How Much Realism are you Content With?

[twisted 128]

I think a good way to go in terms of all the "high-tech" weapon systems, avionics, etc. is to do something like Dangerous Waters does. That is to build one simplified system(like a radar, RWR, sonar, or a tank fire control system) which is easy to use, but with realistic capabilities and properties and adapt that to each platform with some cosmetic/UI changes to make them feel a bit different.

For ArmA2 for example an extremely important feature in my opinion would be to have a modern tank fire control system with a laser rangefinder and automatic elevation+lead. It would not need to be made the same way as it is in each of the real tanks, but to have the procedure of what you need to do to hit to be realistic, like:

- Point your sight to the target

- Hit the lase key

- (if the target is moving) follow the target with the sight

- Fire

With one system like this done it could be put into all tanks that have a fire control system in real life and you'd get realistic capabilities to all of them and a huge increase in realism with very little effort. You wouldn't click on all the same knobs a real abrams gunner uses or even see the same things a real gunner does but you could have the same results and similar capabilities with similar procedures. Differences between different tanks could vary in how far you can lase accurately and how accurate the hits can be. Those would all be just simple properties in the one unique fire control component and would not need any significant work for each specific tank once the system itself is made.

you know this is great idea! something (and one of the few things) that i'd be happy for BIS to delay Arma2 for. And i really want arma2 and don't want it delayed so this is a really great gameplay enhancing idea kegetys.

edit - and add everything in carlgustafas 1st list to this as well.

Edited April 27, 2009 by twisted

[celery 8]

The thing that appeals to me in complete freedom regarding equipment and classes is that only your own skills matter, not the stats of your current character. It gives a feeling that it's you who's doing the stuff, not the dude you're controlling.

[Binkowski 26]

Mine is summed up in two words.

Military Simulation.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

@Big Dawg KS:

...

You're right, every game needs restrictions. Such a role system is a common design element in many games today, and it's a good way to balance gameplay.

But ArmAII, being in the spirit of OFP, is more like a sandbox than anything else. One of the best qualities of OFP is that there is enough freedom to allow players to have significantly different experiences within the same scenario/gametype.

And myself being someone who spends more time in the mission editor than actually ingame, I like to be able to change the game's restrictions. Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against realism or a game being balanced, and I enjoy seeing such things, but I don't believe such things to be of great importance, even in ArmA.

Rather, I don't believe ArmA needs to be of sim quality. I really don't care how long it takes to start up a helicopter, or how accurate the Marine humvees are. What makes the ArmA series and OFP realistic to me is just the sheer scope of it, the freedom, and the realization you get while playing that the world does not revolve around you. One of my greatest memories of the gameplay in OFP is riding in a truck with a bunch of other players in MP, not worrying about combat or anything really, just enjoying the ride.

In fact, there are times where it can be relaxing for a game to be unrealistic. I don't really care to give examples, but sometimes you just want to have fun. Anyway, I think you have a good schema for well balanced gameplay, but we each have our own perspective on realism and mine is just not concerned with such things.

[An-225 0]

I'm getting frustrated by the amount of multitaskers.

Numerous people flying A-10s, carrying M107s, ejecting to heal downed infantry because they are also a medic, and then destroying the radio tower with that spare satchel they brought along because they were flying an airplane.

There should be a consistent and large amount of players in the mission (lets say this mission has a CTI theme), enough to finish the objective in a realistic manner, and to make sure the battlefield is a fully-fledged and fully-functioning one.

In order for this to happen, there must be some standardisation in mission development. One problem with ArmA, is the amount of servers running Evolution Blue/Red/Pink/whatever Version X.XXXXXXXX. It divides the community, and there is no longer a consolidated player base that is able to do anything that would have any sort of bearing in real life.

[thaFunkster 0]

AN-225:

If you are talking about flight sims and "realism", have you heard about DCS: Black Shark http://www.simhq.com/_air12/air_390a.html

Apparently the start up checklist is seventy something switches and dials, and it can take around half and hour, just to take off, a helicopter!

For some people, that makes a great game. I play the odd bit of LOMAC here and there, and although I dont have the patience to learn every function in every aircraft (especially Russian ones), it still feels simplified to me in some ways.

I have to say the realism in OFP was one of the best aspects, but even then BIS made concessions (for example being able to 'heal' at hospitals and medics) which I thought shouldnt be there. I dont think gameplay would be harmed if injuries had to carried throughout the rest of the mission and even subsequent missions, it would really make you take care and look after your player as though it were your own body. Also, I liked one save per mission, but a lot of OFP reviews didnt.

Why not take the approach that many sims take where there are a number of different realism settings? Have different modes (Arcade, Medium and Simulation) available in options and when a campaign starts. In this way BIS could massively widen their market by appealing to those who like to run and gun more, while at the same time not dissapointing those of us who appreciate the realistic depiction of combat that BIS have provided in the past. I think this would drive sales through the roof - you can have the game the way you like it rather than one set way.

Thats my thoughts.

Edited April 28, 2009 by thaFunkster
spelling

[EricM 0]

Given the open nature of Arma, I'm mostly against ANY "NEGATIVE" FEATURE that prevents you from doing something, even though it might seem stupid or unrealistic (like ejection seat in choppers or being able to fly an A10 while medic), and in favour of any "POSITIVE" FEATURE that allows you do do more (such as FLIR, Targeting systems...)

Arma is much more than "Realistic US Marines simulator". It's a platform of development and experimentation. Out of the box, everything should be possible (you don't know if you won't need that stupid feature X or Y in a Rabbit Zombie mod from Outer Space in 2 years form now) and no negative limit should be hardcoded. It's better to limit later in the mission by script, or to toggle On or Off on a specific basis.

But if a feature is realistic and gives more freedom or opportunities (FLIR, FCS, Shooting from non gunner positions), then the more the merrier...

[An-225 0]

I concur EricM. Simply on the topic of multitasking, I dislike people who have to do it all.

It would however, be nice if BIS provided a standard state that would lock vehicles to their proper user. E.g, airplane to pilot and tank to tanker. This would be a good balance between missions that require separate people doing separate jobs, such as in a CTI mission, and unique missions where the task may require a rifleman to...jack a tank.

I've seen scripts like this in action, but if that was provided as standard in the mission editor, then I think it would be used more often.

[funnyguy1 0]

The infantry stuff is quite realistic in BIS's games (apart from silly engagement ranges) so I'll focus on the vehicles.

Proper optics, HUD, RADAR, thermal vision, fire control systems, FLIR and all the stuff related to locking targets and fire modes for AGM and AA systems is a must for any remotely military game nowedays. We're talking about a military sim here...

Without a decent FCS, all the shiny MBTs are just useless.

[thaFunkster 0]

The infantry stuff is quite realistic in BIS's games (apart from silly engagement ranges) so I'll focus on the vehicles.

Proper optics, HUD, RADAR, thermal vision, fire control systems, FLIR and all the stuff related to locking targets and fire modes for AGM and AA systems is a must for any remotely military game nowedays. We're talking about a military sim here...

Without a decent FCS, all the shiny MBTs are just useless.

Yeah true I agree. I still think BIS should try to implement different modes just like (I understand) DCS: Black Shark has - even though it is probably THE most complex commercial military simulator out there, you can still choose to play it on a totally simplified arcade mode. It opens it up to all those who have little patience, and keeps it great for the simmers.

Best of both worlds.

[M.Andersson(SWE) 4]

1: Whos reality are we talking about.

Mine, Davids, The newly recriuted grunt that dont know wich is the front

and what is the back of a weapon.

2: What person should we define standards from: A grunt waighing 250 pound,

a seal officer.

3: What world aspect should it be.

1:1 in meter maps, LifeSized vehicles etc etc...

What BIS is trying to is pleasing EVERYONE.

And as such cant possibly please all of us.

Someone said "thats what mods a for", i agree

to some extent. ACE is nice, but ACI isnt flawless.

There are features in ACE that is too much. As a former

officer i have alot of experience and i can say, some of

ACE is No were near realism..

@BIS, do what you do and keep up the hard work..

[POTS 0]

I concur EricM. Simply on the topic of multitasking, I dislike people who have to do it all.

It would however, be nice if BIS provided a standard state that would lock vehicles to their proper user. E.g, airplane to pilot and tank to tanker. This would be a good balance between missions that require separate people doing separate jobs, such as in a CTI mission, and unique missions where the task may require a rifleman to...jack a tank.

I've seen scripts like this in action, but if that was provided as standard in the mission editor, then I think it would be used more often.

I also hate people that need a weapons box so they can have fun. I always say, "You get an m4 and you shut up". lol:D

[vilas 477]

realism:

1. working vests/helmets protection

2. vehicles destruction - not possible to blow up car by fire from rifle into it's doors, windows, not possible blowing tank when fire in protective sheet (for example steel plates that cover gunner of M113, T80)

3. AI not using : HEAT vs. man, Stinger/Strela vs. tanks

4. Artillery support

5. realistic weapons/vehicles used by army, not prototype messed with outdated not used weapon, or wrong scope/silencer

6. real ranges for rifles, machineguns, submachineguns

7. thermal vision

8. NVG limits of real life

9 . body destruction e.g. some shots in arm - AI not able to cary weapon but alive

10. some kind of penetration, e.g. shot 12,7 mm cannot kill man in APC, while 20 mm kills cargo inside

11. no more suicidal engage

12. AI using choper FFARs/ZUNIs

[M.Andersson(SWE) 4]

I said it before:

RL sized maps 1:1 format

AI that behaves realistic

RL specs of Vehicles, Weapons, Ballistics, Material and other Gear

Proper funktions to gear like Radio, Medpacks, Rucksacks.

Now a carried radio on back has no funktion at all..

[PhilippRauch 0]

So i guess the mentioned wishes are mostly geared towards missionmakers, i would say ...

Since most of it is up to them actually, they could restrict 'multitasking' (argh, how i HATE those M107 + Javelin wielding Medics ... ARGH)

The Missionmaker could include or omit anything thats out there ... IF all from totally 'idiotic' arcade stuff to outmost realistic behaviours/weaponsystems would be included ingame...

But that cant be possible for a game, even as complex and advanced as Real Virtuality Engine is now ... otherwise we would need to wait 10 years or more till the next installment of that engine.

So its all about mods/addons, again up to the missionmaker and the serverowners ... so again its about indivualism, each one cooks his/hers/its own soup (tried to translate that saying :P ) ...

Maybe some bright ppl could jot up some guidlines, like the 'Realism consitution of ArmA' ... what and whatnot makes 'Realism' and another one for cool 'Arcade consitution of ArmA' and maybe another ... keep it to 10 points or less, so missionmakers and would-be-soon missionmakers have some guidance which direction to take for their creation. Hell do even some polls after those three constitutions are finished to see how ppl like what and whatnot most ...

We need to use our tools of democrazy a little more to make all happy as 'we the players' could be!

Edited April 29, 2009 by PhilippRauch

[blackforest_rumbler 0]

Can't understand al lot of that discussion about realism......when I play a game I want to have FUN in the first line! Wheter a soldier looks exactely the same as in realitiy or has the "correct" gear is secondary 2 me.

What I understand in realism are the unlimited maps (not as 4 example in COD where there are artificial barriers) and the non-linear gameplay. In these respects as well OFP, ArmA and , as far as I can tell by now, ArmA 2 are setting standards, so they ARE as the advertisment tells the "most realistic military simulators".

In my opinion people complaining about wrong uniforms, gears and stuff are the same which watch a movie to find some stupid errors, not just to have fun. ;)

[MQ-9 Reaper 10]

Can't understand al lot of that discussion about realism......when I play a game I want to have FUN in the first line! Wheter a soldier looks exactely the same as in realitiy or has the "correct" gear is secondary 2 me.

Realism is not necessarily about "look" but more importantly how things work in real life :). Vilas' last post in this thread is a good illustration.

[An-225 0]

Thats a good list Vilas. Proper vehicle hitpoints and damage are important factors. I'm getting tired of leaking fuel from my Blackhawk because I got hit on the nose, or landing at a descent rate required for a fast insertion.

I like the idea for guidelines on what is realistic or not Philipp. It would be very hard to accomplish though (I dislike the M107, Javelin medics too; Also frustrating are the mission designers who place vehicles and objects right next to the runway and park tanks in hangars).

[NoRailgunner 0]

One of the biggest+tricky point is the AI. Development of AI or some kind of "swarm AI" is still at the beginning. Guess that AI will still be far away from "realistic human behaviour" in next 2-5 years.

Would be really good if BIS would find a good solution to get AI interacting much better with other AIs and human player - according to situation and terrain. Maybe with AI subskills there will be a much better (different) gameplay atmosphere?

For example:

- AI helicopter pilots are much better in using helicopters than using a tank,

- AI AT units are a way more efficient using their own AT weapons but will perform bit worse with a machineguns,

- AI units that can give some kind of support to others such as ammo bearer, assistants, recon/observers etc.

Would be great if human players can rely + trust on their own AI and should be more afraid/surprised of the OPFOR AI.

Cross fingers that BIS made different and closer basing to realworld weapons and systems - with most of their pro and cons. Think that people should get at least a slight "knowledge" about using such stuff ingame. I dont like to see those "well balanced" units, vehicles and weapon systems. "Balancing" should be made by mission design.

[PhilippRauch 0]

Well some of it is already in or in development for VBS2.. but thats a tad too expensive right now, although there is a 'private' version under development, which will cost 'only' one third or so of the VBS2 VTK ..

I talk about the ability in VBS2 to include middleware solutions like kynapse AI (crowds anyone :D ) or the ability with the new API to influence character skeletons ... *drool*

[nicklomas 3]

I just hope that the AI is able to target independentley on its own and deal with CQB. Many times i have played Arma and OFP and enemy and allied units have run within two metres of each other and then lay down, span around while aiming at the sky and ran off!

[CarlGustaffa 4]

After reading the posts since my 'last rant', lol, I have to moderate my 'demands for restrictions' somewhat:

I agree, in some missions you have to be able to fly an A10 even if you are a medic. This is still a 'game' and few players are willing to wait a long time for someone joining picking a pilot slot.

I think I am more addressing the mission designers and even the mission reviewers rather than the Arma system itslef. ArmA should be a sandbox where 'everything' (within reason though) is possible.

What I want (now) is:

* Mission designers have a responsibility to put realistic limits and abilities in their missions. Making all weapons available to everyone causes nearly everyone wanting to be a 'sniper'. For a tight group of friends (clan) an open ended system is very good, as it allows tyou to do modifications while playing, without touching the editor or scripts. But for the typical public server missions, restrictions have to be applied to avoid the current chaos we see today.

* Mission reviewers should recognize aforementioned flaws in the mission design, and advice the designers of possible countermeasures to rebalance things. This is not an easy task though, believe me.

* Just because there is equipment and vehicles available in the game, doesn't mean they all have to be used for every part of the mission.

Like in the Arma campaign. Very rarely did you have the possibility to actually choose your weapon. Naturally you don't want to be a complete nazi either, restrictions has to be made believable and realistic, yet still allow a certain degree of freedom. Sometimes they might even have to be explained.

[Anariaq 10]

Im a "pilot" kinda guy. And Im kinda disapointed that the level of realism is kinda gone. no FLIR is kinda a bad thing when almoust all type of CAS role is build alot on FLIR system. They could just made it posible for people to edit or impliment FLIR system BTW look at BF2 Project Reality it has actual more realistic targeting system for helicopters that ARMA. realy dislike the fact you can destroy a entire group of tanks by TAB'ing.

One thing that I think is Realism without killing it for newcommers is Lo-mac.

But think I will get the reaction that why dont I then play Lo-mac? well I love to fly lo-mac but in the end Im just flying around killing stuff and thats it. Why I want it in Arma is that I actually can be useful for ground team with my "skill".

Fealing that my actual training in for that kinda stuff actually means Im better at doing the CAS instead of just TAB'ing... ( maybe not just TAB'ing still need to fly the damn thing :) )

Or Im just outer my mind :eek::p

[ELITE B MAN 10]

I want so much realism that I experience PTSD symtoms after playing.

[(AEF) Deigs 10]

Bring on the realism!!!!!