How Much Realism are you Content With?

[An-225 0]

What a varied topic.

It is just a real shame to have such a realistic and free premise for the game, and then several features or capabilities such as FLIR or the CLU are missing. I think, that realistic capabilities would not drive players away at all...

I would like a substitute for the TAB lock "crap." But when you take a look at the N001 or the APG-63, and you see how many times you must pan the radar left, right, up, down, in a joint arms simulator TAB lock then seems fine.

It seems that some people do want the capabilities without overly complex systems.

[PhilippRauch 0]

Do you want FLIR or CLU already included in vanilla ArmA ? I myself am(actually was ;) ) missing the proper Javelin targetting... so i made/make one .. check my video on my youtubechannel [/commercialOFF] ... so it can be done.. but its already a lot of work for one guy ... and check on BIS as company, they aint that big, not like hundreds of coding slaves mining away at the codemines... so they have to prioritize ..

And such 'realistic' stuff really interest more immersed players like us who like that and those are more likely to make or even download and install an addon that will add that wanted capabilities to their game. They just focus on more important parts of their project, most 'casual' gamers wont miss what we love in such a 'game'. They just have to do it this way ...

To stay on topic: BIS already does a great job in terms of 'realism', just look at the gameworld they created ... proper lighting, moonphases, tides, wind even starconstellations (at least the important ones) ... and with the new procedural plants it will be even better and just this stuff is great work, now add the newer streaming technology they invented/implemented and we already leave the field of 'gaming realistically' and go into coding... and there my thirst for realism ends... somewhere between sqf and c++ ...

Edited April 24, 2009 by PhilippRauch

[max power 21]

I think that the game could benefit from some more realistic missile engagement rules. If not more realistic fire control, at least some kind of time limitation on missiles. Perhaps for the cobra and like helicopters, the missile will seek what the current gunner's target is, so missiles don't get more accurate as they close in, and you can't volley launch missiles robotech style. Currently, if you have a missile target locked but the gunner can't see it, the gunner may think the target is nowhere close to where it actually is. As you launch a missile, the missile will 'find' the target as it gets close and spots it, and then home in with perfect precision. Having the pilot needing to keep the helicopter exposed to home the missile in would force some different decisions on the parts of pilots, and would reduce the ability of helicopters to reduce a whole battlefield into a burning wrecking yard in a matter of seconds.

Simulations like the CLU are awesome. I think that something like that, or even something that makes missiles a little bit more 'expensive' in the eyes of the player would be a good addition. Anything that reduces the status of missiles as magic wands of death would be great to balance out the game a bit more.

[An-225 0]

Those are good points Philipp.

What I'm worried about, is that we won't get the capabilities of a few vehicles/weapons in vanilla ArmA 2, and therefore we will have to get mods to add them in, mods which will likely not work on 90% of the servers out there.

The Javelin is a big issue, because it is terribly unbalanced, and can be balanced in a natural, realistic way, so that it will no longer just be a case of pointing it over a tank for a second and firing. The optics not being authentic (this can probably me modded in and used on most servers) also detracts from the high standard set elsewhere in the game, IMHO.

Not having FLIR on certain vehicles is to undermine their capabilities, and prevent them from doing what is possible in real life.

They have done a great job in terms of realism in the actual gameworld. Its just that some features of the game do not seem to be on par (from the preview footage).

[-Total- 0]

The Jav is imbalanced because it only takes one person to utilize it.

In reality, one person carries the control unit while another carries the tube. When firing, one acts as a loader while the other aims it.

Another realistic fact - the assembly itself weighs 28.8kg's (50lbs). Strap that on and run around with it along with 40 pounds of combat gear.

In the end, it's still a game and will never be able to accurately protray reality. The immersion is still fun tho :)

[An-225 0]

But, even though its a game, there are things that are possible to do in order to depict reality, however hard it is to code the Javelin in two separate parts, like creating an accurate CLU with targeting sequence.

It seems a little too difficult to actually make the Javelin in separate parts, but in the end, you can carry a maximum of two missiles (and that eliminates the chance to have a loaded rifle), I would say that balances itself out to an extent, as it is almost a guaranteed hit on the armour, however, its destructive power is somewhat limited.

Although I do not view it this way - even one of the moderators here has stated that ArmA is first and foremost an infantry simulator. Therefore, at least the infantry weapons should be simulated in the most accurate way possible?

[cross 1]

Why does it always come down to "this weapon is't there" or "this feature is missing". All of these, in a 1000 times more detailed fashion, must have been discussed in the concept design step of the development process. Can you imagine a company, releasing a combat simulator and VBS2, does not work with military advisors and do not know how a Javelin works or do not care to create it.

Now realism & gameplay and inversely proportinate. You trade some gameplay features to get some realism.

This is a commercial product designed to be sold to all enthusiasts aged 16+. And all those people play this game in a totally different fashion.

Therefore you need couple of inputs/facts to position your product..

Your target customers and the way they play.

As you get older you tend seek more intelligence in games (hopefully :D)

As you play more of a game you tend to seek cooperation.

Thus you want more realism because you start playing more slowly and cooperatively and you start to value the simulation aspect of the game and want everything similar to RL in terms of design & behavior.

These are true for fans of this game but not true for the 16-18 yo kid who lays their hand on the game for the first time. Think about kids who play SP or MP Evolution on their own and cannot run 15 mts without collapsing because they carry Javelin to kill tanks in one shot..where is the fun in that.

Long story short...the reason you play changes your taste about realism..

-When I play on my own in a public server, I do not like ACE because I don't like collapsing to ground every 15 when I sprint. I'm runnin & gunnin.

-When I play tactically and slower with mates, I love the features ACE & other addons bring to the gameplay in terms of "realism" and can't think of a session without them

-When I play in a campaign like IC, I like the big battlefield atmosphere where each unit has a structure and has its orders and tasks to perform. Realism aspect is a bonus not a must.

-When I play in a campaign like ATOW, I like its ACE & Other addons integration. The gameplay is slower and I appreciate any feature & addon implementation toward achieving true-to life battlefields ...

So everyone can find, create their own level of realism in ArmA.

Therefore I admire BIS a lot for providing the tools and the platform to the public so that the community can make this game as realistic or as fantastic as they wish with unparalleled freedom.

Edited April 24, 2009 by Cross

[PhilippRauch 0]

Well with the TOW optics inside the javelin, maybe they will change it later on, just a matter of exchanging paths ...

But to keep on topic i will say i can handle as much realism as i want ... and most of the time i really want it ... but at other times i just want some more 'lax' gameplay, you know 'letting off steam' and as such would love to go a bit 'berzerk' (its a nice mission too ;) ) .. ArmA delivers both, so i am content with having two guy hugging along a Javelin Missile System or a ma deuce or even three, four five who carry a 'realistic' mortar ... BUT then only one gets the fun i.e. shooting that thing, the others just carry that whole crap around and there is where reality really kills fun, except for some rare cases with mature groups going for a 'milsim' style gameplay ...

[An-225 0]

Why does it always come down to "this weapon is't there" or "this feature is missing".

Well, it comes down to this because it limits freedom, and undermines the real life capabilities of the unit.

Why not go the full way to realism? It must be a somewhat simple (not for me, I don't mod) process to change the TOW optics to a CLU on the Javelin for the people that made the game.

There are some important, non-complex features left out that will only serve to improve gameplay.

I really dislike the stamina system in ACE, its a very subjective feature. That isn't what is being asked for, rather it seems most would like to have the full capabilities of most units. ;)

[cross 1]

Realism is there but in a different form. You have the ability of auto-locking and destroying a tank from a km away.

You have the realism in "ability" but not in "design".

There are many aspects to realism like ability, design, operation, sound, behavior, reaction etc..and in every one of them you have the same dilemma realism vs. gameplay&playability vs. cost.

You can have the most sophisticated AI if you make a bunch of scientists work for 2 yrs and if all your clients have 8 CPUs to spare for AI processing only..

Same goes for rifles...why not they use an engineering design of a rifle, where every screw can be animated...that is proper realism for me. Feasible? Hell No.

There is no doubt...everyone wants everything that's available in RL in the same shape..unless they want to play ArmA-WOW. Now...I don't believe that BIS leaves the Jav-UI (or any other for that matter) the way it is just because they like this way or want less realism by a different UI. We cannot know the reason unless BIS decides to disclose it.

Now the "full way to realism" is real life and real life combat is not fun because the combats last minutes only and when enemy sees you..you are dead..no respawn.

That said...I like to see as much realism as possible, and value all the mods/addons striving for that. Because of the way/reason I play this sim game. That doesn't mean BIS should do the same, thay have other concerns.

PS...remember why a kid can play with a stick for hours ;)

Edited April 24, 2009 by Cross

[Alex72 1]

Just want to say that im one of those who wants ArmA realistic. Real scopes, working MILDOT's, thermal/FLIR, startup times (these should not be as long as in RL, but little longer than just GO. For immersion of hearing a vehicle power-up, and it makes the sim feel a bit "heavier/substantial") etc etc. Just more realism than gamey game-ish games.

I have no desire what so ever for COD, BF2 and the rest of those brainless childish point picking games. I want to take my time and plan attacks etc. Longer start up times as i said just so it isnt so easy as to get in and go. It makes people just jump into vehicles without thinking. It adds immersion like in ACE to hear a tank power up in the base (IMO ofcourse). I dont want auto locking unless the weapon can auto lock. Whats wrong with beam riders for example? Aim laser until impact for hit.

There is just so much to talk about when it comes to realism. There should be some balance between realism and gameplay for sure so it doesnt get too teadious. But most people know what those are (having TOW optics for Jav's aint one of them just to clarify), and i hope BIS do to at the end of the day.

Alex

[celery 8]

72;1274919']I have no desire what so ever for COD' date=' BF2 and the rest of those brainless childish point picking games.[/quote']

If you're going to bash a whole genre of games, tell us what you consider as childish. I thought that Barbie Horse Adventures: Mystery Ride is a childish game, not a 16 or 18 rated war game. Also you can't really play such games without a brain so I'm going to ignore the brainless remark.

[cross 1]

...so I'm going to ignore the brainless remark.

Looks like you didn't as you have replied...

Anyway...why the off topic & flaming..? Subject is simple...how much realism?

[Some_old_guy 10]

I would be happy if they made it as realistic as physicly possible.

[Rocco 0]

For me, it cant be reaslitic enough, i dont care about the casual gamers, i also love "games" liek DCS Black Shark, if i have to read a 350 page strong manual to get a bird up in the air, its ok for me! :)

But ARMAs strongpoint is the infantry simulation, i´d wish for a more realistic vehicle simulation though, even though its too complicated and time consuming to procude something like that.

[An-225 0]

Well, in my opinion, not having accurate optics for the Javelin would be like BIS trying to use an ACOG on the Dragunov or an AIMPOINT dot where the Kobra arrows should be. The accuracy should be kept consistent throughout each weapon.

The auto-lock is not a huge problem, rather it exaggerates the weapons capability needlessly, whereas a TAB lock for airplanes is not a true exaggeration since the airplane can "insta-lock" onto almost anything in its radar.

This is, again a problem regarding why other things in the game should be very realistic, and why should this (amongst others) be rejected. :smile:

I refreshed this to find a few new comments, and I agree, as realistic as it can possibly be.

Though I too love LO:MAC (which is almost the same as Black Shark), BIS would have trouble getting documentation for some aircraft and armour types, and for the sake of everyone playing the game, its best left simplified in some vehicle procedures. I doubt many people could remember the checklist for an F-35, C-130, SU-34, V-22, AH-1, Mi-24 and KA-52. To name a few. ;)

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Wants (much from ACE mod):

* Stamina system (ACE) where you can't load up with tons of equipment without a penalty.

* Removal of the default sprint diagonal exploit.

* Adjustable sights in different ways, just the way ACE did it. Sniper weapons have one way, launchers another, mounted a third (T&E). ArmA2 claims to have 'proper ballistics', but how can they have that without adjustable sights? Using these weapons at range would become impossible.

* Increased general sway unless you use something to rest weapon on. Again, just like ACE. Similarly, being able to 'use' bipod as in ACE to reduce sway.

* 'Proper scopes'. No more 'zoomable scopes' if they only have two zoom values to choose from. Goes for both certain rifle scopes and certain tank scopes.

* Iirc, we won't be given 3D interiour for everything. For those vehicles lacking (tanks mainly), the ability to choose viewblock would be much more realistic.

* NVGs that can be customized better, i.e. zoom currently being ineffective. Todays NVGs are just too convenient, way better than they are in real life. I kind of miss the old ones now actually, at least they had some noise going.

* Single shot M136, so that modders can make new single shot launchers with ease.

* Javelin and other lock'on systems, take some time to perform. I could even live with a 10 second delay from hitting 'tab' to acheiving a lock. Maybe just playing a seeking sound while waiting.

* Tank FCS systems. Again, nothing too fancy. Just what Kegetys described.

* Launcher backblast (ACE) which can kill you. If you stand behind the launcher. If you use it in confined space. Or if you fire upwards (not sure if SMAW has illum rounds, but MAAWS is notorious for this). Need to get more careful with how you operate it.

* Proper ballistics with bullet drop for each type of projectile for i.e. tank projectiles.

* Overpressure effects (ACE), making it less convenient to blast off tank rounds from anywhere.

* Longer startup times for vehicles depending on their complexity. But no need for complex startup 'procedures' scaring away new players.

* Removal of the possibility to bail out of planes and choppers with rotor or engine running. No sane pilot would do this. For other vehicles, tanks and trucks etc, it is ok.

* Better air vehicle instrumentation. I.e. altimeters in feet and speed in knots. Not sure what russians use for military aerial vehicles, but civilian tend to use meters and km/h I think.

* Possibility for players in 'statics' to use compass. Or, being able to use compass even if in optics view. They are more than vunerable enough as it is.

* LESS zoom level if not in ironsight view. The current videos concern me greatly. Also I think ACE got this wrong; high level of 'consentration' (zoom) should only be possible with raised sights.

* More pros and cons for the classes. Currently the sniper is slightly less visible to the enemy, but that's about it. I.e. unless you are an AT specialist, you don't get to use the quick moves, but rather stuck with OFP speeds (annoying as hell, yes, but that's the point -- play your class, not being a specialist in everything).

* Phsycological effects on players and AI. I.e. weather effects. If it is cold (i.e. at higher altitudes), you need to keep warm to avoid heavy weapons sway. Wind chill factors. Higher weapons sway (important: also for AI!!) when in a firefight to simulate the stress and fear of life.

* More careful and non suicidal AI.

End point being: Any measure that helps bring this game away from the casual fast shooter, and simulates a decent amount of realism without going over the top.

[Rocco 0]

Wants (much from ACE mod):

* Stamina system (ACE) where you can't load up with tons of equipment without a penalty.

* Removal of the default sprint diagonal exploit.

* Adjustable sights in different ways, just the way ACE did it. Sniper weapons have one way, launchers another, mounted a third (T&E). ArmA2 claims to have 'proper ballistics', but how can they have that without adjustable sights? Using these weapons at range would become impossible.

* Increased general sway unless you use something to rest weapon on. Again, just like ACE. Similarly, being able to 'use' bipod as in ACE to reduce sway.

* 'Proper scopes'. No more 'zoomable scopes' if they only have two zoom values to choose from. Goes for both certain rifle scopes and certain tank scopes.

* Iirc, we won't be given 3D interiour for everything. For those vehicles lacking (tanks mainly), the ability to choose viewblock would be much more realistic.

* NVGs that can be customized better, i.e. zoom currently being ineffective. Todays NVGs are just too convenient, way better than they are in real life. I kind of miss the old ones now actually, at least they had some noise going.

* Single shot M136, so that modders can make new single shot launchers with ease.

* Javelin and other lock'on systems, take some time to perform. I could even live with a 10 second delay from hitting 'tab' to acheiving a lock. Maybe just playing a seeking sound while waiting.

* Tank FCS systems. Again, nothing too fancy. Just what Kegetys described.

* Launcher backblast (ACE) which can kill you. If you stand behind the launcher. If you use it in confined space. Or if you fire upwards (not sure if SMAW has illum rounds, but MAAWS is notorious for this). Need to get more careful with how you operate it.

* Proper ballistics with bullet drop for each type of projectile for i.e. tank projectiles.

* Overpressure effects (ACE), making it less convenient to blast off tank rounds from anywhere.

* Longer startup times for vehicles depending on their complexity. But no need for complex startup 'procedures' scaring away new players.

* Removal of the possibility to bail out of planes and choppers with rotor or engine running. No sane pilot would do this. For other vehicles, tanks and trucks etc, it is ok.

* Better air vehicle instrumentation. I.e. altimeters in feet and speed in knots. Not sure what russians use for military aerial vehicles, but civilian tend to use meters and km/h I think.

* Possibility for players in 'statics' to use compass. Or, being able to use compass even if in optics view. They are more than vunerable enough as it is.

* LESS zoom level if not in ironsight view. The current videos concern me greatly. Also I think ACE got this wrong; high level of 'consentration' (zoom) should only be possible with raised sights.

* More pros and cons for the classes. Currently the sniper is slightly less visible to the enemy, but that's about it. I.e. unless you are an AT specialist, you don't get to use the quick moves, but rather stuck with OFP speeds (annoying as hell, yes, but that's the point -- play your class, not being a specialist in everything).

* Phsycological effects on players and AI. I.e. weather effects. If it is cold (i.e. at higher altitudes), you need to keep warm to avoid heavy weapons sway. Wind chill factors. Higher weapons sway (important: also for AI!!) when in a firefight to simulate the stress and fear of life.

* More careful and non suicidal AI.

End point being: Any measure that helps bring this game away from the casual fast shooter, and simulates a decent amount of realism without going over the top.

Oh i can second that! Good list mate!

[PhilippRauch 0]

Actually BIS should keep ArmA as gamey as possible, with OF COURSE all modifications/openess still intact or even enhanced!

Why?

I really, REALLY dont want to see BIS and ArmA go down like ALL sims/sim companies before, just look at the past 20 years of 'entertainment'sims...

They all faded at some point or had to go to military/industrial sector to keep afloat... (and im not talking about Miscroshort Flightsim, this company is some other beast than the other sim companies/projects where)

We will get our 'realism' fix anyway, as long as ArmA stays alive and well!

[Creation 10]

Enough realism to notice and go "woahhhhhhh" but not enough so that my character randomly sprains his ankle whilst running....i am the master of vague.

I basically want the same from Carl Gustav the above poster.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

There are three key terms I've seen discussed in this thread: freedom, realism, and authenticity.

I would say that some people confuse these terms quite a bit. I know everyone has their own opinion as to the definition of these three terms, I believe that they actually somewhat conflict with eachother.

For example, picking at CarlGustaffa's OT list, the following:

Removal of the possibility to bail out of planes and choppers with rotor or engine running. No sane pilot would do this. For other vehicles, tanks and trucks etc, it is ok.

One could argue that this is realistic because sanity is a realistic characteristic of pilots, but implementing this restriction denies a realistic freedom since technically it is not impossible. Just because it doesn't happen in real life doesn't make it unrealistic. Realism is a percieved quality, as in if it appears to be technically possible then it is realistic.

Another example, again from the same source:

More pros and cons for the classes. Currently the sniper is slightly less visible to the enemy, but that's about it. I.e. unless you are an AT specialist, you don't get to use the quick moves, but rather stuck with OFP speeds (annoying as hell, yes, but that's the point -- play your class, not being a specialist in everything).

Yes, playing your class would make ArmAII more authentic, that is closer to how things actually operate in the real world. But is it necessarily realistic for a soldier assigned to the role of AT specialist to be incapable of performing said actions? Realistically, individuals are built differently physically, and it is not impossible a person to be a very capable generalist. It also goes against the idea of freedom to restrict the options of players like that.

I could go on more about how freedom, realism, and aunthenticity conflict, but I don't have the time. My point here is that realism is not the only factor here, because each of the mentioned characteristics of the game affect eachother. For ArmAII to be a good game it needs to correctly balance all of these aspects. This is my opinion.

[max power 21]

A lot of the things on that list would be cool to have but I don't think implimenting the ones that endanger the player from the AI should be included. How many times would you die a terrible death via some AI goon blasting you with overpressure with a rocket launcher or a tank cannon before you threw your beer bottle at the monitor? Worse yet, what about some newb or some tking idiot online? There will be all kinds of situations where the tank or the AT gunner must fire in order to prevent something very bad from happening, so he instantly counts you out of the human race to do his job. Fights in ArmA are not as controlled or organized as they are IRL, so I think that being hurt or killed by these effects is too much.

I do like the weight and stamina system in ACE but I haven't played it lately. Hitherto, the player will start passing out from running up hills. This is because there is no way to cap player movement speeds. Causing the player to get tired and need to slow down plus breathe heavy and shoot poorly = ok. Causing the player to pass out after 30 seconds of exhertion is rediculous. Every soldier in ACE is dramatically hypoglycemic and should probably be in a hospital rather than fighting the good fight. ACE has a lot of good aspects but I think that in a commercial product, aspects of it could be kept but the approach would have to be much different and much lower level.

[Rak 0]

Well what I'd like to see is a decent armored combat system. Armor penetration calculations, FCS's, proper handlings and such. Plus elimination of "Tab locking" from all missile systems(except airplanes). Than I'll be happy.

[Red_Barron 0]

Vehicles are something that needs serious attention for sure, but I doubt we'll see much improvement on. Back in the OFP days they were awesome, because you could actually use them, were most games on the market did not have that ability. Since then not much has been done in Arma1 (with the exception of multiple turrets and what not) to improve them (better armor, penetration values etc). If they haven't done anything in Arma2 about it yet, I wouldn't expect to see anything, because that would be a bit of effort to implement.

As to the idea of going too far into the simulation vs. being too gamey. One of the things the ACE mod does in a rather limited fashion is use game logics to implement features (such as the Map required feature, of wind effects on aircraft). This is a great way to implement features on a case by case basis as desired by the mission maker or gaming community. So if TG really likes the idea of feature X, but Zeus hates it, Zeus doesn't have to use it, but TG is not denied it.

Once again though, if they haven't done anything like this by now, you probably wouldn't see it.

Edited April 24, 2009 by Red_Barron
because I can't spell "anything" apparently :P

[CarlGustaffa 4]

@Big Dawg KS:

When freedom becomes equal to exploitability, restrictions need to be imposed to get the best gaming experience. This also catches on. I don't want to be the only guy falling behind my squad because I am the only one that doesn't want to exploit the diagonal sprinting trick. Hence I feel 'forced' to use an exploit. I'd rather have exploits removed.

I'm actually annoyed with 'machinegunners' carrying heavy AT and M107 just because it is 'possible'. Real world restrictions (i.e. weight and cumbersomeness) doesn't apply in game, hence we need artificial ones. Naturally much of this can be blamed on the mission designers. But I am one and I'm taking a beating for not letting everyone choose whatever they want :)

As a combat engineer, I never received training in certain weaponry. No, I don't think I am as fast with an M136 or M240 if it was handed to me compared to one with proper training.

I agree there needs to be balance. But as long as there are no realistic drawbacks, I find it hard to achieve both freedom and realism. ArmA is a mil sim game, and I think realism should outweight freedom in certain circumstances. I would be happy with every class having its perks and drawbacks. Going into individualism would require a big rebuild to suggest character generation like an RPG, which I think is a little out of bounds for this kind of game.

Examples:

Weapon specialists shoot more accurate and moves quicker with their typical weapons class.

Leaders cause greater moral. Not sure how this could be translated into something physical, but I could think something up eventually.

Snipers and spotters receive a bonus to shake and visibility.

Saboteurs receive a bonus to overcoming obstacles quickly and working with explosives.

Engineers have a more sturdy hand working with explosives and mines.

Medics can perform quickier and better first aid than others just twitching a tourniquet.

I mean, the system is already there: Medics (heal), engineers (disarm mine), saboteurs (hide body), snipers (visibility bonus) have all special abilities. Why not expand on this idea? Would you really want a completely freedom based system where everyone could do all these things? The team play factor would go even further down the drain (talking about public servers here).