removed it........oh well. Would be nice to see this again.

Because you can get out of a vehicle with lights on and they will be left on, but the AI will turn the lights off, which is why I think this has a chance of being a bug.

[INNOCENT&CLUELESS 0]

I guess it happened, like many other bugs, due to a kind of hasty design and development. I guess sooner or later BI will add the actions, if not, it is possible that a modder adds this action to his addons or via config to all vehicles.

[whisper 0]

Quote[/b] ]Adding a "feature", like a endless runnig engines without adding a option (like in OFP) to order the own AI to turn off the engine, is one of these nerve-killing & annoyings crap in ArmA.

Ordering an AI to disembark is the same as "get out" right? If the driver "gets out" of a vehicle whose engine is on then the engine gets auto shut off, no problem. It's only eject that leaves the engine on.

When I just "get out" of a stopped vehicle without turning the engine off, the engine stays on.

I think, but I'm not positive, that my AI's do the same too.

Bug?

Not in my 1.07b version When I "get out" (speed = 0) of a vehicle, the engine stops. If I "Eject", the engine remains on.

[ColonelSandersLite 0]

Quote[/b] ]Adding a "feature", like a endless runnig engines without adding a option (like in OFP) to order the own AI to turn off the engine, is one of these nerve-killing & annoyings crap in ArmA.

Ordering an AI to disembark is the same as "get out" right? If the driver "gets out" of a vehicle whose engine is on then the engine gets auto shut off, no problem. It's only eject that leaves the engine on.

When I just "get out" of a stopped vehicle without turning the engine off, the engine stays on.

I think, but I'm not positive, that my AI's do the same too.

Bug?

Not in my 1.07b version When I "get out" (speed = 0) of a vehicle, the engine stops. If I "Eject", the engine remains on.

Actually, after posting that then playing the game a little more, I think it's *some* vehicles that do that for me, but not all.

Off the top of my head:

abrams

hwmvve (or however the hell that's spelled...)

t-72

Doesn't happen on the repair truck.

[Dwarden 1125]

as in most cases single hit from both AA or AT may render the vehicle, tank or helicopter disabled or destroyed ...

again depends on type of weapon used and target armoring, angle of hit etc ...

there are tons of military and Guerilla warfare videos where single AA take down helicopters ...

there is little issue with some helicopters receiving damage from calibers they should be enough armored against , let's hope it gets fixed ...

tanks hits well T72 even modernized can't match M1A1 DU ammo , maybe some of latest modification can alive at some angle first hit but no idea ...

vice versa M1A1 should alive a lot even FF hits ...

for helicopters there is chance while using chaffs/flares to fool missiles locking

for vehicles and tanks there similar tools plus instant smoke launchers and generators against laser and ir targeting ...

for tanks and some APC today there is Trophy and Drozd-1,Drozd-2,Arena which works as active protection capable shooting down incoming rocket

...

Mando is working on MP capable flares and heat seeking missiles ...

and i'm sure sooner or later some of great coders finish rest protective features

[Daniel 0]

If anyone thinks ArmA needs "balancing" away from real life values, in my opinion you're simply not playing the game right. Any "balancing" should be up to the mission editor.

If you get shot down by anti-aricraft too often, stay the hell out of the way and get ground forces to take them out for you!! That's the whole point of the game! Combined arms; real life tactics and decisions used in order to make sure you complete your objectives in one piece.

We don't need to fork out a fortune on VBS2 to be able to play with realistic values, we have a game called Armed Assault that should provide that for us. There is simply no argument for inaccurate balancing of weapon/armour/speed values.

[Spokesperson 0]

Yes, there ain't supposed to be any balancing. If you think teams are uneven, add another unit to that side.

I also miss the OFP explosions. Now it just glitches, and I dont see damage as in OFP.

[INNOCENT&CLUELESS 0]

Coming back to the title, yes, pure RL as far as the engine supports. No balancing like M60 config = T72 config

Quote[/b] ]Now it just glitches, and I dont see damage as in OFP.

You really miss the crumbled vehicles and buildings? Bahhhhh!

The only options I can imagine is a real damage model as in LockOn for Game2 or just replacing the vehicle model with a total different destroyed model, but the transition would not exist.

[max power 21]

I liked the idea of the scrambled vehicles... sometimes they did look like a messed up vehicle, especially at a distance... but most times they looked like a pile of weird geometry. The biggest problem is when they were transforming.

[Heatseeker 0]

For me its not a matter of balancing but mostly a matter of realism, or lack of it..

I can disable a M113 by shooting few 7.62 into its tracks.

M113's, strykers, BMP's, etc are sniped by RPG's or M136's, 1 hit (doesnt matter where) blows up the vehicle and kills all ocupants every single time.

Vehicles explode very easily, too easily. I always feel safer on foot because 1 RPG/M136 hit always blows up your vehicle, 0 chances of survival.

Its all very... automatic.

[NeMeSiS 11]

For me its not a matter of balancing but mostly a matter of realism, or lack of it..

I can disable a M113 by shooting few 7.62 into its tracks.

M113's, strykers, BMP's, etc are sniped by RPG's or M136's, 1 hit (doesnt matter where) blows up the vehicle and kills all ocupants every single time.

Vehicles explode very easily, too easily. I always feel safer on foot because 1 RPG/M136 hit always blows up your vehicle, 0 chances of survival.

Its all very... automatic.

My biggest problems is that BMPs/Strykers/M113's are probably the most dangerous thing to their own squad: Once they get blown up (which happens too easily) they usually kill 90% of their squad aswell with their explosion. (Talking about when de squad is disembarked, not when they are inside the vehicle).

This makes them completely useless..

[nate77 0]

You guys are forgetting something. Sure helicopters getting shot down very easily is realistic and you got to use more tactics while flying them, but this causes one HUGE problem: The A.I. pilots don't know how to use human tactics. Therefore if an A.I. controlled chopper or jet attacks a group of tanks, they won't survive for more than a minute. There lies the problem and this makes single player missions much more harder, along with making missions with A.I. controlled air support. Even some cut scenes in the U.S. version look retarded because some jet on a bombing run gets shot out of the sky by a T-72!