Petition for more Realism in Arma2

[galzohar 31]

What's really horrible about the damage system, other than MBT issues, is that the HP system makes it so that a pg7-v that can penetrate over 200mm of armor will NEVER destroy an IFV even though the best IFVs in the game have something like 30mm of armor in the front, so even the worst RPG rocket (PG-7V) should have a about as good of a chance to destroy an IFV as the PG-7VR or PG-7VL would, which would be a rather decently high chance on a direct impact. That's without going into the fact that MBTs shouldn't take serious damage (other than if it hits the tracks or a certain system) when hit from the front/sides even if it's from a large amount of PG-7V or M136 rockets. They simply don't penetrate the armor (though maybe PG-7V could penetrate from the side, dunno the exact armor and armor penetration values). Anyway, shooting an abrams with a RPG to the front is like shooting a sandbag wall with a 7.62 machinegun.

[akd42 10]

Yup, years later and we still have fundamental flaws, like the hitpoint vehicle damage system and small arms' recoil.

Edited July 31, 2009 by akd42

[shataan 1]

I don`t care about minute detail realism. I care about vurtual realism. As long as I go thru the right motions, movement, sounds and visuals.... that is good enough for me to immerse.

[icebreakr 3157]

In the first PvP with 60+ players I've played on OPFOR side and enemy AAV entered the town under our control. I've managed to hit it directly from side with RPG18 (russian LAW) and its fragile armor withstanded (wtf?) and AAV moved on as nothing happened. I had to run after it and satchel it ^^.

[Inkompetent 0]

In the first PvP with 60+ players I've played on OPFOR side and enemy AAV entered the town under our control. I've managed to hit it directly from side with RPG18 (russian LAW) and its fragile armor withstanded (wtf?) and AAV moved on as nothing happened. I had to run after it and satchel it ^^.

Well, the RPG-18 is the weakest AT weapon in the game, so not too suprising ^^

[Balschoiw 0]

There would be a way for BIS to tune the hitpoint system so that it takes initial weapon damage into calculations without having to rebuild the whole system.

The solution is rather simple technically, all they need to do is adding a few lines to the damage detector for classes or vehicles that specify a minimum hitpoint damage for an object.

Unless the minimum damage isn´t reached with one impact of a projectile the hitpoints will not be counted for the object.

This means that for example a damage influence of small arms would not be counted or summed up for small arms fire but only counted when the impact damage goes above a certain number.

If an AT weapon hits the vehicle the damage value is much higher than with small arms, therefore the limit set by the object would be overcome and the damage counted for the vehicle.

This way you could never destroy an armored vehicle with small arms but only with weapons that deliver a significant amount of damage with one shot.

This system should be easy to implement as the engine checks the sum of damage delivered on impact, comparing it to the minimum damage needed for a vehicle to affect it and then either apply the damage to the vehicle or not.

Taking this further it could be possible to parent subsystems of vehicles to the whole vehicle with different damage values and minimum damage-values as mentioned above.

For example a turret has a different set of hitpoints and minimum damage needed to affect it than the rear of a tank.

Once the minimum damage needed to affect the component is overcome and the damage counts the hitpoints can be summed up unless the component is "destroyed".

By parenting the component to the main tank it would mean that once the component is technically destroyed the parent would be destroyed aswell. As the system is flexible it could also mean that destroying certain components could have different effect.

Destroying tracks would immobilize the vehicle while not destroying it completely, while destroying the turret would kill the vehicle as a whole.

I don´t know how Arma 2´s engine handles 3D objects specifically, but as the turret is moveable on it´s own there must be some kind of parenting system in use, so the above "solution" looks quite reasonable to me and could be implemented without too much hassle while delivering a big portion of realism.

BIS correct me if I´m totally wrong.

Edited July 31, 2009 by Balschoiw

[icebreakr 3157]

Inkompetent: yeah, but AAV with armor less than 50mm would be toast, at least guys inside with HEAT warhead impact... RPG18 would blow a large hole in it, AAV would certainly look like this on full side impact.

[galzohar 31]

I think most people that have been following the threads on these forums know how simple it is to greatly improve the current armor system. It's all a question whether or not BIS cares, and if they don't, whether or not ACE2 will be able to get it right.

[Alienfreak 0]

I can only link my thread and say

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=80381

+1

[nyran125 10]

there is no way im signing this partition.. Can we focus on actual things that matter like Game performance, and bugs in missions and graphical glitches and and ships that dont float in the editor instead of even more realism. This game is as realistic as you get without having to worry about even MORE realism. There are SO many more important things to think about. There needs to be some cool looking stuff. Besides i cant even see the things your talking about, my 8800 series system is out dated im more worried about trying to play the game without stuttering more than im worried about MORE realism.

Edited July 31, 2009 by nyran125

[Alienfreak 0]

1. So you are not signing it. A pitty.

2. Bugs in the single player campaign? Who actually cares for it? They should have removed it right from the beginning and concentrated their efforts on game development. There are coming out several single player missions per day. So why bothering/wasting time on build in ones?

3. Game performance is ok if you do it right.

4. Graphical glitches are almost nonexistent.

5. Ships do float. Just do it right.

6. So we want more realism and this is as much we get without worrying about more realism? What!? O_o

7. You don't see it? Well look closer :)

8. You have an outdated system but demand to play SOTA games without any problems?

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)

Now this is why ACE is fail.

1. Modern Magazines are "see through". Making it possible to see how much is left.

2. Even if solid you can just look into it from the top and tell how many bullets (approximately) are left in there.

What is REALLY missing with magazines is shuffling them.

You always carry around near empty magazines. Why not make it possible to put all the rounds into one.

Edited July 31, 2009 by Alienfreak

[akd42 10]

Now this is why ACE is fail.

1. Modern Magazines are "see through". Making it possible to see how much is left.

Not the magazines issued to US Marines.

2. Even if solid you can just look into it from the top and tell how many bullets (approximately) are left in there.

What? No you can't.

What is REALLY missing with magazines is shuffling them.

You always carry around near empty magazines. Why not make it possible to put all the rounds into one.

That would not be done in combat for obvious reasons.

[hellfire257 3]

Those ships don't float. They hover over the water. And yes there are more important issues. People get terrible issues such as discolouration which makes it look like psychedelia. The campaign was included for a reason - it adds a interesting way for people to get used to the game controls in a safe and noob bashing free environment and adds a storyline. Some people even see campaigns as an interactive novel! So to BIS - work on the gameplay and performance issues first, and then try and implement a few more realism features. Even the small ones would make a differance like Chaff/Flare/ECM countermeasure systems.

Petition Signed

Edited August 1, 2009 by Hellfire257

[Jex =TE= 0]

Good points MR GC (other than the screen shake which doesn't appeal to me as on a monitor will likely cause nausea but as an option - sure :))

The hitpoint system is obviously a massive flaw in the game and I disagree with people when they say "Bis only have limited resources". As has been pointed out, M1 tank platoon from 20 years ago and only 2mb in size had more realism than Arma does.

TAB-FIRE is also awful imo, When I play a game I want a challenge and this method is not challenging at all. However it doesn't need anything too indepth (a simple laser lock would do) but please get rid of the magic radar and the AI's ability to magically know you're in a vehicle too.

Arma II is meant to be progressing the series but these area haven't progressed in 10 years. What if they never progress it because the "lack resources" and concentrate only on the AI aspect. Are we expected to put up with this in the next release? We can't have the most realisitc AI running around in magic tanks can we?

[nyran125 10]

1. So you are not signing it. A pitty.

2. Bugs in the single player campaign? Who actually cares for it? They should have removed it right from the beginning and concentrated their efforts on game development. There are coming out several single player missions per day. So why bothering/wasting time on build.

right YOU have just pointed out that its a pity im not signing it because it needs more realism and single player , who cares for it, who gives a sht about it?

Ill tell you who cares for it, the thousands of people, THOUSANDS, that have never EVER heard of Operation Flashpoint and have only seen You Tube videos or heard about it and have never played Arma 1 and was expecting a bug free single player experience, thats who. Those players wont be back to care about realiism. By the way thats not inluding me, i love this game.

[Scrub 0]

I think most people that have been following the threads on these forums know how simple it is to greatly improve the current armor system. It's all a question whether or not BIS cares, and if they don't, whether or not ACE2 will be able to get it right.

All a question of cares or do not care? Why do you force the argument that way? Is it possible they have reasons you are not aware of?

Do keep in mind that making it is one thing, getting it to work in a campaign or with AI reasonably so people don't COL (cry out loud) is another. I'm hesitant when someone says something is 'simple', because it usually means they are only looking at one element instead of the whole environment in which the element exists and has to cooperate with. Much more complex and subtle situation. I would like to see it improved, but lets not force an unknown argument.

Signed.

[Alienfreak 0]

That would not be done in combat for obvious reasons.

So when I sit in my bunker and wait for the enemies to attack again I cannot get the rounds out of one of my magazines and put them back into another one?

Interesting.

And yes you can take a good guess how many rounds are left in your mag by looking top down into it. (you have to hold it the right angle so the sun shines in)

Ill tell you who cares for it, the thousands of people, THOUSANDS, that have never EVER heard of Operation Flashpoint and have only seen You Tube videos or heard about it and have never played Arma 1 and was expecting a bug free single player experience, thats who. Those players wont be back to care about realiism. By the way thats not inluding me, i love this game.

Like noone bought Quake III because it is a multiplayer game? Or let me guess... WoW failed because there was no Single Player? O_o

Srsly.

Nowadays you lose more people by having crashing servers all the time in MP than by having no build in SP campaign.

[karensman08 10]

@Alienfreak,

i just had to step in on this one. I don't know what military you are in, but yes there are see through mags out there on the civilian market; but as for the standard issue US military magazine, they are not see through.

and as far as seeing how many rounds are left in it by looking down the magazine, i can't see past about the 5th or 6th one, that is with good lighting too. and i am actually able to really test this out since i am in iraq now and have seven magazines full to 30rnds to play with. additionally, i don't know anyone here who is carrying partial magazines so that they can "shuffle" rounds. any magazines anyone carries, to include excess to the standard seven magazine combat load, are all kept fully loaded.

i know for myself, the last thing i want to set myself up for is try and "shuffle" rounds in the middle of a firefight.

[Alienfreak 0]

i don't know anyone here who is carrying partial magazines so that they can "shuffle" rounds. any magazines anyone carries, to include excess to the standard seven magazine combat load, are all kept fully loaded.

i know for myself, the last thing i want to set myself up for is try and "shuffle" rounds in the middle of a firefight.

So if you get 2 partial loaded magazines and are holding are position. And nothing happens. You dont put all the rounds into one? O_o

NOBODY ever said anything about "in the middle of a firefight"

but as for the standard issue US military magazine, they are not see through.

The 416 for example features this magazine even in the US Mil (AFAIK). Other armies also use those.

and as far as seeing how many rounds are left in it by looking down the magazine, i can't see past about the 5th or 6th one, that is with good lighting too

I never tested it with a M16/M4 Mag.

[akd42 10]

So when I sit in my bunker and wait for the enemies to attack again I cannot get the rounds out of one of my magazines and put them back into another one?

Interesting.

Where and when in ArmA II is sitting in a bunker on a quiet front modelled? And if you were waiting for the enemy to attack, why would have you a bunch of partially full magazines?

I repeat, this is not something you would be doing in combat, as you illustrated with your example.

And yes you can take a good guess how many rounds are left in your mag by looking top down into it. (you have to hold it the right angle so the sun shines in)

I'm trying to imagine in what situation taking your mag out of your rifle and holding it up to the sun at just the right angle while peering down into it would be of any use. A an good guess based on weight would be a far more practical method. Edited August 2, 2009 by akd42

[galzohar 31]

They said "in combat", which usually is a "situation where you have a chance to need to fire your weapon and can't afford playing around with swapping rounds around". Usually when you have so much time that you can shuffle mags, you probably also have time to just fill them up from an ammo box in a vehicle or something. So is this something that can be done? Sure. Is this something you'd do if it was implemented realistically? Most likely not, at least not most of the time. There are much more important features to implement than out-of-combat activity.

[karensman08 10]

the only time i should end up with a partial mag is because i had to take it from my dead buddy's weapon. if he is carrying partial mags on his person, then he was a dumb@ss to begin with, not only has he shorted himself of maxing out what he should be carrying, but he has now shorted me, his battle buddy. also, if it got the point that i had to pull multiple partially used mags from dead bodies, i'm probably in a situation where i'm not going to want to worry about shuffling them; and rather just keep them close at hand.

now, maybe are you are in a military ( i don't know) that only gets issued a very limited number of rounds, say less rounds than what is your magazine capacity. i could see this being the case in an area where contact is exremely minimal or non-existent.

i have yet to see a 416 in theater. the SF guys may have them, but if they do, they are still far and few between. like i said, you can get clear mags, and some people have bought them with their own money off the civilian market, but the standard Joe has not.

now, this seems to have become a really big tangent from the topic; but sometimes going through this site and seeing so many people talk like they know all this stuff first hand tends to bug me.

[Alienfreak 0]

Where and when in ArmA II is sitting in a bunker on a quiet front modelled? And if you were waiting for the enemy to attack, why would have you a bunch of partially full magazines?

I repeat, this is not something you would be doing in combat, as you illustrated with your example.

Ever played Warfare? ^^Especially the Benny one.

now, maybe are you are in a military ( i don't know) that only gets issued a very limited number of rounds, say less rounds than what is your magazine capacity. i could see this being the case in an area where contact is exremely minimal or non-existent.

I'm not talking about STARTING with partial mags. But sometimes in long firefights you end up with partial shot magazines. From yourself plus dead buddies. Or enemies.

i have yet to see a 416 in theater. the SF guys may have them, but if they do, they are still far and few between. like i said, you can get clear mags, and some people have bought them with their own money off the civilian market, but the standard Joe has not.

But I'm not the average guy in many maps ;)

now, this seems to have become a really big tangent from the topic; but sometimes going through this site and seeing so many people talk like they know all this stuff first hand tends to bug me.

When I buy a XM8 I expect it to be like an XM8, with see through mags. :)

Nothing more