balance vs realism (idea)

[funnyguy1 0]

I'll try as hard as I can to focus on

Facts:

ArmA is balanced (more or less) to be more mainstreamers friendly, less annoying (difficult) and playable in SP (which is the weakest part of the game btw).

Fanboy's mumble:

STFU, there's editor, there are mods etc...

Facts:

It would be quite annoying for a mainstreamer if it wasn't that way:

* MBTs are balanced because there are missions where you use them

*realistic reloading times for weapons (e.g RPGs) could be deadly

*AI (although advertised as highly non-scripted) needs a large ammount of triggers, waypoints, and scripts to behave trully realistic, dynamic and unpredictable. That's because of the current campaign and missions' style. If the AI took cover everytime it should, and stayed there the realistic ammount of time, moreover if they fleed or surrendered realistically, some of the missions could not be finished, or planned because of the impredictability of the AI. Campaign couldn’t go on because AI could surrender. Is this necessary? Especially when the majority prefers more realistic and dynamic gameplay? It doesn’t matter since it’s a future of games anyway, more and more missions are being made that way, because it’s simply more interesting and challenging. Arma already tries to be kinda dynamic because of the side missions. Besides, you can still make great missions with the "plot" that way.

As you see it's not a matter of some dramatic changes, besides, look at we have already:

Grouplink, UPS, Dynamic Campaigns, WGL (and countless mini mods improoving realism).

Fanboy's mumble:

Why even suggesting something like that since the game isn't "finished" yet, they should focus on more important things etc.

Well...

There's already an expansion pack in progres...so What it'll contain? Couple of new units, and a new campaign, done probably the same way as the previous one...yay

Suggestion:

So here goes the suggestion about future patches and expansions: 2 configs? One that allows you to play SP BIS-style, and create missions based on the scripted AI, and the second one with the more dynamic AI, and realism 'on board'. Or every other sollution that would work that way. Why not, since there are already Cadet/Vet settings? That would be something I could spent extra money on, not just another shi**y campaign.

It not a sollution, it's just an idea...post your thoughts.

[opteryx 1562]

Abolish balance, more realism.

[max power 21]

FACT: BIS needs money. Money comes from appealing to people. Without money, this game would not be possible.

FACT: BIS already has a very difficult, very realistic, very spartan game in comparison to other games in its genre. It's pushing the envelope in terms of relevence to the gaming market as it is.

FACT: Lots of people want ArmA to be something it's not. This kind of thinking is called what? Wishful thinking? Self-entitled narcissism? Psychosis?

FACT: ArmA is what it is. People like to make threads about what they think ArmA should be. Lots of people also make threads about how the moon landings never happened. Sometimes democratic practice isn't all what democratic theory is all cracked up to be.

[JdB 151]

He is suggesting 2 configs plaintiff1 to appeal to both, not one spartan one...

[funnyguy1 0]

Quote[/b] ] FACT: BIS needs money. Money comes from appealing to people. Without money, this game would not be possible.

I tell you a secret, I know that. And that's why this topic has started my friend.

Quote[/b] ]FACT: Lots of people want ArmA to be something it's not. This kind of thinking is called what? Wishful thinking? Self-entitled narcissism? Psychosis?

If the majority consists of 'whisfulthinkers' and narcissists, then maybe it's you who doesn't fit, and they're not so self -entitled at all, or something really changed in this community, and I no longer should use the term "majority".

Quote[/b] ]FACT: ArmA is what it is.

No wai!

Look at the part of my post where I mention fan-made things that make it something better than "what it is".

[icebreakr 3159]

Screw balance in games, in war there is no such thing. And usually one side is better equipped and better trained, but other sides relies on guerrila tactics and old but reliable guns.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Although the idea of 2 configs is nice, your 'more' dynamic AI needs a better description, do you want some kind of dynamic campaign where the AI decides to attack a town by itself?

And what is 'non-scripted'? If i would make the above the AI would still only attack the town after condition x and y or z have been met. This may look uncripted but in the end its nothing more then some looping .sqs's.

[4 IN 1 0]

maybe we all asked the wrong question? that instead of "do this and do that or you are screwed", try "can you tweak this here, and there too, might be better"

[ShrubMiK 0]

The use of the word "fanboy" in the original post rather turned me off bothering to read this, tbh.

[funnyguy1 0]

Although the idea of 2 configs is nice, your 'more' dynamic AI needs a better description, do you want some kind of dynamic campaign where the AI decides to attack a town by itself?

And what is 'non-scripted'? If i would make the above the AI would still only attack the town after condition x and y or z have been met. This may look uncripted but in the end its nothing more then some looping .sqs's.

Afaik dynamic campaign with AI generals and stuff isn't possible on large scale in ArmA/on average pc, so let's leave the subject till game2 comes closer.

The point is, AI is scripted no matter how you call it. And that's why I started this topic. You really need to throw some scripts into your mission to make it challenging and enjoyable, not to mention the ability to replay it with an unpredictable ending. By dynamic AI I mean nothing more, than what some ppl have already done. E.g. UPS/Grouplink/Dynamic campaign templates.

If it was already in core ArmA, you wouldn't need to mess with additional scripts, just to make it realistic. You would in fact, focus on things like plot and general realism of your mission.

edit:

BUT, some campaigns wouldn't be playable then. Personally I'd rather "turn off" some things in the config to force the AI to behave a bit stupid (so that I could script it my way), than use tons of scripts to force it to do the job realistically.

That's why I suggested the second config. Isn't it the BIS' policy? To make things dynamic in the future? The second config would allow them to introduce other things that destroy the gameplay balance and frustrate mainstreamers.

Besides, it's neither the "I want XYZ in ArmA, I know that's not possible, but I still want it" kind of request, nor blaming BIS that their game sux. All of this can be done, and the community prooved it.

I'm neither a "fanboy" since it has a negative meaning to me lately, nor a whiner (at least I try not to be one). I just don't know why BIS made those side-missions (remember? When you destroy the convoy you won't have problems in the next missions etc.) instead of making more dynamic and unpredictable AI. It would just work.

[Second 0]

The point is, AI is scripted no matter how you call it. And that's why I started this topic. You really need to throw some scripts into your mission to make it challenging and enjoyable, not to mention the ability to replay it with an unpredictable ending. By dynamic AI I mean nothing more, than what some ppl have already done. E.g. UPS/Grouplink/Dynamic campaign templates.

If it was already in core ArmA, you wouldn't need to mess with additional scripts, just to make it realistic. You would in fact, focus on things like plot and general realism of your mission.

edit:

BUT, some campaigns wouldn't be playable then. Personally I'd rather "turn off" some things in the config to force the AI to behave a bit stupid (so that I could script it my way), than use tons of scripts to force it to do the job realistically.

That's why I suggested the second config. Isn't it the BIS' policy? To make things dynamic in the future? The second config would allow them to introduce other things that destroy the gameplay balance and frustrate mainstreamers.

Besides, it's neither the "I want XYZ in ArmA, I know that's not possible, but I still want it" kind of request, nor blaming BIS that their game sux. All of this can be done, and the community prooved it.

I'm neither a "fanboy" since it has a negative meaning to me lately, nor a whiner (at least I try not to be one). I just don't know why BIS made those side-missions (remember? When you destroy the convoy you won't have problems in the next missions etc.) instead of making more dynamic and unpredictable AI. It would just work.

Please tell me, what are these realistic and yet upredictable things that AI needs to be scripted to make it perform better? In military sense (as we are discussing about realism), mission being capable of being supprising after replay is obsolent (there are on replays in real life), so doesn't have nothing to do with realism. So AI being unpredictable and still military realistic isn't the wisest word.

Dynamic isn't the word also when talking about military operations in small scale. Platoon leader is expeted to do what CO tells him to do and so on. This is basic mind-set. There are very few things that require dynamic reaction (in sense that you are speaking, ). Basically everything has been ordered, so that superiour knows that what everyone is doing.

Ofcourse dynamic comes in play in small unit level too, but ArmA's AI already does that (flees, engages etc...). Basically it can't do anything more (like sending it's own squad to counterattack, when squad should hold area) as it has it's own orders (waypoint) which it needs to fulfill.

I've been thinking this ALOT, as i mess with AI and military ways (from squad to company level) mostly when "modding" ArmA, and dynamic and realism just mostly won't fit together. Dynamic starts from the top and lower it get less it can affect... What we would need would be chain of command between all existing units on mission and horrifing amount of tactical solutions for AI(leader), to make missions "script free". Right now scripts and triggers does replace chain of command, "tactical awareness" and orders and most of all mission designer.

So i ask again (as i presume that you already forgot what i was asking you in beginning of my long post ):

Please tell me, what are these realistic and yet upredictable things that AI needs to be scripted to make it perform better? You mentioned few, but i don't think that they have nothing to do with military ways (aka realism), just making missions more replayable. Or if you think that they have, then tell me what i might be missiong a point here.

EDIT: I've been flashing dynamic things to ArmA too. But our point of view seems to be different. I'm intrested of implenting chain of command (units' organization in better words) and some basic methods to that organization (from squad to company/batallion level) so that units in organization can have guide lines of what it can do and what are it's tasks etc, it wouldn't be so dependant of mission designers insight and editing skills as now... I would say that it's impossible to do in other than very limited scale... So basically better to script and trigger it.

[funnyguy1 0]

Just a quick reply, I'll write more tomorrow.

I'm not talking about a totally dynamic AI e.g. that doesn't need waypoints.

First of all I was complaining about missions/campaign done by BIS. With the little effort and the usage of mentioned scripts you can make better missions with more realistic AI. When dynamic can equal realistic?

When you make a mission, you first create a virtual world with AI patrolls, bases and stuff. In this stage of mission development there's no need for dynamic AI, because you want it to be more or less your way, of course UPS does great job with creating patrolls etc, but that's not the point. That's the part where everybody does what ordered. Also the other side (player?), they have plans, they have maps with objectives marked and so on.

Everybody knows what to do. And I'm affraid you focused more on this side of a mission. That's the theory, but for an ordinary rifleman every enemy soldier hiding behind a cover is dynamic and unpredictable, therefore when the "action" starts, it is somehow dynamic, despite the fact that everybody knows their objectives. Playing ArmA I feel too comfortable, AI can't surprise me. They try to search you, try to flank you, flee, but they do it only if you let them survive. AI isn't good enough to fight you.

By dynamic and unpredictable I mean nothing more than AI that has the ability to surrender, call the nearest patroll/unit for help or stays covered as long as it takes to surprise you, or it feels safe again. In other words: surprise you. Imagine what would happen if they could do that in BIS' missions?

[ArmaVidz 0]

Poll makes no sense. Yes to what? No to what? The only real option is Don't care.

Balance versus realism. It's not that the Ai isn't realistic, it's that the Ai doesn't use the realism, realistically. To demonstrate what I mean:

Ai using realisism in ArmA:

Ai runs on outside of building, practically in middle of street, around corner of building, checks for targets down the street he is now in. Whole squad moves on to next WP.

Ai using realism, realistically:

Team Leader hugs wall of building while moving. Ai move to corners, lean out, check for targets, relay command to Ai stacked up behind(also on the wall) to move (while covered by Ai leaning around corner).

The problem IMHO is that

a) Ai does not use terrain/buildings/objects properly.

b) Even with scripts once contact is made there is practically no unit cohesion. Even with the Urban Patrol Script, the units scatter to multiple (quite far off) locations. This seems a not so wise move when dealing with an unknown force, of unknown size.

c) Suppression Fire. Errm, where is that again?    Covering Fire? The community seems to be trying to come up with that now. Hope it works out...

It doesn't matter how much realism you have, if the pathfinding abilities and ability to use your surroundings to their full potential (or close) while using established military maneuvers and/or tactics, it isn't going to matter what you do, it will not be believable imho.

It can be done, although due to the size of the island, I imagine that would not be easy in the least. Maybe by giving scores to building positions like a corner, and providing a "weight" system the positions the Ai can be better informed about which locations to use and when. The actual internals of that I don't know, as I know nothing about game design. Seems like common sense or a fundamental need to me, though.

[max power 21]

If you are suggesting a second config, there is nothing stopping you from making one. BIS is not going to make some dual config, dual flight model, dual graphics engine game. They aren't going to make the game they want to make, then make the game YOU want them to make. They've given you a lot of latitude and information about what you can do to change the way the game plays for such an occasion. Why not go ahead and do that instead of bleating about it.

I didn't say the majority of people think it should be something different. I said lots of people. Lots != the majority. Furthermore, I said lots of people make topics about it. I probably should have said 'a few people make lots of topics about it'.

[funnyguy1 0]

Ok, the last explanation, as it's all quite clear even though my english isn't good.

@ArmaVidz: the pool choises are obvious, yes - you agree with what i wrote, no - you don't, don't care - you don't need any changes at all

@plaintiff1: I have second config. If I hadn't I would ask somebody if he can do one for me, or didn't play the game at all. The point is, that BIS keeps making those funny missions, while dreaming about something more dynamic. I've just said that they could do it better (which is just my thought, and of course neither some of you nor BIS will agree with that), and prooved it because I played, made missions with the mentioned scripts. Furthermore, I'm not asking BIS to make what I want, I'm just trying to say that would be nice if they included some things straight in the config, in the game, so that we didn't need to put so many scripts into our missions. By dynamic/unpredictable I don't mean uber dynamic, totally dynamic or uber dybamic&realistic, I mean nothing more than "dynamic enough to surprise me, and be better than AI in the official missions (which isn't hard)". Moreover I mention some of the fan-made sollutions.

[max power 21]

Ok, the last explanation, as it's all quite clear even though my english isn't good.

@ArmaVidz: the pool choises are obvious, yes - you agree with what i wrote, no - you don't, don't care - you don't need any changes at all

@plaintiff1: I have second config. If I hadn't I would ask somebody if he can do one for me, or didn't play the game at all. The point is, that BIS keeps making those funny missions, while dreaming about something more dynamic. I've just said that they could do it better (which is just my thought, and of course neither some of you nor BIS will agree with that), and prooved it because I played, made missions with the mentioned scripts. Furthermore, I'm not asking BIS to make what I want, I'm just trying to say that would be nice if they included some things straight in the config, in the game, so that we didn't need to put so many scripts into our missions. By dynamic/unpredictable I don't mean uber dynamic, totally dynamic or uber dybamic&realistic, I mean nothing more than "dynamic enough to surprise me, and be better than AI in the official missions (which isn't hard)". Moreover I mention some of the fan-made sollutions.

I think that what you are talking about is in the scope of the game 2 project, whereas this project was ofp and continues to be ofp 1.5. BIS was quite up front about it.

[vilas 477]

relism for all !

balancing takes away sense or games like ARMA

but if someone wanna mod like this - let he do whatever he want

[Second 0]

Balance versus realism. It's not that the Ai isn't realistic, it's that the Ai doesn't use the realism, realistically. To demonstrate what I mean:

Ai using realisism in ArmA:

Ai runs on outside of building, practically in middle of street, around corner of building, checks for targets down the street he is now in. Whole squad moves on to next WP.

Ai using realism, realistically:

Team Leader hugs wall of building while moving. Ai move to corners, lean out, check for targets, relay command to Ai stacked up behind(also on the wall) to move (while covered by Ai leaning around corner).

The problem IMHO is that

a) Ai does not use terrain/buildings/objects properly.

b) Even with scripts once contact is made there is practically no unit cohesion. Even with the Urban Patrol Script, the units scatter to multiple (quite far off) locations. This seems a not so wise move when dealing with an unknown force, of unknown size.

c) Suppression Fire. Errm, where is that again? Covering Fire? The community seems to be trying to come up with that now. Hope it works out...

It doesn't matter how much realism you have, if the pathfinding abilities and ability to use your surroundings to their full potential (or close) while using established military maneuvers and/or tactics, it isn't going to matter what you do, it will not be believable imho.

You are speaking the right words. What AI right now is lacking are basic ways how AI should do things.

-Forming defence is one part of it's lacks,

-Urbanwarfare in whole scale in missing.

-There's no way to operate crew served weapons.

-It's takecover routine is busted (in FSM interupting with it?)

-what else from infantry's point of view? There are more, just can't remember what all.

But then again who wants that kind realism, that he has to spent hours waiting that he's units can advance again. Shooting tens of minutes at bushes and other shady objects as enemy in nowhere to be seen, but it is still shooting back. Or that he can have just short climpse of already dead enemy and rest enemies are killed by artillery and other units. Player can see some enemies taken as POWs, but he can't shoot them as it's against militarylaw. Rest of enemy have run away... That can be bit unsaticfying for player... Even to "hardcore"

oh btw. I've made suppression to ArmA Nothing about actual suppressive fire yet to ArmA, as without suppression it's pointless to have that (they would just get themselves killed). Search for suppression script. It's not perfect, but i'd say that it reaches some amount of realism in modelling fear of death to AI, still i'm improving it but other pojects are in a away. But most likely most of community wont give a damn about it, which is understandable (it's heavy and non-elegant). I don't expect it to become solid part of becoming mods.

[Thomas Ryan 0]

Personally, for absolute realism you should go for military simulators I.E. VBS1/2. OFP/ArmA are, after all, watered down and sellable-to-the-public versions of VBS1/2, so don't expect to get the extreme realism. At the moment, I am considering purchasing VBS2 to be honest, but am perfectly happy with the game play in OFP/ArmA. Even if it is a bit balanced, it's still fun. After all, that's what we want and what BIS made OFP/ArmA for.

[froggyluv 2136]

I think i know what your talking about funnyguy1. The AI can seem real predictable alot of the time albeit excellent shooters.  Case in point:

While playing Kronzky's Evoultion SP makeover, I was pretty much sniping the whole town from a terrace, knowing full well that my building was surrounded but no AI bot would be smart enough to sneak up the stairs and shoot me. I probably could have stayed there for hours had i not run out of ammo.

The level of AI required to have used a coherent CQB plan to enter the building and take me out just isn't there. You might want to wait for a mod like SLX where they do readily enter buildings sometimes killing you with hand/hand and produce more unpredictable moves.

As has been stated , we can only expect so much out of a 1.5. Eventually I'd like to see AI generals plotting from the overhead map, measuring terrain and sending spec ops behind enemy lines with a Swat 4 style CQB tactical plan on the micro scale

Game 2?

[KaiserPanda 0]

What the hell is with the poll? That isn't even a question!! I'd say totaly realsim. This is a niche market for people who want realism. If we wanted balance, we'd be playing Generic Battlefield 10. Victory in this game should come from skill, strategy, and execution - not forced gameplay concerns.

[dmitri 0]

I'd rather have BIS work on "basic" features (AI pathfinding) over specialised features that can be added via scripting later.

The level of AI required to have used a coherent CQB plan to enter the building and take me out just isn't there.

Remember how vanilla OFP's urban areas consisted of small to medium sized villages? Not without reason..

ArmA's massive cities with their bridges and hotels are great for MP, not so great for a SP AI which has changed little since OFP. A focus on terrain and an increased terraingrid (that the current AI handles with ease) should have taken precedence over detailed urban environs that are no go areas for the AI.

Partly why I prefer missions that take place in the countryside. In Evo-like urban assaults, 20 humans can kill 100s of AI simply because the battles take place in urban environments - the only tactical advantage the mission maker can give the AI is sheer numbers.

[max power 21]

What the hell is with the poll? That isn't even a question!! I'd say totaly realsim. This is a niche market for people who want realism. If we wanted balance, we'd be playing Generic Battlefield 10. Victory in this game should come from skill, strategy, and execution - not forced gameplay concerns.

That's black and white thinking. Also, total realism is standard that's not attainable.

[NeMeSiS 11]

I still dont see why this topic is more then a 'i want better AI topic' in disguise?

[funnyguy1 0]

Because it is one?

It is "I want better AI, I give examples, and I suggest things for future patches/expansions topic".

I wouldn't suggest worst AI, would I?