Arma 2 difficulty VS Arma 1, OFP and the Rest...

[EricM 0]

I've been playing Arma 2 for a week now and I must say this game is pretty intense, it's scary.

With the dense vegetation, wildlife, buildings, rumbles, hi-def textures etc. there's so much going on and it's now SO HARD to spot enemies that I'm always super nervous, flipping out at each gun fire.

It feels, like the game is at least twice as hard as Arma1 and 10x as OFP on that matter. That's something I already noticed when playing Cold War Rearmed : some of the early missions that were a piece of cake in OFP, where quite harder in Arma 1... I wouldn't believe how it would be in Arma2

It's probably one the most challenging and stressful game I ever played (sometimes, it's even slightly frustrating). As I said, I'm no newby, I knew what to expect, and still I got trashed multiple times in the BASIC MOUT training or First solo mission !

It feels like Arma 1 veteran < Arma 2 Cadet...

What's your experience ? Do you feel it's "too much" ? Good enough ?

As for myself, I'm thinking to buy a Track IR to slightly improve my spatial awareness and survival skills...

[frederf 0]

That sounds pretty good from the aspect of being able to see the enemy. Sometimes when I drive or walk around in rural terrain I think to myself "If there was an RPG gunner out in the openish, I'd have a real hard time spotting him." However I know the ArmA version that same scene it would be cake to spot the same enemy.

I think the unfair difficulty traditionally comes from:

1. how well the enemy sees

2. how quickly your AI allies die

3. how the mission pits 20 friendly vs 200 enemy

4. forces you to follow a really crappy battle plan

[Heatseeker 0]

Its the increase in a.i. engagement distance and the complexety of the graphics and world detail i think.

For todays standards OPF is very simple in terms of world detail, if i remember well there was an obj limit of maximum rendered objects, also the graphics were very simple (models and textures) and easy on the eyes.

All the extra graphical and world detail affects the player but not the a.i.

I think OPF was more.. fair when it came to situational awareness (balanced betwean the player and a.i.).

The more they increase graphics detail and amount of objects the more the a.i. have an edge over the player.

[Alex72 1]

Its the increase in a.i. engagement distance and the complexety of the graphics and world detail i think.

And ofcourse general AI behaviour and tactics i would presume? They should be better and move smarter etc so it should be harder. ArmA1 AI is pretty simple to take down after 1.08 when the super snipers were fixed if you used some sense and caution. I found it hard when i tested ARMA2, but i also found myself applying much more sneaking and more thinking before engaging wich i liked. Noticed as one point the AI "saw" me through his neck though wich was annoying. I was still completelly and the squad turned around and killed me. It was clear it cheated as i didnt move and thus didnt produce any sound). Dont know how 1.01 final patch is on this matter.

But ARMA2 should need some AI tweaking - wouldnt surprise me since it cant be easy to make a game balanced or realistic for that matter (prefer the later).

Alex

[ziiip 1]

Yeah, I find it very hard to spot enemies in the distance. Very often I die without even spotting the guy whos shooing at me. But then again, turning off the grass can make a big difference. :D

[EricM 0]

the grass can make a big difference.

Yeah... War on a golf course is much easier !! lol

Though I agree with what's said above : the more detailed the environnment, the harder for the human players, regardless of better tactics. And here, we face BOTH !!!

Edited June 7, 2009 by EricM

[Sheps 0]

Yeah I had crazy trouble spotting my enemy, even when I did see them I could never hit them.

Even though the AI got smarter they also got a lot more frustrating to use, such as setting a waypoint, only have the entire squad say screw that and run 200 meters to get behind cover.

[odjob 0]

Now we can only go crouched or prone, nowere in between so its really hard to see were the enemy is thru the grass/clutter, there should be a feature to raise your head slightly when prone.

[ricoadf 0]

I can guarentee you'd have it blown off every time you did it :P

[bluesteel 0]

I was playing a simple coop mission with a friend over the weekend. We just used the editor wizard and the "Capture the area"-preset on chernarus, just left all the emeny positions unchanged. You start in a forest 500m north of a village that you have to seize; in the village are a few squads and a APC a bit outside of the village. You have a squad of 8.

We have experience from OFP and ArmA 1, but this was extremely difficult to manage. Maybe ArmA 2 needs new tactics.

We tried different approach vectors. Usually the AI would spot us from far away, alert their APC, and both the AI squads and the APC would shoot our squad to bits. We had our AI guys on the "danger" setting, so they (and we) were using cover and moving carefully. But as soon as one of the soldiers in the village saw us (we were moving a bit downhill), we were dead.

During another try we approached from the road, which was more or less on the same level as the village. Our AI was constantly spotting enemies through objects, calling out enemy AI behind buildings and trees. And after coming ~100m to the closest enemy AI we were spotted and killed; our AI was being killed even faster than we.

This might be a problem of tactics, and getting used to ArmA 2. But if the AI is on the same skill level on both sides, taking out a few enemy squads plus an APC with just one single friendly squad just does not work. We once accidentally had the AI commander in charge of our squad, and he got us killed even faster than we managed to do.

[Alex72 1]

I remember the grass discussion from ArmA1's northern Sahrani. I think if an area has high grass - then it does. Like real life if there is high grass in an area - it is. Nothing to do about that wich is realistic. Use trees and objects in those areas where grass covers your LOS. Also since supression works in ARMA2 one or two should sit up and start supressing the enemy while others move to a better shooting spot.

However if the lowest grass is the same height all over the map (impossible to shoot from prone) then a solution would be to randomize it on big fields etc. I think the real area they made Cherna from probably is very wild grown, but for gameplay reasons it should be made randomized since there are so many big fields.

BIS made Sara better and again im confident they will attend to this as well if it really is a big problem. :)

[odjob 0]

I think the grass/clutter is fine (very nice) as is, problem is that if you dont see anything from a prone position your only option is to go to crouch position witch leaves you very wunrable and easy for the enemy to spot. I tend to use 3rd person view to circumvent this problem.

[aus_twisted 0]

I think the grass/clutter is fine (very nice) as is, problem is that if you dont see anything from a prone position your only option is to go to crouch position witch leaves you very wunrable and easy for the enemy to spot. I tend to use 3rd person view to circumvent this problem.

Yep I use 3rd person view sometimes in situations like these, the AI can see you while there prone in grass so it kinda evens it out.

[EricM 0]

Grass is not really a "problem", I love it. It does the job well.

It's the overall visual complexity and level of detail of the game that makes it so challenging, especially to spot enemies (grass, bushes, trees, rocks, walls...)

Working Camouflage (good) + AI taking cover and flanking (good) + classic "heroic" mission templates of one vs 10 (not so good) + bad radio reports (never know where to look at...) + some dubious AI spotting capabilities and shooting skills = Ouch !!!!

Thank god we have first aid and medical clearance to save our ass...

On a side note : you can flatten the grass around you when lying. That's what I do if I want to snipe and have grass in the way : I move forward to flatten the disturbing high grass, and back to cover. It works great and you have a clear view for a few minutes if you're on a slightly prominent position.

[andersson 285]

What if you use RL tactics? To fight from a grassfield is not that good in RL, and then you have to give covering fire while your buddy moves. If done right you can get out of the field without to much casaulties. In short, fighting from a grass field is not something you want to do..

Also, in RL its not a good idea to attack a bigger enemy with a smaller group. Attackers need higher numbers to be succesful.

This game serie is more and more like RL, so we need to stop playing as heroes and start thinking about RL tactics.

Ofcourse if the AI is not fully tweaked and they "cheat" thats not good, but if they are as good as they can get they should be hard as it is hard in RL.

[turin turambar 0]

What if you use RL tactics? To fight from a grassfield is not that good in RL, and then you have to give covering fire while your buddy moves. If done right you can get out of the field without to much casaulties. In short, fighting from a grass field is not something you want to do..

Also, in RL its not a good idea to attack a bigger enemy with a smaller group. Attackers need higher numbers to be succesful.

This game serie is more and more like RL, so we need to stop playing as heroes and start thinking about RL tactics.

Ofcourse if the AI is not fully tweaked and they "cheat" thats not good, but if they are as good as they can get they should be hard as it is hard in RL.

You can't have RL tactics where the enemy spotting capabilities are far greaters than yours, and where even the grass is not the same for every side (transparent for the AI, thick as a wall for an human).

[andersson 285]

You can't have RL tactics where the enemy spotting capabilities are far greaters than yours, and where even the grass is not the same for every side (transparent for the AI, thick as a wall for an human).

True. But my point is still valid. When the Ai is tweaked and as it should be we must avoid heroics and use RL tactics.

Ofcourse superAI that can see through grass and "see" enemys where it shouldnt is not fair..

[EricM 0]

I'm just saying the game is massively more difficult to beat than OFP... nothing more.

And about attacking a bigger group with a smaller group, this is what you are told to do 90% of the time in the missions, even the official ones...

It it was just for me, I'd stay in UAV and airstrike the shit out of everyone... That's for RL tactics...

[dvolk 10]

I'm only on the tenth mission or so, but I think the ArmA 2 campaign is much more reasonable. In OFP/ArmA 1 the missions were often "Here's an M16, go attack that base full of infantry and armor. Godspeed soldier!"

In ArmA 2 you have tanks, artillery, and decent squad AI.

[odjob 0]

What if you use RL tactics? To fight from a grassfield is not that good in RL, and then you have to give covering fire while your buddy moves. If done right you can get out of the field without to much casaulties. In short, fighting from a grass field is not something you want to do..

Also, in RL its not a good idea to attack a bigger enemy with a smaller group. Attackers need higher numbers to be succesful.

This game serie is more and more like RL, so we need to stop playing as heroes and start thinking about RL tactics.

Ofcourse if the AI is not fully tweaked and they "cheat" thats not good, but if they are as good as they can get they should be hard as it is hard in RL.

Well as in RL when the bullets start flying tactics goes flying out the window :p .

If your on a patrol and have to cross a small field and suddenly get pinned by a larger enemy force that tactic does not apply and there is nothing heroic about it :D, and telling your ai buddy to give covering fire while you move is not that easy.

Trevligt med Svenskar här :)

[Helmut_AUT 0]

I'm not sure if lack of FSAA plays it's part in the difficult spotting of enemies, but certainly the new AI does too. Enemies just don't stand happily in the open between cover anymore, rather they always seem to shield them self at least from one side.

I had A1 down to an art, shooting enemy guys 4 or 6 at a time. A2 I get killed often without knowing where it came from.

[cm 0]

Most of these things sound good (aka harder). Once the AI is tweeked properly A2 should be a very fun (and fair) game :).

[Helmut_AUT 0]

Part of what makes it harder - for me at least - is the motion blur when running. People might not agree with the effect or rightly argue that the human eye doesn't work in such a way - for me it does a reasonable job of simulating that you can't really appreciate and screen your environment while running full tilt.

In A1, you could nicely jog, look around with ALT, and drop/shoot as soon as you spotted AI in the distance. Not happening with A2, and IMHO that's a good thing, even if the blur implementation isn't perfect.

[RUKH 0]

I second that Helmut, the blur effect that I don't like is that the time to focus after stopping is way to long...the running blur is a good way to stop the running eagle-eye in all of us and force players to use caution while moving about the terrain.

I find myself moving in alot shorter and planned sprints since A1.

[ultimateflashpoint 10]

I am going to assume you guys dont know how to adjust the AI? I have it at a perfect balance. A friendly level of about 1.00 to an enemy AI of about 0.45 is much better. But if you set the enemy AI at 0, a bunch of guerillas can waste several squads of Spetznaz before they die. :p:D:bounce3: