Unit cohesion and game dynamics

[dslyecxi 23]

Some of the key factors in lone-wolfing are based off of the game in question (in this case ArmA) not being high-fidelity enough in its simulation to give realistic downsides to such behavior.

For instance, the following are very significant limitations on ArmA that can encourage the lone-wolf behavior or make it artificially more effective:

1. Poor stamina and general movement model results in infantry that are too mobile and too fast, with no significant penalties to counter-balance this.

a. Slope of terrain plays little influence due to there being no significant stamina penalty for moving on sloped terrain

b. Roughness of terrain does not come into play (ie: You can always sprint regardless of the type of ground you're moving over, movement speeds stay the same over all terrain)

c. Player can move at a very rapid pace indefinitely

d. Player's gear does not influence his movement speed or stamina

e. The effects of stamina loss can be counteracted by 30 seconds of slow movement, regardless of how much exertion occurred prior.

(There's more, but those are some of the key ones)

2. Unnaturally high weapon accuracy at any distance. Players in ArmA can fire much more accurately than an average combatant would be able to in a real-life situation. Stance plays much less of a part of shooting than it should (ie firing M249 from the shoulder, standing, with extremely high accuracy). Stamina and breathing play a very small role in-game compared to reality.

3. Low density of players in any given area (in the cited "10v10" scenario, you're looking at a limitless ability to flank due to no restrictions on movement and the inherent knowledge that all players have re: there being no enemy presence aside from the ten players whose positions they roughly know at the outset.)

4. Lack of significant microterrain (ie ditches, broken ground, small creeks, mounds, etc)

5. Shallow/basic damage modeling system

a. Live/dead system with very little in between

b. Very high lethality of most weapon systems at most ranges. Lots of "one shot" instant kills.

c. No body armor simulation in any form. Helmets, soft armor vests, and hard armor inserts are not simulated *at all*. These are huge issues in modern combat.

d. Little emphasis on wounding or treatment of wounds

6. Very little "suppression" modeling. Examples of suppression modeling can be seen in Red Orchestra (blurring screen from near misses), America's Army (IIRC - weapon accuracy degrades if under fire), and even in things like FDF Sound v1.3 (very sharp, loud, and accurate "supersonic bullet snaps").

7. Average sound modeling. Lots of things are not nearly so loud as they should be, whereas other things are much louder than they should be, resulting in sound taking on an unusual aspect in gameplay. A person can sneak up on you at a good movement speed in a thick, dense forest without making much if any sound, for example.

8. High communication barriers. Some of these will be addressed in 1.09 (VOIP, which is amazing when you utilize the Direct Speaking channel), others are difficult to do in games (ie: visual signaling and such). It's much harder to communicate and coordinate effectively as a team in 1.08 ArmA due to the communication barriers that exist. This tends to lead to people taking the path of least resistance - ie, lone-wolfing, where they don't have to worry as much about communicating with their teammates.

I could go on, but those are some of the things that can make lone-wolfing more successful than perhaps it should be.

Much of the conversation in this thread seems to be oriented towards public play with random people, so I'm afraid I won't be able to comment on that. As far as ShackTac's gameplay is concerned, though, we generally find lone-wolfing to not be terribly effective so long as the scenario is set up in a generally realistic fashion.

[ryankaplan 1]

@0311,

no problem, but if you re-read what i wrote:

"The ten INDIVIDUAL men have no clue". By this i didnt mean the unit organised as a section, but i was refering to the 10 rambos running about on their own. I said that the 'cohesive' unit was more aware of their surroundings and could share intelligence. This comment was based on current real life combat. I also added, that in gaming this position flips in the way that the 10 rambos have got perfect communication system called teamspeak , which cannot be decrypted and works over any distance.

You basicly agreed with what i said, and we're trying to say the same thing. Only, my english skills arent as articulate enough even tho my mother tongue is English...

I chose the (very) wrong wording when i said 'smallest tactical' unit will be a team. Basicly what im trying to say is, what 8-13 men squads are now, will be comparable to the 3-4 man teams of the future.

[General Barron 0]

Basicly what im trying to say is, what 8-13 men squads are now, will be comparable to the 3-4 man teams of the future.

I doubt it.

It isn't a problem of communication, it's a problem of fire and maneuver.

A single fireteam simply cannot do much on its own compared to a squad or really a platoon.

A platoon can have one squad lay down fire to suppress the enemy, have one squad maneuver around the flanks to assault thru, and have one squad in reserve providing rear security. A fireteam can't really separate like that because then they'd be breaking down into individuals, or "lone wolfs".

That brings us back to the topic at hand, why lone wolfs in video games, but not reality?

I think there are many reasons for this, many of which have been covered. In short, I think the problems are:

1) Goals of gamers are not the same as goals of RL combatants ("fun" in relatively short time vs mission accomplishment / survival; unrealistic / "gamey" situations & objectives (eg, CTF, "kill everyone") vs complex, real world ones (eg: large amounts of combatants, strategic objectives other than "kill everyone")

2) Rules of game are not the same as in RL (due to limitations of the program and of modern computers in general)

3) Individuals connecting on public servers often do not have the desire or ability to act as a team

These 3 points cover a whole lot of ground but I won't elaborate on them.

[SlipperyJim 0]

When you are on a public coop server if you follow too closely to another player you aren't always under cover when he opens fire. His gunfire may attract the enemy to your position by accident and get you also killed.

When I do group up with people I prefer to be in the rear so I can see what they are up to.

[Jinef 2]

Some really good comments guys, thanks a lot for contributing and please keep doing so.

Quote[/b] ]Much of the conversation in this thread seems to be oriented towards public play with random people, so I'm afraid I won't be able to comment on that.

I also am not used to playing on public servers, I play with the Zeus community. However I still want many opinions on this subject.

I am interested in possibly a set of config changes and some scripting framework which change the game dynamics enough to encourage unit cohesion. The list Dslyecxi posted is very precise and I have ideas on how several of the limitations can be alleviated somewhat.

There has been a lot of work done in OFP and ArmA and there is a *lot* of possibilities. The hard part is amalgamating everything in an efficient, optimised way.

Keep contributing please!

[max power 21]

I dont think it has much to do with fear.

So you think that suppression has nothing to do with mobility? hmm..