Experience from other games

[SHADY1 10]

I am aware that there are little spelling mistakes scattered through out this post, please be aware my editor is on vacation so this is the best i can do.

I have highlighted key words and

farcies too assist in assimilating all this. Im sorry a five word post was not going too deliver the message so your going too have too read it all.

A lot of games or mods have attempted too do what ARMA 2 is planing too do make a realistic war simulator. One of the is a very obscure mod known as project reality by black sands studios. It made a lot of mistakes about how too go about making a realistic fps but mistakes are good because they teach us things we did not expect and help as too achieve a greater understanding. how ever making the same mistakes twice well…. It not good. I feel It important I shear the knowledge obtained from making this mod.

During the early stages of the mod the team made the mistake of making the weapons too accurate what this resulted in was a game consisting solely of sniper warfare and almost no team work or cooperation. We found it preferable too just camp out some where in a counselled position and snipe other players. Working together as a squad was out of the question because this was a game that a concealed solder with a standard rifle could kill an entire squid uncontested so staying together or working together meant you where basically lining up ducks in a row for the other team for them too shot . This kind of game style was not very popular nor did it deliver the true experience of real warfare.

Shooting in combat is buy no means any thing like firing on the range against inanimate objects who aren’t trying too kill you. The fear of having people shoot at you and dodging the bullets by ducking in and out of cover. This and a number of different other factors does not leave you a lot of time too calmly drew a bead on a target and fire as you do on a range. So making the weapons that accurate was illogical because it simply impossible too do in a combat situation making it unrealistic. And I must also stress us players did not like how the game played on the public servers.

0.8

But the Dev’s had a idea on how too make the came more realistic and more like the real experience. And that was too add bullet deviation.

What this did was make the bullets less accurate at mid range. And I must say it was a brilliant idea and worked very effectively.

It now was extremely unlikely you would be able too shot a enemy and kill them in a single shot or snipe them. What was now happening was you would fire on a enemy and he would most likely then take cover and fire back leading too a exchange of fire. This was a welcome change from the tediousness of the pervious version because now the fighting was now far more intense and heart thrilling. It was more like real life bullets flying every where. And bigger and better fire fights.

This brought about a change on the servers breathing new life into the mod banishing the stale and stagnate warfare of the previous mod. The tactics evolved and the players rouse too met these challenges head on. Team work and working as a combined unit became more common place and unlike before it was now viable too work together with out fear of being picked off by campers.

Because the weapons where less effective we had too work together more too achieve the same goals just like in real life combat. We also enjoyed the team play experience because it brought another element too the game.

We stil had too kill the people on the other team and we could no longer just snipe them like we did in pervious versions. So we now had too use real infantry tactic’s in order too kill the person such as flanking and suppressive fire in order too advance and win against the enemy. You have too admit the sounds a lot better then what the game was like in the earlier version.

85. Suppression in the previous mods was none existent so as a experiment the dev’s introduce a scheme too implement it into the game. What the idea was when you get shot at and the round lands in your general proximity the players screen would temporarily fog up rendering the players unable too fire back accurately. In real life suppression work on the principle of intimidation making the recipient unwilling too return fire on fear of being shot. Unfortunately in a video game that is impossible because quite frankly as players we don’t exactly care very much if we get shot. How ever the fogging vision worked and brought out the desired effect.

These changes made the mod even more popular. Before these changes the game had at least 200 now it up too 500 hundred or more, so it pays too get things right.

PS. I have no confidence that this post will achieve any thing but meah Im looking forward too this game and I must say I rather not have it make the same mistakes other games have already made.

Edited May 5, 2009 by SHADY1

[De_little_Bubi 1]

we don’t exactly care very much if we get shot.

Dont know the meaning of all the other guys in here but i realy care about my virtual life in arma. There are very few missions where death mean no respawn from a big distance and no ultimate dead for the mission.

So mostly you lost a big amount of time or the mission itself if you got killed.

But yeah some effects if a bullet flying near at you would be great and i think i remind some ingame video sequences where you can see such a thing.

(wouldn't swear one it)

[Alex72 1]

There is supress effects if the bit older information is correct. With a lot of bullets passing close to you your image should be a bit blurred and you gain a little more sway - at least this is what was said not too long ago - so you have to roll/get out of the bullet rain to gain good aim and vision. This sounds superb even though i was sceptic at first. I hope this IS implemented. It would be an awesome feature in both PvP and Coop.

And yeah, i also care about my life in ArmA. We never play with the "score board" on, but i secretly count my own deaths when there is respawn. The more deaths i have the crappier i feel as i want to do the missions as realisticly as possible wich means - no deaths. Scoring kills has nothing to do at all in games like ArmA (unless a game mode is designed for scoring kills). If you cover your fellow's six and never get to shoot anyone - your still an ACE.

But realism needs to be balanced in games/sims in some areas. You cant implement every single bit. And some bits needs to be toned down or theres no joy in playing it anymore. No joy because it becomes too hard (unrealistic and pretentious) as you cant control the game/sim as in reality where thousands of factors plays in and can be modified like strength/muscles etc. I personally want as much of realism as possible like real data for ballistics, timimg like reload times and movement speeds etc etc, but some elements that cant be controlled as good as in reality needs to be balanced for exactlly that sake - realism. When its balanced in the right places it becomes realistic as the balancing itself IS those thousands of factors.

What did this have to do with OP? Im not sure. But just had to explain my view on realism in games/sims. So many seems to want ultra realism but forget what it takes to control/function loads of stuff in real life. I want "ultra realism" myself, but some things really need to get balanced to make the game/sim really truly realistic as there are no way we can control the game like in real life.

Cheers

Alex

[An-225 0]

I agree Alex, I want factual realism, rather than subjective realism which varies from unit to unit (stamina etc.).

[Second 0]

Shooting accuracy... hmm... This leads to deep ocean. Few things.

-Rainbow six and Ghost recon. They take movement (turning also) into consideration. In ArmA this could be done by increasing sway for short moments, escpacely in prone position. Kneeling and standing positions are fast to fix so we talk less than second lasting times here at maximum... In fact in OFP there is animation for turning in prone and it makes turning and aiming on prone quite time consuming process... However when turning character with mouse this animation isn't played, but player just statically turns in his axis. Bummer!

-Is rifle steadily on shoulder (in same azimut than spine is directed) or is it pointing to sides? Impacts on recovery of shot, first might go to mark but recoil will toss rifle differently and it probably won't land into same position as it was. With rifle steadily on my should i can fire at target and expect that sights are again on target after recoil, if rifle is not steadily then sights are off.

-Recoil. I dislike how OFP/ArmA does it. Static rise to either up or up and bit right. See the previous and i would like to add bit more. Short burst might go well, but steadily (or exponentaly?) area of impacts should rise after those.

-Pulling/jerkking the trigger or squeezing it? This has major effect. I think ArmA has basically things well with it. This hold breath button. But it's effects are not enough in my mind. firing without holding breath (or preparing shot in my mind) should have much bigger accuracy impact, could think that without it we can only hit target less than 100 meters away well, in about 80-90% accuracy. With holding breath we should be able to hit anything stationary up to at least 400 meters, even longer... Provided that player handles ballistics and does aim properly.

I would call this preparing shot because it's more than just holding breath. Loose of from trigger, breathing technigue (or not, depends...), supporting weapon to points of balance well (elbows, bipods, magazine). Proper sight picture. Fine tuning body position, like elbows wider, shoulders lower, bending right leg etc

-Suppression's effect on accuracy? In my mind this should be in, player mostly doesn't fear as respawns are here to stay and in SP we have save&load. Blurring or hazing or what ever in my mind is good, it's clear mark for player to understand. Just lowering accuracy values without telling it to player is bad.

-Wind? ... Probably should be in.

-Should sun and it's impact on iron sights be modelled? Gets maybe bit too sophisticated.

-How rifle is hold? Symmetrical or not? In my mind WAY too complicated and heavy for games to work well.

-Skill and it's effect on player? Most troops are not as good as some are. I've seen weapon handling which is hard to believe that it can be real: fast, accurate, changes of mistakes minimized by constant drills for years. Then again it gets bit too complicated to sometimes play as guy who have shot firearms for decade (ten of thousands bulelts spent, daily traning on use of firearms in every possible conditions and positions) and on next mission we play as fresh recruit who has fired something like 200-300 shots using just basic firing positions. I don't like the idea. Ghost recon wirked in this because there was retacle and basically all guys were very good in firearm handling.

So there is few.

Edited May 5, 2009 by Second

[SHADY1 10]

i believe the combat in pr now is very much like real warfare they have pretty much hit it on the head.

In regard too aim and bullet deviation, if this game what’s good game play it should try and emulate and embellish upon PR.

[S!fkaIaC 10]

There is no experience from other games. If you ever touched OFP1, then there is no other game. ArmA was a kind of "Flitzkacke" out of the brain of BIS, but I hope they will do another "OFP" with ArmA2.

[Second 0]

EDIT: Blah. Wrote totally off from the mark.

Edited May 9, 2009 by Second

[celery 8]

There is no experience from other games. If you ever touched OFP1, then there is no other game. ArmA was a kind of "Flitzkacke" out of the brain of BIS, but I hope they will do another "OFP" with ArmA2.

Compared to Armed Assault OFP is crap. OFP will be even more crap compared to Arma 2. There is always room for improvement and looking at how others have solved their problems can provide valuable insight.

[whisper 0]

Compared to Armed Assault OFP is crap. OFP will be even more crap compared to Arma 2. There is always room for improvement and looking at how others have solved their problems can provide valuable insight.

:confused: IS it the same Celery than 2 years ago? :confused:

[celery 8]

:confused: IS it the same Celery than 2 years ago? :confused:

I have more hair now, so no.

[NeMeSiS 11]

I have more hair now, so no.

I already had long hair 2 years ago and i liked the game when we had long discussions about whatever. So from this we can conclude that the amount one likes ArmA is directly proportional to the length of his hair? :confused:

Edited May 10, 2009 by NeMeSiS

[sidhellfire 0]

It's not about the hairs on the head.

[Second 0]

In regard too aim and bullet deviation, if this game what’s good game play it should try and emulate and embellish upon PR.

I doupt. I'd say ArmA has much better system already. Haven't played PR but i dare to say that weapon accuracy should be what it is in reality, and by that i mean WEAPON accuracy (shooter's accuracy should be MAIN factor). Ability to snipe HAS to be possible, this HAS TO force players to play cautiously or die. If that fails then realism in that sense is thrown to trash.

What i hear about PR is that it's still run'n'gun, and i believe it is. Same happened with OFP mods which had option for so-called HD magazines. Which were inaccurate. On mid-long ranges it was mere bad luck for one to get hit. If you saw enemy on 200-400 meters better was just to put whole mag at him either with rapid sinlge shots or autofire than take him into sights and take accurate shots.

[S!fkaIaC 10]

Compared to Armed Assault OFP is crap. OFP will be even more crap compared to Arma 2. There is always room for improvement and looking at how others have solved their problems can provide valuable insight.

Well, I evaluate the game how it arrived at my disk, not the way it was intended. Sure many new features, but if we talk about "feeling", being dragged into a virtual world, then it is like I suggested: OFP = diamond, ArmA 1 =

Because? Because whenever you start into a mission in ArmA you came pretty soon to a point where ether the mission logic was broken or simply a bug destroyed the atmosphere. You were trapped by enemy forces and running to the next cover - but what? Why I can not crouch under this fence? It is 90cm space between ground and first bar! Bang....dead.

Or you brought your 6 tank platoon successfully to the front line.....then you stop suddenly plong! and one tank is on its turret.

And it goes on like that. Endless.

Pure technically ArmA 1 was much better then OFP1, but what does this mean?

You can not sell me a Ferrari if it is pink!

Edited May 11, 2009 by S!fkaIaC

[Red_Barron 0]

Well, I evaluate the game how it arrived at my disk, not the way it was intended. Sure many new features, but if we talk about "feeling", being dragged into a virtual world, then it is like I suggested: OFP = diamond, ArmA 1 =

This is something that has bugged me recently. Everyone pines over how OFP was 10000x better than Arma, and they compare OFP to when Arma was first released all the time. But how many people remember what it was like, or have played recently, OFP 1.0 (ie no patches)?

Really, to say that OFP was soooo awesome and flawless, especially compared to Arma1, is a bit of a misstatement I think. OFP definitely had that first ever game quality that subsequent games will never be able to top, but it had it's fair share of bugs during it's release as well.

I think people think about OFP how they left it (or are currently playing it, in a rather "finished" state (and heavily patched/expanded upon). With Arma everyone thinks of when it was released (buggy like OFP on it's release, but no one noticed because OFP was a revolutionary game). And the same will hold true for Arma2, only possibly worse, because we are so attuned to this type of game now (thanks to years of OFP and Arma1).

[whisper 0]

As far as I remember, OFP 1.0 == multiplayer unplayable, for example

[Red_Barron 0]

As far as I remember, OFP 1.0 == multiplayer unplayable, for example

Exactly. OFP was by no means a "polished game" when it came out. When I get home I'm going to replay all the demos out there to get a sense of how the game has actually progressed. I urge the rest of you to as well.

This page has the SP and MP OFP demo, as well as the Resistance Demo:

http://www.ofpforever.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=viewdownload&cid=2

Try all three, in order, and then try the Arma demo:

http://www.armedassault.com/dwnl_demo.html

I think we'll find all the demos had some bugs that needed to be ironed out, just like we'll probably see in Arma2.

[Second 0]

Compared to Armed Assault OFP is crap. OFP will be even more crap compared to Arma 2. There is always room for improvement and looking at how others have solved their problems can provide valuable insight.

:confused: IS it the same Celery than 2 years ago? :confused:

I wonder the same. 2 years ago i "hated" him... now i in fact am prone to "love" him.

My hair remains the same, on top and below. Has to be due some other factors/reasons... Unable to process more.

[S!fkaIaC 10]

Try all three, in order, and then try the Arma demo:

Compare OFP 1.96 and current ArmA 1, I still thing for SP content made by BIS OFP is leading.

If it comes to MP, of course JIP is a huge improvment, but it is not very reliable.

And if you compare OFP 1.96 + content ever made for and ArmA 1.16 + all content it is for sure OFP that is winning.

[dunedain 48]

Fanboyisme has no limit.

Or maybe it's ok, after 5 years, to release a sequel as well bugged if not much than its predecessor..

Edited May 14, 2009 by dunedain

[whisper 0]

If it comes to MP, of course JIP is a huge improvment, but it is not very reliable.

Err, what????

@Dunedain : BI's way. I don't expect perfect product from them from the get go, because I know they'll follow it like few others dev team do, and it'll end up well (enough).

I prefer that over a bug-free 1.0 version without anything interesting inside (think CoD here).

BI have a unique engine (scale-wise), being unique means having unique bugs and limitations ;)

[Hell_Toupee 0]

I doupt. I'd say ArmA has much better system already. Haven't played PR but i dare to say that weapon accuracy should be what it is in reality, and by that i mean WEAPON accuracy (shooter's accuracy should be MAIN factor). Ability to snipe HAS to be possible, this HAS TO force players to play cautiously or die. If that fails then realism in that sense is thrown to trash.

ea but shooter in games is only a point and click affair, the only alternative is to add huge amounts of weapon sway but that only results in more awkward gameplay than now.

As it is everyone shooting like snipers in ofp/arma does not result in realistic fire fights.

[celery 8]

ea but shooter in games is only a point and click affair, the only alternative is to add huge amounts of weapon sway but that only results in more awkward gameplay than now.

As it is everyone shooting like snipers in ofp/arma does not result in realistic fire fights.

Real life firefights are like that because of human behavior and will to survive. If you want completely realistic firefights in a game, you will have to play for hours and most of your time will be spent ducking in hard cover, perhaps never even seeing the enemy and just shooting where you think they are so that they wouldn't appear there in the first place. That's not entertaining gameplay and you can't force players to act like that unless you want to take away all freedom and/or realism from the game.

I'd take realistically accurate weapons any time over artificial and random dispersion.

[Hell_Toupee 0]

Firefights as they are now is not entertaining gameplay, everyone shooting like snipers is hardly realism, theres just no difficulty in shooting.