Petition for more Realism in Arma2

[mr.g-c 6]

Quote[/b] ]oh and BTW, i'm not an expert but i'm pretty sure the wall hit by a KE round can collapse.

I'm sorry but you are wrong... i don't remember in which forums/article i read it, but modern KE rounds, due to their small diameter and extreme fast speed + the alloy made of, will simply pass through any concrete-made/cinder block-wall buildings.

Hell even some small 50cal. entirely pass-through without the wall collapsing.

It's like shooting a arrow or bolt through a sheet of "pasteboard".

Sure there will be a hole a bit larger in diameter than the own diameter of the KE-penetrator (especially at the exit-side of the wall), but it will not let parts collapse.

However i agree that modern HE/Multi-Purpose Rounds from tanks should be able to let parts of buildings collapse.

[mattxr 9]

Maybe wait for the game to be released then put your "Opinions" in a thread. Who cares if somethings arnt to realistic. In the end it is a game, if you want most of that real deal shit go and buy VBS2 its there waiting for you!!!

[mr.g-c 6]

Quote[/b] ]Maybe wait for the game to be released then put your "Opinions" in a thread.

You are really funny.... do you think anything that "heavy" like realistic penetration would be included AFTER a release of the game? This would then break whole campaign, etc....

When you want to reach something you do it while its still in development and not after - lol.

Quote[/b] ]Who cares if somethings arnt to realistic.

Like you see in the results - enough!

Its not fair to question the intelligence/integrity/whatever of all the people voted for "more realism".

If you don't like that/You have different opinion - vote for no, but let the people their opinion.

Quote[/b] ]In the end it is a game, if you want most of that real deal shit go and buy VBS2 its there waiting for you

Thats just a lame argument, sorry. I wont answer why, besides the fact that people might feel different than you.....

[Serclaes 0]

It's like shooting a arrow or bolt through a sheet of "pasteboard".

Yea but a sheet of pasteboard doesnt carry a roof or possibly a second floor, or maybe all the stuff around it. A pasteboard cannot really be compared to a wall.

[DaSquade 0]

Quote[/b] ]if you want most of that real deal shit go and buy VBS2 its there waiting for you!!!

True, true and i have it. But one problem....the last decent orginazed mp session dates of september 2008 (around 20 players made it into the session if not mistaken, it was great...especially the night mission eventhough the mission didn't even had thermal scope edited in, only lasers).

I know, you can't help that and you aren't to blame. Just saying it isn't beause it is out there, it is there to fully enjoy it.

And no, i can't enjoy SP as i don't want to babysite my AI.

You  know how 'great' a nice coop is when you roll over it with a good team. But some just can't enjoy it that much anymore after all these years without some new features.

Back to ArmA:

*I assume you also don't go to the same restaurant with the same smile you entered it years ago, where they serve the same menu over and over....but just in an other dish and different background music   .

What i'm affraid of it that if arma2 won't have much new to offer, again (after arma1) a big part of the community will leave. Like explained somewhere else, it is often hard for modellers to make new stuff because they can't implant some stuff (not hardcoded and almost impossible to get around). This forces them to stick to eyecandy stuff and remake what has been made over and over. It gets ennoying after all these years...

I agree it might sound pointless and repeating it in most eyes is trolling, but again i fear for its succes and lifetime.

Did you check out the new released 'feature' pdf on ArmA2 site? Impressive isn't it   .

*sorry for 'your so called trolling'. This starts to sound as an 'our you are for the US/BIS or you are against it'.

My opinion: delay ArmA2. Apperently most can life with the current ArmA1. I suppose all those who want that 'extra' will accept the delay...

[/ends freedom of speech mode]

[MehMan 0]

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

+1 WL for this.

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

Don't care.

Quote[/b] ]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.

Pot meet kettle.

You behave as if BIS owe you something in ArmA2, you haven't bought the product yet or had a chance to play it, so you're jumping to conclusions. While I agree with most what you have to say I don't agree with how you are saying it.

Everything in ArmA and OFP is there for a reason, instead of bashing everything over and over again and behaving like they owe you something you can just relax, breathe in and out and then rethink your approach.

[Second 0]

Quote[/b] ]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.

Pot meet kettle.

You behave as if BIS owe you something in ArmA2, you haven't bought the product yet or had a chance to play it, so you're jumping to conclusions. While I agree with most what you have to say I don't agree with how you are saying it.

Everything in ArmA and OFP is there for a reason, instead of bashing everything over and over again and behaving like they owe you something you can just relax, breathe in and out and then rethink your approach.

True. He's one of those persons who gets far too exited when ever something has word "realism"-glued on side of it.

about Mr.g-c i'd like to say, that how he's reasonably can expect everything added to game he wishes, given with manpower/resources BIS has? And game should be released just in few months. While he don't think about things which his super technology-porn would off-set. All i can sense is tech-porn speaking, without much of practical thinking i.e common sense. This-little-bell-has-to-be-correct-and-it-fixes-things-up kind wishful thinking.

Granted i'm quite a whiner/criticizer myself. But i think i somehow can keep the Big Picture in my mind and don't wander too deep into tiny technical details (and also recall what are their possible problems). Maybe i'm wrong, truth is that i'm right now pro AI and pro tactic+SOPs. Probably in unhealthy amounts to some degree.

[dslyecxi 23]

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.

I won't touch the rest of your post (disagree with your tone, attitude, lack of comprehension of the "big picture", and so on and so forth), but I do think it's worth correcting you on this one. You claim to "know" why that change happened, and blame it on TrackIR.

You are wrong. It had nothing to do with TrackIR, and you have not even given an accurate description of what the issue was. The issue was that the player's point of view was tied to the weapon, and that caused the view to jolt and jerk around when moving with ironsights up. The change was done to correct that, and it had a MASSIVE positive response to it. TrackIR had nothing to do with it at all, in any way, shape, or form.

Here are some videos to remind you.

This is how it was originally, and in OFP:

http://dslyecxi.com/screens....ent.wmv

These are the two videos I posted after it was changed, to illustrate the new behavior:

http://dslyecxi.com/screens....ns2.wmv

http://dslyecxi.com/screens....ons.wmv

Now, am I saying that there shouldn't be some kind of recoil impulse represented by a jolt/shake of the screen when firing? No. I am, however, saying that you have described the issue wrong, claimed to know why it was done the way it was, and that you are wrong in that claim.

[Deadfast 43]

...Here are some videos to remind you...

Haha, I really can't understand how I could live with this before.

I'm getting motion sickness just from watching that video...

[Commando84 0]

Here are some videos to remind you.

This is how it was originally, and in OFP:

http://dslyecxi.com/screens....ent.wmv

These are the two videos I posted after it was changed, to illustrate the new behavior:

http://dslyecxi.com/screens....ns2.wmv

http://dslyecxi.com/screens....ons.wmv

Man that was some times, I had totally forgotten how it was o aim in Arma before they patched it out

And I had thought it was my computer at the time that lagged causing my aim to go crazy

I think it was a prime example of to much realism could hurt the game.. Oh well I think most people learned some valuable lessons.

[mr.g-c 6]

Quote[/b] ]You claim to "know" why that change happened, and blame it on TrackIR.

No im not blaiming it on Track-IR. I just read it in many forums that people said it was because of Track-IR.

Quote[/b] ]Now, am I saying that there shouldn't be some kind of recoil impulse represented by a jolt/shake of the screen when firing? No. I am, however, saying that you have described the issue wrong, claimed to know why it was done the way it was, and that you are wrong in that claim.

Nice, at least we have a similar opinion in the direction. Yes maybe i have described it wrong. I would wonder if you would think different about this, as you are a AR-15 owner yourself and you know how it feels when pressing your cheek on the buttstock for aiming and firing then.

Quote[/b] ]True. He's one of those persons who gets far too exited when ever something has word "realism"-glued on side of it.

about Mr.g-c i'd like to say, that how he's reasonably can expect everything added to game he wishes, given with manpower/resources BIS has? And game should be released just in few months. While he don't think about things which his super technology-porn would off-set. All i can sense is tech-porn speaking, without much of practical thinking i.e common sense. This-little-bell-has-to-be-correct-and-it-fixes-things-up kind wishful thinking

I disagree on your claim here.

I think the stuff i posted would have a impact on gameplay - thats why i posted it not to forget that its about time after ~ 10 years to get rid of stff like hitpoint system, don't you think too?

I as a customer should normally not care about the "bigger picture" or BIS Manpower, don't you agree?

Do you care about GM market situation when buying a car? I do not.

[dslyecxi 23]

Nice, at least we have a similar opinion in the direction. Yes maybe i have described it wrong. I would wonder if you would think different about this, as you are a AR-15 owner yourself and you know how it feels when pressing your cheek on the buttstock for aiming and firing then.

I own an AR-15 and an AK-47 as well as several pistols, so yes, I do have a perspective on such things. That perspective was shared with BIS re: the issue I talked about previously, and with other topics as well. I don't see any real point in posting suggestions like that on this forum, though, and certainly not in this thread.

Quote[/b] ]I as a customer should normally not care about the "bigger picture" or BIS Manpower, don't you agree?

Do you care about GM market situation when buying a car? I do not.

This kind of attitude is why I have so little interest in discussing ArmA with you, and find your comments so frustrating to read. You can ignore the big picture all that you want, and your suggestions will suffer from it. Please continue to blind yourself to the reality of the situation, and demand some absolutely absurd things of BIS. Good luck with that.  

[Second 0]

Quote[/b] ]True. He's one of those persons who gets far too exited when ever something has word "realism"-glued on side of it.

about Mr.g-c i'd like to say, that how he's reasonably can expect everything added to game he wishes, given with manpower/resources BIS has? And game should be released just in few months. While he don't think about things which his super technology-porn would off-set. All i can sense is tech-porn speaking, without much of practical thinking i.e common sense. This-little-bell-has-to-be-correct-and-it-fixes-things-up kind wishful thinking

I disagree on your claim here.

I think the stuff i posted would have a impact on gameplay - thats why i posted it not to forget that its about time after ~ 10 years to get rid of stff like hitpoint system, don't you think too?

I as a customer should normally not care about the "bigger picture" or BIS Manpower, don't you agree?

Do you care about GM market situation when buying a car? I do not.

Yes. it is going to affect to gameplay, better or worse? Probably both. But which one will weight more in scale.

One thing is disposable AT-weapons, there have been several strong points risen to support current system over the years. While there really aren't much convincing material other ways, other than that they are disposable in reality (which doesn't mean that several of them can be carried by same person). So this would require inventory system's overhaul. If that is going to happen then introducing disposable launchers would be good idea, but not sooner.

Another thing i'm againt is that 'technology should not be nerfed'-mantra and 'forcing things to be in balance should not be there'-mantra. This will have major effect on ruining ArmA's combined arms principle. Should tanks be able to rumble over couple of platoons of infantry on their own? Should choppers average lifetime be 30 seconds in battle (or even less)? There are hundreds of thing AI doesnt' and can't handle. Be it pop-up attacks, shoot-and-scoot, hit-and-run, waiting for flank shots, adapting into situation, creative thinking, hiding from thermals, getting prepared for armor's visit, getting out of harms way before it's too late. Dig-in. And more.

This all leads to something called armor (M1 Abrams to be exact) dominance, they see well because of their thermals, where they kill everything from several kilometers, they will be able to withstand about almost everything threw at them. Result is: Armor doesn't need no-one, it has tons of technically high-tech stuff and tens of tons of steel and composite materials. Everything aiming for it's optimal survival in battlefield. Now this is easy to do correctly in game... How about well though infantry tactics which aim's to fight against tanks, and which can counter advantages of tanks? These are very hard to do in game. Yet to present somewhat proper combined arms ruleset you need to patch these lacks somehow, one way of many is to reduce armor's threshold for damage, another is to make them more blind than they are (with player as gunner aside with AI gunner against infantry opponent this is very visible).

Hit point system is oldish i give you that. But if BIS keeps it and instead of changing it to 'penetration -> damage'-model puts in some advanced AI-behviour, like advanced morale modeling and/or basic infantry tactics. Which one has more important gameplay value? If BIS introduces 'penetration -> damage'-model to vehicles then forexample AI's antitank-code needs to be written, or infantry performance drops huge step. Or then infantry has to always wield just AT-weapons which bites thru armor's frontal armor, even if that is against TOE and reality.

These are few possible problems. I can't say which ultimately will be right path to take, probably any as there always will be pros and cons. Various points of views. And (yet) limited resources.

[mr.g-c 6]

Quote[/b] ]This kind of attitude is why I have so little interest in discussing ArmA with you, and find your comments so frustrating to read. You can ignore the big picture all that you want, and your suggestions will suffer from it. Please continue to blind yourself to the reality of the situation, and demand some absolutely absurd things of BIS. Good luck with that.

Well, would the insider Dslyecxi mind to tell me/us what the so called "Bigger Pictures" is, or what it means in regards to Arma2?

- I agree that games by BIS a worth 1000bucks or more counted the pure playtime/funtime you can have with them....

- I often heard that bis is a very "small" studio... but how small is "small" really?

How big does it have to be, to be "normal" and "suited" for a normal Game Development process?

I would be very interested in knowing this, be able to understand the so called "bigger picture" and especially how it justifies to NOT including major improvements in damaging system/adding smaller realism fixes which are NOT doable without major sideeffects by scripting/modding.

Regards, Christian

[NoRailgunner 0]

Erm you really compare BIS with GM? I&C compared long time ago ArmA with Mercedes...

Penetration improvements are nice and welcome but there is great request about better AI behavior, skills, pathfinding and many other things too. Overall its a question of time, personal and money. Bit snooty to say "dont care about development conditions" eh?

[lugiahua 26]

Well, I just hope there is no more teleporting soldiers from vehicles.

what happened in OFP/Arma was:

You hide in the corner with an AT-4

Then you shoot at an enemy tank's track and made mobile-kill

but, what happened was, the tank crews teleport outside their tank and killed you before you could even react...

[wipman 1]

Hi, i've voted Yes to more realism on the ArmA2 than in the ArmA;

in every field, from physics to equipment to capabilities of the

available resorces; ranging from small weapons to bigger weapons

systems envolving too the AI behaviour and own capabilities in booth

urban as in open field. We just need it.

Also get rid of all the OFP things, use as a nowadays game example,

a game that's 10 years old just makes no sense; like many things

in the ArmA that are just as unrealistic and pointless that they

difficult without a clear reason the game play booth in SP as in MP.

So a full revision of every field and thing in the ArmA2 will be very

needed; ballistics, enviromental effects over the weapons systems,

damage system on the vehicles as damage locations on the human

models, decent representation of the materials and equipment

and basicaly... unbalance the thing to X weapon system in favour

of it's opposite to make it more real without do a flyght, tank,

car/WRC/Paris-Dakar simulator; that's something that no one of

us wants for sure. Let's C ya

[dslyecxi 23]

Well, would the insider Dslyecxi mind to tell me/us what the so called "Bigger Pictures" is, or what it means in regards to Arma2?

- I agree that games by BIS a worth 1000bucks or more counted the pure playtime/funtime you can have with them....

- I often heard that bis is a very "small" studio... but how small is "small" really?

How big does it have to be, to be "normal" and "suited" for a normal Game Development process?

I would be very interested in knowing this, be able to understand the so called "bigger picture" and especially how it justifies to NOT including major improvements in damaging system/adding smaller realism fixes which are NOT doable without major sideeffects by scripting/modding.

Regards, Christian

Sorry, Mr.g-c, but you've burned your bridges with me already. I made an attempt in the past to help you understand a variety of subjects with BIS (ie: why your posting style is counter-productive if you're truly trying to inspire change, why your requests are frequently unreasonable, etc), and you've shown me that said efforts were a waste of time. You've done nothing to indicate that this time would be any different.

You don't care about the big picture. You're interested in bitching and demanding things from BIS, while at the same time slapping them and insulting them for what they've done. You've shown it time and time again. This time looks no different to me.

[Benoist 0]

Yeah, why BIS doesn't also add that if we are shot in an arm, we will lose it... in REAL LIFE!

Be realistics, first of all, I really doubt that BIS even like the hit-points sistem, but that's everything they have, the only way to change it is to trow away Virtual Reality (it's improveemts are noticiable since OFP, but it's old now), something that they are not going to do. Why? Do you know how much time can take to create a new Engine with only 8 people?

Don't get me wrong, I would love a game without hit-points and a lot of other ralistic features, but this time, we won't.

[POTS 0]

If they add shooting out of vehicles, they will be unstoppable and give every tournament the ability to do away with spawn systems or fear of being rapped by AT weapons, knowing that they may fire out of their trucks to take em out.

[7 0]

i agree with almost all points mr gc made. some kind of simple targeting system for vehicles is necessary. its not about realism, its a gameplay issue. imagine the same system for infantry: press tab to lock on to another soldier and just click fire. not much of a challenge is it?

however i also understand how greedy publishers can be and that they have their demands as well, so an eventual delay wont be possible. but i beg you bis please incorporate atleast some of those features, like vehicle damage, vehicles not exploding when you shoot them with small arms and stuff like that.

peace out

[POTS 0]

I personaly wouldn't mind ArmA2 being delayed a month or two after it's set launch date to add shooting out of vehicles or improve the dammage system a bit. If two months means more improvements, so be it.

[mr.g-c 6]

I can only second this you two!

I won't care about any longer delay if it will be more realistic...

Even it will be end of 2009 - i don't mind. There are a lot of very awesome mods in the make which would bring fun for antoher 1000s of hours + the announced patch with those MP performance improvements and Arma1 will be good to play for another year IMHO.

And yes, a simple Fire-Control-System is absolutely necessary even if its not a tank-simulator, today tanks find proper elevation for maingun by lasing the target and thus finding out its distance by it.

Plus there are wind-measurement, etc...

Anyway NWDs Tank FCS, which was not at all complex to use, could be a good example to look into.

I bet every other "arcade player" would get used to it in "no time".

Same a solution must be find for Helicopter gunnery... Tab-Fire is the worst thing in modern games i ever saw.

Give gunner a laser-marker and AI would be able to use it too. Laser-spot can be accessed by script so you can script that every fired Hellfire impacts at targeted laser-designator spot.

This is totally doable even today.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Funny enough that modern military technology is developed for better (automatic) and faster targeting. Look at fire-and-forget missiles why should there always be a laserpointer activated if the missiles technology is able to spot & hit the target? What about missiles/bombs that lockon gps/image/satellite data and operating with autonomic searching technology?

Quote[/b] ]...a solution must be find...

Its easy and simple to demand all kind of "realistic" things for a game, isnt it?

Read the preview interview from VideoGamer.

[Second 0]

And yes, a simple Fire-Control-System is absolutely necessary even if its not a tank-simulator, today tanks find proper elevation for maingun by lasing the target and thus finding out its distance by it.

Plus there are wind-measurement, etc...

Yeah i think i have to agree. This should be simple to put in, AI already uses it's own built-in firecontrol system, so it's basically just for a player. Shouldn't be too hard.