Petition for more Realism in Arma2

[mr.g-c 6]

This is a Petition made by me to let the Community show their opinion about the realism and its features presented in Arma2 to the BI-Studio leaders/decision-makers.

If you agree that Arma2 needs "more" realism (in any matter) then please sign the Petition with "Yes". If you feel not at all, then please choose the option "Don't sign".

Also i want to make it clear that i'm not talking about "wounding" or effects on "humans/player", but rather on "machines".

Yes war is terrible, i hate it - but realism applied to vehicles add a lot to the overall gameplay i believe.

Preface:

From what i have read (press coverages), saw (videos) and listen (Ivan Buchta Interview) to, in certain (but important) Parts, Arma2 seems to me just as "unrealistic" as OFP1 and Arma1 was.

You, dear BI-Studio, claim(ed) with slogans like "Most realistic Military Simulation", that you will be "realistic" this time in your 3rd Military-Game.

Even though you try to sell certain old things from Arma1 like something new ("Real world ballistics" - i don't mind), you also mentioned "Realistic Penetration" as one of the major features to be worth called a "simulation"....

However when watching all the latest Video Footages from both GC08 and the most recent ones, i get a very different feeling about that.

In those Videos i see exploding UAZ cars by small-arms fire, big exploding Tanks, APFSDS (Sabot) rounds blasting away large chunks of houses, "kindergarten radar" at air+ground vehicles, no single bullet-impact-textures, wrong ATGM trajectories and countless more.

This is like, or even worse than Hollywood and will attract little kids to the game, rather than your potential "targeted" customer-crowd.

Also i am very concerned that the game some of us Arma-Fans usually "laugh about" from you competitor at Codemasters, (OFP2) have already confirmed to include the most of those realism features into their game.

I don't know why you still continue to manage the "realism" like you did in OFP back in 2001.

I don't know if its because you either fear complaining military customers that their 1000€ VBS copy is then less or "only" equal realistic than a commercial 50€ game,

or that you fear less sold copies when it gets "too realistic", but i really would like to know why.

If its something related to the latter reason, then i can only disagree with it and i will give you only a short example out of my own experience:

In 2001 as OFP1 came out, i was one of the first customers who bought it. I was so amazed by this game that i advertised it to the boys of my whole IT-School class, Friends and all people i knew of which playing computer-games.

One of the two major arguments to "convince" them i used was "REALISM".

Later they told me even that the keyword "Realism" was one of the major factors for the people to buy it.

And those guys were no typical "simulation" players - they were ordinary Doom/Duke3d/Quake2/HL1/other shooter players.

Ok, maybe you might think it was a coincidence that people in my environment are more attracted to realism as others were, but personally i doubt it.

Even when reading in international COD4/Crysis Forums, people always mentioning "realism" in games to be something "good" and a attraction to buy a certain game.

So to summarize it: I think major parts of the gaming industry is wrong when they think that "Realism" is a "show-stopper" for sell-rates..... And didn't OFP1 (which at that point introduced realism never seen before in a game and made it x-times harder to play) showed you with its over 1.x million sold copies that selling a realism-game "works"?!

I also don't want to start with the "Arma1 was bad" thing, but we all know it was disappointing to a certain degree and today after the recent media-coverages appearing, i read really a lot of people saying that they won't buy it this time if not "this and that" OFP1-Introduced & non-realistic feature will finally vanish... i just want to mention that - and it should make you concerned at some point (just read all comments on many online-magazines/fan-sites/Arma-related Forums, which were posting the recent coverages).

OK enough now of the Preface-part, i will now post what features concerned me at most and what i think might can be done about it. Also i will maybe post some videos to show you how its really looking (if i find all i have in mind).

My list of unrealistic realized things (i hope community will add other stuff which concerns them too):

1. Realistic Penetrations :

 -We have not seen so much of it, but what we have seen, it seems that there is not such a feature because of:

a) UAZ explodes by 7,62mm fire

b) APFSDS ("Sabot", or "KE" Penetrator) blasting away large chunks of the destructible buildings

c) exploding tanks with massive hollywood-like explosions....

All 3 points are very unrealistic. Cars NEVER explode in RL, "Sabot" rounds simply would pass entirely through the building (and through a UAZ of course) and left a very small hole, Tanks do not explode everytime - it depends on if they have loaded ammo/fuel, what part is hit and what kind of tank.

For instance T72 and Tanks based on it are a exception of that will most likely have a explosion on which the entire turret flies up to 100m in the air.

Others would just "cook-off" like

IF you hit the correct part.

In RL, such a tank is hit, there is then a "devastating behind armor effect" which kills/seriously injure the crew/parts of it and then the Tank is disabled - mission done! No explosion.....

To make the long story short: Get rid of the hitpoint system and make each part on vehicles independ "pentrable" by certain ammo-types/speed/mass of the ammo.

Also properly make after-impact-effects like ammo/fuel "cook-off" and crew which might get killed/injured on successfull penetration. I believe such RL-like effects could also look very "attracting" to people

Make cars not exploding at all, but rather entirely disabled after certain compartments are totally damaged (engine, electronics, wheels, axis, etc.). Worth to watch is

with 200 Rounds fired on a ordinary car. Notice that not even all bullets pass the second door on the other side!

Make them leak fuel when a named selection in the model "fueltank" is penetrated and let then the cars catch fire which SLOWLY gets bigger and bigger....

2. OFP-Radar:

Simply get rid off it, its old, ugly outdated, very unrealistic, etc. Should i add more?

3. Helicopter Gunnery:

Get rid of "Tab-fire-Tab-fire-Tab-fire-Tab-fire - OMG i have destroyed 16 Tanks in less than 3 seconds...."

I hope you know how those laser guided systems working in RL, don't you?

I'm not demanding a complete ultra realistic, black-shark/other simulation like stuff, but where is the Problem to quip the Cobra gunner with a laser-designator and the fired Hellfire then flies exactly and only to the spot you lasing to?

Then some nice trajectory-changes for the hellfire that it flies high in the air and it would be realistic enough.

Kamov works similar, btw.

4. Single Shot AT-Weapons.

AT4/M136 is single shot. Do i need to add more?

5. Hopefully Countermeasures make it into the game. If they can break the campaign like Ivan Buchta said, the make them only available when selecting the "Veteran" Mode. But please don't drop that feature....

6. A difficulty setting to remove the ammo/magazine counter on the screen and introduce a "mag-check". So when you press a key it say then "The magazine feels heavy" (if its full/nearly full) and "The magazine feels light" (if its close to empty)

7. Screen shake on Recoil.

It was in OFP1, it was in Arma1 up to Version 1.04 and it felt much much better than the current solution, also its more realistic since you can't simulate every other real-life recoil effect in the game.

I know you dropped this "screen-shake" because of the TRACK-IR, but i bet there could be a solution that the screen shakes just minimum on fire also with TRACK-IR.

8. Weapon "remembers" which fire mode you selected, even after you switched to M203/Gp25/GP30 Underbarrel grenade-launchers

9. Backup ironsights at ACOG and other scoped Weapons. It could be simple and even today relaized by just creating a second "eye" memory-point in the memory lod and giving a switch to this memeory point a key ingame.

On a side note, the effect of Sabot impact you showed is a bit wrong - it looks exactly like this in RL:

Very much sparks.....

BTW: I think if you won't make those things as "standard", why not lay them into the "Veteran" mode or introduce a even harder "Simulation Mode" ?

Best Regards, Christian

[icebreakr 3132]

OMG I'm not alone in this war kudos!

[Kirq 0]

+1

[Wolfrug 0]

I'm one of two (so far) who have not signed this petition! Hooray!

Anyway, I've got tons of rants about this subject, but I'll try to hold myself. In short, though, realism is frankly overrated, gameplay always comes first. Then again, I'm the kind of freak who will put story/immersion/creativity/art over gameplay, so you probably don't really give a hoot about what I have to say (if I want smooth, fun, brain-smashing gameplay, I'll just go play a Valve game, 'kay?)

ArmA/OFP are superb as platforms, as sandboxes - and the more immersive features it has out of the box, the better! Realistic tides, constellations ; dynamic lighting system, a beautiful terrain out of the box ; endless modding opportunities, intuitive and powerful scripting system and editor ; solid basics in AI, damage and physics modelling, infantry, tank, vehicle and air simulation that does what it's supposed to. That's all I want.

The thing is, the moment they start modelling in all of these stupid specific things, like exactly how a Ka-52 is supposed to acquire targets, or the way a T-72's targeting computer differs from an M1A2's, then....well...generality has gone the way of the dodo, all hail specificity. They can't possibly mod that for 150+ vehicles, not really - so they mod it in for 5. Or 2. Or 1 (like that simulator you're all going nuts about, Blackshark). And suddenly we've got the "ultimate realism combat simulator for this one unspecified vehicle". Boo-ring.

I prefer the general lines, the broad scopes, the endless possibilities to the specific details, the search for tiny discrepancies, the boring pedantics of gun(helicopter/tank/whatever) fetishism. I prefer playing with my approximations of toy soldiers, which can happily be adapted to any time frame, any scenario, whatever I put my fancy to. The realism you're pushing for (ooh, IR cameras, ooh, realistic targeting systems, ooh, single-shot AT launchers, etc etc) are just gimmicks, extra toys that are fun to play with but ultimately something only marginally useful or even fun in the large whole.

TL;DR:

ArmA is plenty realistic to me already, nothing else out there even comes close. Moar realizm just smells like moar stupid gimmicks to me, to be honest.

Disclaimer:

These are just my current opinions, at this instant. Very, very, very subjective. You do not need to feel attacked in any way, you are perfectly entitled to your opinions as well, and I can relate - I just don't agree. I apologize in advance if I have come off as aggressive or patronizing. Thank you.

Regards,

Wolfrug

[jakerod 254]

I signed it as "I want more realism" just because I think it would make it better. However, I am fine at the level it is at and I would definitly buy it today if it came out.

[Heatseeker 0]

Its hard not to sign, the game should have a much better vehicle damage and handling model(s) atleast.. in these aspects i believe the Arma 2 simulation is a decade behind every other game out there .

I posted opinions and concerns about vehicle simulation and related systems many times already, if its not there its probably because they didnt manage to push that far with the time available to work on the game.

I'll sign your petition for Arma 3 , for Arma 2 i'll enjoy the new scenery and improved a.i. on foot and hope BIS take a better look at those HUD's and sort that TAB locking crap.

[Yoma 0]

I don't think i'm alone when i just ask for a GAME with some realistic features.

Stuff like camera shake on recoil might seem realistic, but will get most of us very seasick after playing the game for half an hour.

Sure a better missile guidance system would be great fun, it would also mean no more hopping in a chopper and having fun on your own.

Getting healed/patched up semi instantly is also not realistic, but hey it's still a game we play, and having the possibilty to do this is just plain good old fun.

There is a difficult balance between gameplay and realism. Also you have to take into account general feasability. For example if you want true detailed damage effects, have a thought on how that would effect network performance. Instead of keeping X number of variables in sync accross different clients, it could mean taking X*10 number of variables. I'd rather have that number dedicated to stuff like flight path then true armour values.

If you compare what BIS does to other games, they are, given the scale, allready very realistic. For example i can't remember any shooter that has the same scale AND has stuff like ricochets.

Sure it's not perfect, yes it may improve, but hey they went a long way allready.

Some of the reasons some people prefer OFP over Arma have a lot to do with PLAYABILITY and less with REALISM.

Anyway isn't it a bit harsh when you judge a game, before actually playing it. My advice to all people voting on this would be: think before you vote. Is full realism really what you want? Are you fine with never being able to even drive a tank unless you study it's controls for a month?

I know some of you hope OFPII will bring you full realism, but those guys can't even model an ACOG near decently.

[Shadow NX 1]

Whats the deal with all the petitions for every lil thing lately anyway?

If you want hardcore realism play Steel Beasts or Blackshark.

I wouldnt mind seing things like material penetration and such but as said before, if it was that easy to implement as some seem to think it would be already in ArmA...

Btw, i did not vote for anything as i wasnt able to play ArmA2 yet ( and i assume all others in here aswell ) and have no idea how realistic or unrealistc it will be...

[Heatseeker 0]

The basic stuff atleast... should a car drive around in circles due to a flat tire? .

[Commando84 0]

Don't over do the realism, Im happy I won't need a flight manual of 200 pages to learn to fly in the game.

I kind of like the hollywood style effects, though one may wonder if the Anti tank and anti air missiles are targeting stuff to easy?

I can have stuff targeted that is outside my FOV. ( field of view and still hit them 80% of the time at least..  

More detailed dammage model like tank should show more visually that it has taken a beating and not just a bit of black in the texture when its health is red, yellow zone.

Could make some parts of the model broken off and a bit of smoke pouring out of a vent or engine  

edit

Bospor has a good point with the crewmans and pilots killing you when jumping out of a destroyed tank , its annoying but imo I've gotten so used to it so I have learned how to avoid getting killed by them 98% of the time I get into such a situation

Part of the Ofp legacy is the punishing realism and gameplay and how though the A.i was with its aiming that made people yell stuff during lan parties when killed

But sure if the a.i skill level could be lowered by 50% so it takes a bit longer before they fire or do some dispersion on their shots. For players should get a post effect maybe like a bit of motion blur and heart beating or something to show the adrenaline and shock being high of near death experience or something..

[bospor 0]

I am glad that someone at least takes his time and writes a very detailed petition. Perhaps not all the points are important to some of us, but the more suggestions or ideas we share, the easier it is for the developers to get the general mood of expectations. I agree that it is too Hollywoodish to see cars burst in flames every time they are destroyed. Shaking of the screen... not important to me at all.

I would definately prefer playability over themostbeautifulfucking graphics in the world. Who cares how the game looks if it sucks!

That TAB-fire system is getting old and boring, time for something more realistic.

Magazine reloading can't be performed while moving ... WTF? Where did that idea come from???

This one is one of my perks... I HATE TANK CREWMAN THAT JUMP OUT OF THE BURNING TANK OR APC AND KILL EVERYONE WITH THEIR SUPER ACURATE FIRE FROM M4's or AK-74U's. WTF! They suppose to be a little wounded and somewhat "distressed" by being inside the recently destroyed vehicle.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE make the helicopters hold the ground and try engaging the enemy from the safe distance! They keep chasing some tank nomatter what when all the AA systems are engaging and easily destroying it.

I am sure we all have something to say on the subject of realism in A2. It is important. If BIS decides to call the game "Most realistic military simulator", we do expect it to be realistic. That's all. So please don't critisise people who expect realism from the "Most realistic military simulation" on the market.

[POTS 0]

Just to let BIS know, there wounded system is fairly realistic (as long as being shot in the heart and head make you die instantly). People don't die right away. Sad fact, some people sometimes do not die right away when their shot in the heart (extremely rare). They'll sometimes be in intense pain bleeding out holding their chest and fading away. Death is really screwed up like that. So I think BIS's addition will actualy improve in the direction of realism. And maybe give modders a chance to improve it even more to add random chances, or unique bleed out times for every soldier.

EDIT: And you can reload while moving, even running. Even cops can do this. My uncle volunteering for a rural police department can run while reloading. BIS's upgrade is a very smart one to add.

[Maddmatt 1]

A small game developer simply cannot make every aspect of such a large game realistic. The main focus should be on the infantry perspective, and as you can tell from the previews there have been significant improvements in the realism here in terms of AI and other details.

More improvements are always welcome, I'm sure even the developers would love to be able to implement a realistic damage system and everything people want. But face it, they can't do everything.

I think the best thing to do for people who want improvements is to make specific and reasonable suggestions on the forums. Maybe start 2 threads, one for the damage system and one for targeting systems where we can discuss them? These seem to be the main areas where people want to see improvements.

Anyway I did vote to sign the petition...

There are some suggestions in the first post that I would love to see in the game, especially backup ironsights for scoped weapons. That is a big one for gameplay I think.

Edit:

Quote[/b] ]

On a side note, the effect of Sabot impact you showed is a bit wrong - it looks exactly like this in RL:

Got any videos? Just interested, because I haven't been able to find good videos of Sabot impacts which is why I never did an effect for them for my effects mod  

Maybe such a video would be interesting for BIS too...

[Second 0]

The main focus should be on the infantry perspective, and as you can tell from the previews there have been significant improvements in the realism here in terms of AI and other details.

Yup. This is reason why i voted no. I can't support OP's idea of direction where ArmA2 should be taken. BIS has very finite resources, and it's better to get AI up-to-date and improve infantry aspects in general.

One thing is that BIS will probably not listen to us. I doupt they have time or resources to make major overhaul any more (those which they have decided to improve earlier, they do). What has been set is set. So this wish-listing comes maybe bit too late, like a 6-12 months.

Right now i'm hoping that BIS chosed the right things for me.

[SaBrE_UK 0]

Don't agree with some of your "more realistic" points.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Its good to see that BIS is still developing a game thats a bit closer to reality than most shooters! Many things in ArmA2 will be improved some things optimized and others may stay the same.

1. Basic stuff like get in/ get out of vehicles on both sides, crews running away from exploding/burning vehicles and others (mentioned in many bug reports) should be fixed.

2. Improved penetration systems and real looking damage effects - nice, but more people believe in hollywood/movie sfx and like to watch them in games too. Entertainement vs. Simulation.

3. Radar/Tab thingy - show some realistic alternatives that could be used in ArmA2 with different player skills (novice/regular/veteran) and proper working for/with AI (no cheating).

4. LAW/M136 - imho a balance thing to RPGs - some players would cry out loud if they had to deal with singleshot AT M136 units against multishot AT RPG units. In ArmA2 there will be the SMAW and Javelin.

5. Countermeasure system - would be very nice and hopefully BIS will make at least a simple one for all military aircrafts!

6. Ammo counter - as option: default activated for Novice/Regular and deactivated for veterans. Would be nice if the GUI can be easily customized by players eg. position of compass, watch, HUD, color etc.

7. Screen shakes, blood splashes + more - imho bit overdone by some modifications looks more like a action camera not like you would see it in real. As an option ok.

8. Single/Burst/Auto mode of weapons should stay like player switched them.

9. Think that BIS has done many weapons with and without scopes, dont know if its possible to attach scopes during combat in ArmA2. Imho this feature hasnt that priority if you can change/replace weapons in editor. Wondering if there are any realworld soldiers having all kind of scopes (ACOG/Aimpoint/ELCAN etc) available in combat?

"Stop the combat! I like to attach one of my five scopes"  

mr.g-c nice impact pics but you know the differences between human eye and a high speed camera? For some intros/outros and advertisements and movies this stuff is great.

Imho its a better idea to add some more options for players so they can choose how they like to play the game. ArmA2 is Alpha and lets hope BIS is going to make another great game in this military tactic area! Wish that they get enough time and motivation to develop and test ArmA2 things.

[GaGrin 0]

The only thing I desperately want changed is the damage model for vehicles. It's not perfect for people, but it is workable.

Considering the game is already tracking projectile speed and penetration factors it seems like a massive wasted opportunity to not directly base the damage model off that information.

Hit points aren't a gameplay versus realism issue. They aren't more fun, they aren't more balanced. They are, infact, just worse.

Anyone who's played Soldiers HOWW2 knows how brilliant vehicle combat can be if they react properly: mostly tanks get knocked out and the crew bail. The vehicle doesn't explode outright or even burn in most cases. It just stops.

[MehMan 0]

mr.g-c you come off like an asshole.

[DWillyEfect 0]

Some of you people have to remember that this is just a game. Alot of the stuff that you consider unrealistic is just to enhance the game.

Maybe not so much in this thread, but I've seen people want weapon jamming because it really happens.

In this thread I see that you want to remove the bullet counter. In real life you'll have more of a sense of how many bullets are left, in a game, not so much.

[W0lle 1047]

mr.g-c you come off like an asshole.

+1 WL for this.

You have been long enough around to know the forums rules.

[Commando84 0]

to everybody complaining about the vehicles I think its pretty obvious that Bis made it the way it is so that players reaching a scene where there are vehicles should know which vehicles are destroyed / disabled to look on them graphically to see wich are dangerous and not.

[mr.g-c 6]

Very nice to hear all you guys opinion to this.

I just want to add, because it was mentioned, i'm well aware that its just a game and when you guys really entirely read the 1st post, then the "only" very "big" feature im asking for, is the Penetration of Vehicles...

Most of the other points would be already possible by modding (but some great ones not because of engine limitations).

I personally somehow can't understand how some of you think that its "good" or that some of you are really "satisfied with" to be able to kill a M1A1 with 1400 Rounds of 7,62mm MG fire.

I really believe that a change in this - no matter how simple it would be- would have a very noticable impact on gameply into a "good" direction.

Just imagine in MP coops that you now have to do more teamwork to successfully disable a tank or countless other things.

Also:

People are different, some people "accept" simply everything and thinking then "ahh other things are worse", and there are people who don't lost the believe that something can be changed if mentioned enough.

I would consider myself rather to the latter part and reached a lot of things with that way.

Im not saying its better to be critic/complaining/demanding/whatever, but i just think "both" sides should be more accepting "the other side".

Quote[/b] ]mr.g-c you come off like an asshole.

Thank you for that, you are some kind of guy not able to properly talk, but rather insult?

I don't mind, in a other Forum where i mentioned "a little more realism", people accused me even of being possibly responsible for a failure of Arma2, called me names too and said i should go to afghanistan/iraq if i want any realism....

I don't know how closeminded/blinded/dumbed down such peoples are, or if they haven't even read+thought about the whole post/thing, but well i think we can reach a little bit at the devs with such suggestions/petitions.

Quote[/b] ]to everybody complaining about the vehicles I think its pretty obvious that Bis made it the way it is so that players reaching a scene where there are vehicles should know which vehicles are destroyed / disabled to look on them graphically to see wich are dangerous and not.

Well i have no problem with burned vehicles, smoking vehicles/whatever....

Again, thanks for your guys input, i really like to hear other opinions.

[funnyguy1 0]

Well, I'm a realist, and I don't believe all the things mentioned here will happen...nevertheless I must admit that every single time I see a car being blown up like that or something as minor and yet annoyingly unrealistic I'm like...omg, c'mon, it's perfectly doable, and it still isn't in the game.

[mr.g-c 6]

Well, I'm a realist, and I don't believe all the things mentioned here will happen...nevertheless I must admit that every single time I see a car being blown up like that or something as minor and yet annoyingly unrealistic I'm like...omg, c'mon, it's perfectly doable, and it still isn't in the game.

I see it similar.....

Btw, saw this now, must have over-read it:

Quote[/b] ]My advice to all people voting on this would be: think before you vote. Is full realism really what you want? Are you fine with never being able to even drive a tank unless you study it's controls for a month?

I know some of you hope OFPII will bring you full realism, but those guys can't even model an ACOG near decently.

Yoma, i never talked about such a scale of realism... in fact thats even for me way way way to much if you would need to study a whole controls before actually be able to start/drive it.

Im rather talking about adding SOME realism, in other words just a "little bit".

Biggest "thing" is like mentioned the Penetration-Thing Penetration/Hit- After effects.

I know that big explosions/fires do attract people, just like action movies do, but it could be very attracting to if you shoot for instance with Tracer/Incendiary-Tracers on a car and parts of it like seats/stuff made of "fabric" starts to catch fire on the first hit.

Or like mentioned leaked fuel when fuel-tank is hit, which starts with a small fire and eventually the whole vehicle is in flames and setting-up stored amunition/etc.

Or imagine hitting a car/light armored vehicle with RPGs and whole parts blow away/etc.

You know, realism has very very great effects too. Maybe even better ones than Hollywood.

Quote[/b] ]mr.g-c nice impact pics but you know the differences between human eye and a high speed camera? For some intros/outros and advertisements and movies this stuff is great.

Yes i know, maybe in RL that effects lasts for a tiny part of a second only/etc. But in a Video from Discovery channel they showed a APFSDS Impact and i remember it was simply a very "sparky" effect. Just what you imagine when you fire one metal-made part with highspeed on another and they colliding....

[Serclaes 0]

Yoma, i never talked about such a scale of realism... in fact thats even for me way way way to much if you would need to study a whole controls before actually be able to start/drive it.

Im rather talking about adding SOME realism, in other words just a "little bit".

That point for example would be much more worth for me than not-exploding cars.

I would love a range finding and on-button-press adjusting of the tanks main gun. Of course only if the target isnt behind partial cover.

Then vehicle and man portable magazines that are interchangeable. "Hey i have a M240 on the humvee, but no i can't take ammo from your M240".

Non stabilized guns where guns arent stabilized (Humvee, Stryker).

oh and BTW, i'm not an expert but i'm pretty sure the wall hit by a KE round can collapse. I do not say it must collapse everytime but it can. Now for the sake of building destruction i go with "this part collapses". Unless you buy me the CPU which can do static calculations for the building and make it collapse if a carrying part is hit.