New interview with Maruk

[MATRA 0]

...many people in the company are not fans of military gaming and would prefer to make something a bit different and imaginative

I wonder if some of them weren't hired after Ofp:R, sometimes I can feel a lack of love in ArmA.

edit: typo

[bravo 6 0]

many people in the company are not fans of military gaming and would prefer to make something a bit different and imaginative

Fire them!

Well, it's up to BIS. I'd certainly like to see ArmA 3 (it could be a tank, helo and infantry sim in one game, you know? )

i agree!

Fire them..

OFP and ARMA community fans prefer military gaming / war simulation as their main taste.

If they build a perfect ARMA2 in everyway, i kinda understand the choice..

it could mean that nothing would be left to improve...

If thats the situation, hell.. i don't care!

build what ever you want after ARMA2 but build us a perfect game

[baddo 0]

Well that's alright for me.

ArmA II shouln't have to be patched at all!

All the "patching" is one of the big problems in the whole PC technology, not a solution as many people seem to like to think, and go "yay" whenever a patch is released...

Thanks for the interview.

[Guest Ti0n3r]

If they decide to create something other after ArmA II then I wonder what. RTS?

[MATRA 0]

My guess, is an RPG, its no big news that is the favorite kind of game of many members in BIS.

[mr reality 0]

Quote[/b] ]Big groups are hard to control. We want to make ARMA 2 accessible for more people, and for them a team bigger then 4-5 soldiers is too complicated.

I dont like the sound of that. It tells me two things.

1)  The missions will be special forces orientated. Thats not exactly a bad thing but i do like my grunt battles with combined elements.

2) The crappy squad control system isnt getting improved, which it surely needs.

[Guest]

Quote[/b] ]Big groups are hard to control. We want to make ARMA 2 accessible for more people, and for them a team bigger then 4-5 soldiers is too complicated.

I dont like the sound of that. It tells me two things.

1)  The missions will be special forces orientated. Thats not exactly a bad thing but i do like my grunt battles with combined elements.

2) The crappy squad control system isnt getting improved, which it surely needs.

Thats offcourse just some guessing you do and is IMHO totally unbased on anything, even the quote you made.

If you start to assume like that from 1 point you could as well assume the game would run like crap if more than 5 units are playable.

No flame intended, I just think your conclusions doesn't make any sense.

1)

You can control 5 units in a mission where 1000 of your fellow soldiers fight the enemy.

2)

I dont like the system neither, but to me the quote doesnt have anything to do with the squad system and how they will improve it!

[Guest Ti0n3r]

Quote[/b] ]The crappy squad control system isnt getting improved, which it surely needs.

Crappy? I never had a problem leading a squad. I've always thought the command interface was pretty close to perfect. (AI ability to obey the orders is another thing for me though)

IMO they only have to add more details to it.

* edited to make sense

[4 IN 1 0]

Quote[/b] ]The crappy squad control system isnt getting improved, which it surely needs.

Crappy? I never had a problem leading a squad. I've always thought the command interface was pretty close to perfect. (AI ability to obey the orders is another thing for me though)

IMO they only have to add more details to it.

* edited to make sense

its not that the command interface that bug ppls up, its the goddame lack of complete chain of command, you cant creat a sub squad, and even you can assign team as red blue yellow and green the "sub squad" you creat aint a squad at all, you still have to command every single one of them one at a time to go there done that take cover blah blah blah instead of simply order their squad leader and he do the rest of the job

these is what happening right now

http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/3218/squadnow01rz3.jpg

http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/9323/squadnow02qt7.jpg

and this is what we want

http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/5269/squadafter01ir4.jpg

can it be done? i'd say larger chance then those which cant be done. why? someone already done it with script in OFP(sort of) eventhrough it is very laggy

trying not to go too OT

not much could be dig out from the interview really, maybe i think too much?

[opteryx 1562]

Platoon-->Squad-->Fireteam structure would indeed be nice.

[Heatseeker 0]

The squad control system is ok but i miss seperate formations inside the main squad formation and an easier way to select an assigned fireteam.

For example, i can split a 12 unit squad in 3 fireteams but i would like each fireteam to use their own specific formation (square up).

Control is already easy enough, (select and click on the ground/map), i believe that playing with a.i. would be more effective, intuitive and realistic if they reduced the micromanagement of individuals and focused on fireteam tactics instead.

The same would greatly benefit enemy a.i. squad behaviour who would send a small fireteam to flank the player squad instead of sending some lone kamikaze or assigning individual tasks to every single squad member.

In RL soldiers dont fight alone, i can imagine the above replacing the current OPF/Arma system.

Imagine the above combined with this interesting quote from the article:

Quote[/b] ]

For Arma 2 we are making AI which will work in precision in centimeters, which communicates more, and gesticulate. AI Which takes cover behind the corners, leans from the corners, uses sidesteps, back steps and stuff like that. I think all of this makes for a completely new experience from player vs AI battles. We are working on the system of suppressive fire too.

It would be awsome, or what? ..

Edit:

Uhh, someone beat me to it, nice!

[rundll.exe 12]

hmm BIS making an RPG...

I say

Monkey Island

with

200 km^2 island streaming

[mr reality 0]

Platoon-->Squad-->Fireteam structure would indeed be nice.

This was the point i was trying to make in my previous post. If BIS are aiming at 4-5 man teams, then the control system wont be more advanced in terms of splitting the team up and controlling four sections/squads.. So basically from the quote (which was actually by Maruk himself) we probably wont see platoon size control structures.

@El nino Foxhound, what would be the point in controling a 5 man squad in a huge battle. You would atleast expect to command a standard 8 man section/squad. Unless of course your acting as a team leader and not a squad leader. But then you would have to answer to the squad leader..

[Guest Ti0n3r]

Quote[/b] ]Platoon-->Squad-->Fireteam structure would indeed be nice.

That I do agree on, to 100%

[Guest]

@El nino Foxhound, what would be the point in controling a 5 man squad in a huge battle. You would atleast expect to command a standard 8 man section/squad. Unless of course your acting as a team leader and not a squad leader. But then you would have to answer to the squad leader..

And thats exactly what I meant with my post.

You assume.........I assume.......

What will be right? Lets see when we get more detailled info about the missions.

But actually if you think about it......it would be nice to have to answer to your squad leader as a player commanding your team wouldnt it? Imagine the AI giving orders based on your results as a teamleader......dynamically that is, not scripted.

At least it would be something else than what we normally get in a SP mission

[bravo 6 0]

Platoon-->Squad-->Fireteam structure would indeed be nice.

to be honest i was already hoping to have this in ARMA

http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/5269/squadafter01ir4.jpg

[Col. Faulkner 0]

The squad control system is ok but i miss seperate formations inside the main squad formation and an easier way to select an assigned fireteam.

For example, i can split a 12 unit squad in 3 fireteams but i would like each fireteam to use their own specific formation (square up).

Control is already easy enough, (select and click on the ground/map), i believe that playing with a.i. would be more effective, intuitive and realistic if they reduced the micromanagement of individuals and focused on fireteam tactics instead.

The same would greatly benefit enemy a.i. squad behaviour who would send a small fireteam to flank the player squad instead of sending some lone kamikaze or assigning individual tasks to every single squad member.

In RL soldiers dont fight alone, i can imagine the above replacing the current OPF/Arma system.

Imagine the above combined with this interesting quote from the article:

Quote[/b] ]

For Arma 2 we are making AI which will work in precision in centimeters, which communicates more, and gesticulate. AI Which takes cover behind the corners, leans from the corners, uses sidesteps, back steps and stuff like that. I think all of this makes for a completely new experience from player vs AI battles. We are working on the system of suppressive fire too.

It would be awsome, or what? ..

Edit:

Uhh, someone beat me to it, nice!

FWIW, I completely agree with all of this. The continual

micromanagement of the men in your squad absolutely has

to go. Same goes for the "kamikaze" battledrills. The quote

about working in 4 or 5 man teams is worrying in that regard

though (although it remains to be seen what that really

means).

If BIS give that some attention, and if they also actually

manage to implement the stuff Maruk talks about regarding

cover and suppressing fire, then ArmA II might be well worth

investigating and supporting (although to be sure it's rather

disappointing that it took so long for them to realise the

necessity for these features).

I really hope BIS can get everything together, finally.

Not that anyone cares, of course, but in the meantime, I'm

going to step back from ArmA. I really wanted to like it but it

really doesn't cut it for me any more as a "battle simulation"

and it makes a second-rate "shoot-em-up" game.

[4 IN 1 0]

most of the time ppl need an answer for things that can or cannot be done instead of guessing around or try finding the ghost.

like the walk on vehicales stuff, we all asked about it, we all wanted it to be there, but it isnt, 9 months later the answer cames out, engine code changed too much and BI dont want to risk the chance to dig out more bugs for the already buggy game, good point, and i accept that, see?

[frederf 0]

Quote[/b] ]The biggest improvement I see is in the reduction of cheating, which became a big threat more recently, repaired fog on DX10 graphic cards (Geforce 8xxx, Radeon 2xxx) and removing of the copy-protection service and hacking exe.

Cheating reduction, good. The broccoli of updates to ArmA (good for you but hardly exciting). Fog on DX10 cards... yeah that's a bug. I know Nvidia is probably at least half to blame but BIS is very obliged to fix it. Something about copy protection, the English is very broken "removing of the [...] hacking exe" that I can't really tell. As far as I know the copy protection isn't bad at all, but as always the less copy protection the less customers will have problems with it.

Quote[/b] ]How about the artillery? [...]without extra scripting[...]

Marek: We are making this by scripts too. But we are planning to use this feature more, but it isn’t our primary objective.

Basically no, no actual artillery. Instead it's BIS doing arty scripts (read BF2 style) which the community could (and already has) done. Are the limitations preventing long range munitions really that hard-coded?

Quote[/b] ]We are adding many nice details and other things. Additionally we are planning a new alternative edit mode. So I believe the community will not be disappointed.

Details = really minor things. ArmA's value is in its content. A hundred AddOns and cool new skins are worthless without actual missions to play. If ArmA is going to blossom, BIS is going to have to develop:

1. A 3D-Editor at least for placing objects quickly and easily.

2. A good scripting manager/briefing/debugger/editing reference built into the game editor.

3. A good mission evaluator module.

Really really wonderful stuff can be made for ArmA but isn't because it's a slow, tedious, obscure process. Currently it takes a group of 1-3 people 2-4 weeks to put together a respectable mission. Most don't want to give that kind of effort and thus we all play Evolution.

Quote[/b] ]We are doing the maximum we can to keep Arma alive, but we hope that Arma 2 will fully replace Arma since it will be really an improvement of the game and the porting of the user made stuff will be very easy. We are not planning full support for Arma after Arma 2 release.

I can really respect this position. BIS really really wanted to release a true Game2 straight away, not OFP1.5 (i.e. ArmA). It's really obvious how ArmA is simply "what they had done for Game2" when the bills came. Business is like that, but despite the stop-gap nature of ArmA, it has no equal in software (outside VBS2) today. BIS has a plan to seamlessly (as best they can) shift the ArmA crowd and content to ArmAII and I wish that plan the best.

I cannot wait for Game2 if it is truly the beast of their visions that ArmA interrupted.

Quote[/b] ]Big groups are hard to control. We want to make ARMA 2 accessible for more people, and for them a team bigger then 4-5 soldiers is too complicated.

Equals: Instead of making a command structure capable of handling many troops we're going to... not handle many troops.

[BLSmith2112 0]

Wtf? ArmA3?

LMAO

Unless ArmA2 is a flawless masterpiece that sells millions of copies and wins awards across the board. IMO, I don't know how much BIS can take in terms of negativity from their 'fans'.

[maruk 80]

To clarify few things here:

1) BIS has no plans in leaving military simulations. That doesn't mean we necessarily do military simulations only for rest of our lives (in fact, we do have plans for different breed of games since days of Operation Flashpoint...) but it is pretty safe to assume that realistic military shooters and simulations will be something that BIS will be involved in many years to come.

2) We are working on improved squad control for Arma 2 but in the same time we feel focusing on smaller team is best option for the main single player story.

3) And correct, there is no plan to implement complex chain of command anything like this in Arma 2.

4) No features will be removed so don't worry you wouldn't be able to do things you can in Operation Flashpoint and Arma 1 in our next title.

[Shadow NX 1]

Thank you for this statement Marek, i hope this will prevent more rumours to spread.

But about the Specop ( what else could a 4-5 men team be ) campaign may not be the best idea.

People loved the evolution from some grunt to a specop in OFP, why not give them what they really want.

I for myself have much faith in ArmA2 and possibly some limits since ofp will eb finally gone like shooting from vehicles and proxies on weapons just to name a few.

[frostybits 0]

HOW ABOUT BRINGING OUT A HOT FIX FOR THOSE OF US WITH VISTA 64 BIT AND 4 GIG OF RAM THAT CANT RUN THE GAME ANY MORE ON THE NEWER NVIDIA DRIVERS!

Thanx

[Fred DM 0]

2) We are working on improved squad control for Arma 2 but in the same time we feel focusing on smaller team is best option for the main single player story.

good decision. having a large team under control is counter-productive in most games, from military shooters to RTS games. ArmA could really profit from a more "band of brothers" kind of approach (small team, individual soldiers, memorable characters). basically like OPF.

and a small team doesn't necessarily mean spec ops only, now does it?

[Shadow NX 1]

your capslock key is stuck it seems