What happened to the Ofp way?

[Bulldogs 10]

There's one way to fix this... spend millions of dollars developing the ultimate voice control system. I heard Ethne say he'd be happy to pay for it.

[hund 0]

As for leading AI, I kinda liked my dumb little ofp myrmidons. They might not have been the smartest bunch, but at least they did exactly what I wanted them to do (because I am always right, ain't I?). WHen I am not leading them however, the new arma 2 AI is pretty neato.

As for the covering fire, I am pretty sure the FSM inserts that behaviour as random delays, meaning that it gives the impression of fire and movement tactics without actually being any such thing. Check the FSM.

[nkenny 1051]

As for leading AI, I kinda liked my dumb little ofp myrmidons. They might not have been the smartest bunch, but at least they did exactly what I wanted them to do (because I am always right, ain't I?). WHen I am not leading them however, the new arma 2 AI is pretty neato.

As for the covering fire, I am pretty sure the FSM inserts that behaviour as random delays, meaning that it gives the impression of fire and movement tactics without actually being any such thing. Check the FSM.

Exactly this.

I think 'MicroAI' is perhaps a step in the wrong direction, where they should just have implemented 4-5 "stances" as formalized in ShakTacs tactical guide.

- K

[fincuan 0]

The "Micro AI" is awesome if you ask me. My artificial squadmembers have pleasantly surprised me numerous times with their actions, and as a whole are miles ahead of OFP and Arma. Especially their conduct in urban areas is very good.

Just a short example on from the last time I commanded an AI squad in Warfare BE:

I had an AI squad with 6 members, and we were approaching an enemy held town along a road. Upon entering the village I ordered the squad to move along the road by placing a waypoint for them about 200 meters ahead, combat being mode "aware", directly in the middle of the road. The guys actually started advancing in two fireteams(I didn't do any kind of divisions myself), three men on either side of the road, hugging the buildings on each side. On the first enemy contact I ordered them to combatmode "danger". The advance continued, but this time they started bounding and were much more cautious, checking and covering corners, only a few guys moving at a time, etc... They took out the few enemy AIs and one human player defending the village without any casualties, and without me having to interfere in any other way apart from giving move orders.

[lwlooz 0]

Okay then,

It seems I need to explain myself in a somewhat longer form and write less of a rant.

I do think its great you get your enjoyment out of playing with AI and against AI. I don't want to talk down your fun at all.One of the problems BIS faces is that everyone wants something different out of this game and hence everyone has different experiences and wants.

My want is having good games of leading AI in Multiplayer against both AI and humans. I used to do that a lot in OFP , but since the release of ArmA I did not have one enjoyable gaming session of that type. Not one.

Hence me picking up on the AI-issue and posting in this topic.

I do believe the Individual AI , the Infantry One , has got better pathfinding. They are able to go from cover to cover, go through smaller spaces and even

check around corners. They also can supress targets by shooting at the general location of targets.

This are some of few clear improvements over OFP the AI has.

But I think it is fair , as I tried , to point out some things that have not progressed very much , being well aware that pointing those out is a lot easier than coming up with solutions and putting them into the code.

No Team-Behaviour

:

Notwithstanding the buddy-team behaviour as a way from getting from A to B, the old problem of the AI not using its squad to the fullest still remains.

The AI may send 2 man into their death now , but it is still the only tactical option they seem able to use.

I might be missing it , but I still don't see the squad leader using his subordinates in a coordinated mater.

Too often do squads get broken up that way in my opinion.

On that note, the fleeing/withdrawing,relocating,and taking a different approach the AI seems to do when you put them on "allowFleeing" should probably be default behaviour.

On an additional note, a design problem with Team-Behaviour on Waypoints for me is that you don't have Attack,Defend,Withdraw,Delay waypoints with which AI Team Behaviour on acting on that waypoint could be better defined. Also WP-Parameters for Aggressiveness and Casualty-Acceptance/Courage[as opposed to general fleeing] seem be missing.

No Survival-Instinct

:

Along with the Suicide-Runs , the AI at least to me seems to be quite trigger-happy, even when they are unspotted and heavily outgunned.

This is probably also something that could be sorted with more advanced and wargame-like Waypoints.

But what is far more frustrating for me is leading AI. This is where OFP is simply more fun for me.

This new scripted behaviour, and I call it "scripted", because it follows its script no matter what you as the player think or really what situation your team is in, is really nice to watch unless it fucks up , which it does too much for my taste.

Don't get me wrong. I am all for not micro-managing the AI. I like that AI moves from cover to cover and I even would prefer if they would sprint to cover when some MG opens up on us.

But what I don't like is that the buddy-system in some situation gets them killed by slowness of movement and you can't turn it off , or that they run infront of you because they search for some cover and get themselves killed.

It seems also a lot harder to disengage them.

Generally I think what I don't like about this post-ArmA AI is that your position and your orders have way too little priority for your AI-comrades.

An ideal system in my opinion should be:

1. Follow Orders / Stay in Formation
   
2. Look for Cover
   
3. Fire at Target
   
4. Look for Target
   
5. Perform Action (Reload,Interaction with Objects)
   

That way they could do all they own nonsense unless something more important of more priority comes up.

For example if they were to run from cover to cover in their slow way and you told them to "Return to Formation" , they would just leg it your way immediately.

Of course that is no replacement for also having UI-controls for determining if you want your AI to use a buddy-team system,how far you want your AI to spread out, if you want your AI to stay with their formation leader or go from cover to cover , if and at what rate of fire to use suppressive fire , etc.

Therefore unless the individual AIs are managable by yourself as the squad leader I am just going to like leading AI in OFP more , no matter how silly people think that is.

While I mention it, I also going to like the entire OFP command interface more , unless BIS reverts back to that one , and really thinks what an additional context-sensitive menu should look like and sends that xbox Quick-Command-Menu rubbish to hell.

I would mention how much more fun it was to be not blinded by HDR (which should do the opposite) in OFP, but I think it is already enough ramblings for today.

Edited October 9, 2009 by lwlooz

[NoRailgunner 0]

With vanilla OFP AI's you have to do a bit more babysitting and they very often (re)act on orders/in combat more like robots. ;)

Think that AI is still an interesting and challenging "new" area for game developers.

Will the AI act like human players?

Are they able to learn and to act autonomously eg disengage/withdraw and regrouping etc and engage from a better position?

How good AI can assign priorities in different situations?

Is the AI able to communicate with human players in a proper way?

Imho many publishers and developers dont like the ups and downs of AI developments and decide to script/trigger their bots/NPCs. Another very big reason to find a quick+dirty solution is time & money. Could be nice to read how BIS will continue to work on AI's in Arma2 + OA maybe some outlook on AI in CC:Gaea Mission? Developer's Blog?

[almanzo 144]

After fighting thru the whole tread, I finaly get to voice my opinion. I am one of those who are deep down dissappointed with the ARMA II campaign... And I totally agree with Special Ed. OFP is a game that has gotten me play the campaign over and over again, and I've remembered bragging about the fact that both add-ons contained a complete release campain. OFP was a gem of a game. Great content, brilliant engine, an amazing open world and a looooong campaign. Like for instance the feeling you get from being a commander of a tank squad, commanded to take out a town you've lost to the ruskies 5 or 6 misssions ago, or the mere feeling it gave to retake the first island you played on.

Playing arma, having to use cheats to beat alot of missions simply becouse of bugs (the end mission cheat at the end of missions feels kind of ironic). But playing the first high command mission I was effectivly stunned. This game has SOOO much potential, but sadly, it's not used by the developers.

Frankly, the potential in video games is mounstrous. Storywize, it is possible to present a much more complex way of telling stories. Bohemia brags about ARMA II being the spiritual sucsessor to OFP, but in reality, it isn't. Its ARMA, simple and plain. OFP wasn't only about simulation, the story it provided got me sucked in like no other game. It remains to me as one of the best stories ever told in a game. Along with titles as Deus-ex, final fantasy VII and might and magic VI it remains one of my all time favorites.

Why is content important? Well, newcomers picking up this title is going to let the game down. How many of the guys posting here picked up ARMA II or even ARMA as their first Bohemia military game? Most people would buy, play and get boored and then let it go. No amount of user generated content is going to get them to keep the game. For them, content is everything that matters.

Not one single tank squad mission, not one air-plane mission, not a chopper mission, not the feeling of being a single solider in a large scale war... Oh, no... we are back to the one man hero, or in this case, one squad heroes. The outcome of the whole conflict is on those four people. Please, c'on... Like that is anythink like plausible. We have enough games like that, mainly the COD series. We need a game that puts forward what it's like being a solider, picturing real people in real conflicts. I am so dissapointed with the arma series that I can't even explain it. And it startles me so much... Bohemia delievered OFP, Resistance and Red Hammer, all with great campaigns... Bohemia can do better, we know that all of us...

[hund 0]

I do believe you will have your wish granted in Operation Arrowhead, Mr. aLmAnZio.

On the topic of arma 2 AI not being very leader friendly because they get bright ideas that you may not agree with, I think we will just have to let them go about their business. The days of micromanaging your AI, even in a tight situation, seem to be gone. Issuing a general order and then watching the AI do their best to complete it is the way it works now.

I liked it better in the old days, as stated before, but I suppose I'll just have to get used to these new-fangled ideas.

Oh, and on a slightly non-related topic, the group respawn system seems to me to be guggered all to hell. Didn't you used to be able to put one playable in charge of a group of non-playables, and then spawn into the non-playables using group respawn? Now it seems you can't do that - if it's not plable at selection screen, it's not playable at all.

Edited October 9, 2009 by Hund

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Not one single tank squad mission, not one air-plane mission, not a chopper mission, not the feeling of being a single solider in a large scale war... Oh, no... we are back to the one man hero, or in this case, one squad heroes. The outcome of the whole conflict is on those four people. Please, c'on... Like that is anythink like plausible. We have enough games like that, mainly the COD series. We need a game that puts forward what it's like being a solider, picturing real people in real conflicts. I am so dissapointed with the arma series that I can't even explain it. And it startles me so much... Bohemia delievered OFP, Resistance and Red Hammer, all with great campaigns... Bohemia can do better, we know that all of us...

I disagree. What makes this campaign look authentic to me is the fact that you are just this one man throughout (unless you're using teamswitch) the event. The missions aren't way out there tough (like I though they were in OFP, but maybe it's just me who have matured a little).

I also disagree strongly about this supersquad feeling. I felt I was part of a big (well, small) war machinery. During missions like Razor Two, Manhattan, and even Dogs of War (to some extend), we had our rather small objectives while the rest of the world was living its own thing. On the contrary, in OFP, there was nothing going on except in that tiny area that defined the mission (as far as I can remember, since I had to give up all OFP campaigns at some point).

The outcome of Dogs of War has many endings in case you didn't notice. And in this mission, even though you have some "defining" tasks (wouldn't be a game without them), the rest of the war continues with or without you. So I more felt like a superhero doing "impossible" (at the time) tasks in the OFP campaign than I do in Arma2. Making Arma2 much more authentic to me than OFP ever was.

One thing I remember from OFP is "Oh, today I'm gonna be a tank commander". You really think that is realistic? I don't. If I'm a grunt I prefer staying one throughout.

I am an infantry player for the most part, so I didn't really miss those tank and gunship missions at all. And I didn't really like the OFP approach either, with too much tank and specops missions for my liking. However, here is an alternative way of handling it that might be interresting:

Several campaigns that intertweene. On several occasions the campaign guy (i.e. Razor) will meet the other guys (tank, gunship, specop) while playing the Razor part of the campaign. When you've done that, and actually "completed" the campaign, you can switch to the tank part where you're involved in the same conflict but from another standpoint. Doing your own missions naturally, but meeting the other guys from time to time.

I think this would be far better than forcing you to play through something (for me, tanks and gunships) you might not be all that interrested in.

[almanzo 144]

I disagree. What makes this campaign look authentic to me is the fact that you are just this one man throughout (unless you're using teamswitch) the event. The missions aren't way out there tough (like I though they were in OFP, but maybe it's just me who have matured a little).

Well, you got a point... But at least have some progression. My point here is that OFP gave you a distinct feeling of achievement. At the begining, you are nothing more than a mere private, fighting alongside 6-10 or so other soliders who was in the same situation as you. The fact that this was ordinary guys, people who had joined the army and had no real combat experience from before was refreshing. The fact that they didn't know what was going on, and that the commanding officers waited to tell them made sense. The fear of battle was real in OFP. The fact that you gained ranks troughout the campaign gave you a distinct feeling of achievement, and was natural to the learning curve. I enjoyed both commanding and being a solider, now you have no choice. Also, the fact that you troughout the campain only have 3 team mates are kind of sad.

You are right about the fact that "nothing went on" in the places around the battle zone in ofp. That of course adds up to the experience, but the missions and the encounters made more sense back then. You knew where the enemy was in most cases, and that should be the case here also with a few exeptions.

And yes, I noticed the multiple endings choice, and that was by all means a positive treat. My main concern with the story is simply the characters, the missions and the lenght. The characters seem very unrealistic, the voice acting is done poorly, and the guys is so "hard ass" I find it allmost funny. There is no reflection over the terrors of war, and I find ARMA II more action oriented than OFP. And I know it's a minor detail, but I really, really miss the quotes when you died, they added up to the experience. I dissagree strongly that OFP made a superhero out of you, except the spec-op missions though. Going into a fully stationed base alone and taking out 5 tanks doesn't seem possible.

And you mention the first tank mission in OFP. They had different characters for helicopter missions, tank missions and airplane missions. The guy you play as a tank commander, was on maldon as a part of the NATO force. He was there on a training camp to become a tank commander. Becouse of the unpredicted outbreak of battle, he was forced to man a tank before he finished his training becouse "we have more tanks than tank crew at this moment" (witch i think is a precise quote out of my memory). And yes, I find that to be realistic, when thinking aobut the conflict in question.

And I must say I loved the ending mission, where all the characters you've played troughout the campain gathered for a drink at the end. It was a brilliant mission, and me and my friends used to make jokes about how war leaves it's psychological scars, becouse even though the war was over, and the guys was wearing civilian clothes, they still moved in formation and followed orders. Haha, next time I am going to the movies or something with my friends, and I am driving, I am going to shout out "1,2,3 dissembark" just for the fun of it :P

Several campaigns that intertweene. On several occasions the campaign guy (i.e. Razor) will meet the other guys (tank, gunship, specop) while playing the Razor part of the campaign. When you've done that, and actually "completed" the campaign, you can switch to the tank part where you're involved in the same conflict but from another standpoint. Doing your own missions naturally, but meeting the other guys from time to time.

I think this would be far better than forcing you to play through something (for me, tanks and gunships) you might not be all that interrested in.

Well, I kind of like the idea...

The best campain idea they ever had was the one for resistance... where loosing a guy during a mission meant he was dead in the next. The fact that you stole equipment was also brilliant.

Thank you for a good response btw... I like the fact that people notice and take into account my thoughts

[Guest]

Amazing this thread is still alive.

A few major thoughts :

List a game where it's own platform qualities were the selling point, and the actual quality of the mission/quest content had little to do with it. Now this is regardless of what the modding potential was of that game after it's release..

Again - take Ofp, and remove the campaign, and put some quickly thrown together junk in replacement, and same for Ofp/Res.. And see what the sales would have amounted to..

Someone here said I am expecting Arma2 to provide content equivalent to what was projected for Kolgujev Conflict/Arma, which is way to high of standard.. no.. I never said that..

I said.. I just wanted the dang standard of quality mission content included in the game I am purchasing.. And that I don't want to buy a game that has content in quality similar to Arma1.. where I am forced to rely on the modding community to fully enjoy my gameplay experience.. and my final posts where pointing at this being a major issue.. because as I stated, most of us modders do not have the time nor funds to create huge quality content that can be matched by a major gaming company..

Sure, Ofp has lived on for so long because of the modded content, but.. BUT most of that content I enjoyed never exceeded the overall quality of the content originally provided.. it was simply new cool stuff to have fun with.. for the most part it never truly replaced the original content, it just gave more. Without the great original content, I beleive Ofp would have been dead in the water.. and Ofp/Res too (well.. Res would have been nothing without the content anyhow.. as that was what it mostly was .. new mission content..That we paid a pretty penny for..)

Most people won't buy a game where they already know they have to rely on the modding community to fully provide them quality mission/quest content. Most people buy a game, maybe deal with some annoying issues of setting up their system/game to run right, and get to enjoy weeks if not months of great mission content included direct in the game itself.

A game that comes in the box ready to please, and give fulfillment in mission/quest is the standard for games. Anything less survives only by a loyal small group dedicated to that game, everyone else outside of that bracket of people will likely not buy it, and if they do, will likely be detached quickly from it and no longer play it.

There are so many game out there that have done so well for so long simply due to the in game provided quality in their mission/quest content it's not funny. Heck I personally still play Im Going In - the original - just because of the content in game provided, it's fun, its immersive. And that's like a 10 year old game.

Updating a system to play a new game is often a must, but doing all of this and having to *primarily* rely on the modding community for quality in game mission/quest content is not right. Many here may contest this, but the gaming markets wont contest it, it just doesn't happen.. normally.

Yes graphics matter, but you can have all the most fancy graphics, great abilities of the AI, amazing bullet systems, etc.. without the mission/quest content to support it, all it is .. is a game platform, with no sandbox. And when the only decent sandbox is there to play with is one made by modders for free.. most people wont go for that.

Again, what happens is most people wont do it, and the ones that do are the few hardcore players dedicated to the game left over, that are willing to make the sacrifice. And hence the numbers of players gets slimmer and slimmer, and the game starts to fade..

Why do so many games do well .. when their in game combat systems are so unrealistic.. so fake.. but people still play.. it's because of the content that pulls them in.. and every aspect of that mission/quest content provided.. from voice overs.. to scenes that are setup.. to provided mp missions.. to whatever else the devs can dream up under the sun.

[dmarkwick 261]

Most people won't buy a game where they already know they have to rely on the modding community to fully provide them quality mission/quest content. Most people buy a game, maybe deal with some annoying issues of setting up their system/game to run right, and get to enjoy weeks if not months of great mission content included direct in the game itself.

I think the ArmA2 target demographic don't come into this "most people" group :)

[Guest]

I think the ArmA2 target demographic don't come into this "most people" group :)

I hear you there m8, I understand.

But just because this sort of game tends to be a 'back of the shelf' type game doesaent mean that they can't pick up huge numbers of people that don't give a crap about all the fancy features.. by providing huge mission content that is comparable to what many successful combat games bring.

I also understand the company is bare bones, and barely surviving. Still, it doesent change the facts.

Imo if they want to get *both* the dedicated players and get the average player (== everyone) to buy their game, the game needs mission content in quality to match the quality of the game play features quality.

I know, it takes funds.. But it's really not a gamble anymore at that point if it gets pulled off, and they could make up their losses in development through profit.

I was just recenetly (since some posts here) more inclined to just try the game and see, but I've gotten a few messages since I started this thread, and looked around some more.. and I hate to say it, but people are saying that the mission content is very similar to the quality put into Arma1, and I doubt these people are lying.

Previously I had gained these assumptions from a number of threads I picked up before I even started this topic, which was what spurred all of this. I really can't do it..

Like prolly many, I spent many hours combing through missions for Ofp after I was done with the original content to find something of great quality to enjoy further, and it was tons of time spent, and a few missions picked up here and there that were really *that* good. Not going to go through all of that just to enjoy the game right after I buy it.

Do hope things go better for BIS, and they stay afloat, and get another game out, but I am just too turned off about the mission content info I've picked up to go through another Arma1 experience. If I was still modding Arma, things would be different.

I think my own message has been expressed enough from myself, I really can't say anything more on this subject without it becoming just a 'rant'..

Cheers, and goodbye. :)

Edited October 13, 2009 by Guest

[CarlGustaffa 4]

The best campain idea they ever had was the one for resistance... where loosing a guy during a mission meant he was dead in the next. The fact that you stole equipment was also brilliant.

I agree. But that was resistance, and those concepts doesn't work well with "being in some unit". I don't think BIS can redo resistance, as it would be a remake instead of something fresh. The story and character attachment/development in resistance was superb. I find it near impossible to do these things in a modern setting where you truly belong to Uncle Sam.

Maybe we should have a thread of "story ideas"? :)

[DevilBass 0]

Maybe, if bis selling VBS1 and all they expansion pack for less price, commercial use! many peoples will probably buy him, same for VBS2, peoples have cash for that, make real fun, thats military use game, are incredible, are more realistic, but arma 2 still empty, add some shit like animal stuff, like deer hunter 2010, and just removing some things peoples like, exemple shadow tracks, foot tracks, just removing in Arma 2, no sense.

they engine of Arma 2 are too hight for most peoples have less system specs, but the big problem, is how much fun you have to play with it!? i dont see anything more from Arma 1 are more interesting! me nothing, i just return to play Arma 1, cause actualy i never return play Ofp, they engine is too old, but yes i agreed for most of you! Ofp will be the only 1 game are the most fun ever to play, i have more then 100 000 user creating addons, mision stuff ect..but in Arma 2 where everyone? am pretty sure, if Ace team no be there in Arma 2, Arma 2 will be lost forever, i dont understand why Bis dont sell commercial addons stuff you see on VBS 2 for Arma 2, why peoples well lost time to create, addons exist on VBS 2 and more detailed and realistic then Arma 2, waste of time completly.

And for me, i dont have the same feeling, when i play Ofp since last 6 are 7 years a go, am lost a bit and am tired playing most game turning on graphic only! just to upgrade your computer, thats actual system $$$ kill gaming.

Anytime if you selling VBS1 and all of is expansion pack not more then 200$, just tell me, i will buying for sure and all my friend to.

See in VBS 2 what peoples like to see ingame, i no this is for serious gamer only but how many peoples probably buy thats, if price are acceptable and costing less, i dont have 2000$ us to play with it! but look! thats a real game, not commercial shit everyone play it at this time! open your eyes, and feel dreams! lol

http://virtualbattlespace.vbs2.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=116&Itemid=64

http://virtualbattlespace.vbs2.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=114&Itemid=64

http://virtualbattlespace.vbs2.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=71&Itemid=64

Edited December 11, 2009 by DevilBass
lol

[LJF 0]

I'd love to play VBS, or to have ArmA2 at that level, those screenshots ... omg, they're so alive! They look authentic and awesome :)

[jasonnoguchi 11]

For me, graphics IS important to creating a sense of reality and immersion... perhaps the most important and yes, I am one of those who put together the rig below JUST FOR ARMA2 and haven't regretted one second. :)

[Nolegs 0]

Amazing this thread is still alive.

A few major thoughts :

List a game where it's own platform qualities were the selling point, and the actual quality of the mission/quest content had little to do with it. Now this is regardless of what the modding potential was of that game after it's release..

Battlefield 2. It's single player was just multiplayer vs bots. I don't recall what 1942 had for single player but I don't think it was much.

Really in the end, no matter how much content is provided with the release, it's going to get old at some point so the platform having some strong legs to live on is pretty important. I'd choose a great platform over loads of content if the platform was customizable.

[johncage 30]

For me, graphics IS important to creating a sense of reality and immersion... perhaps the most important and yes, I am one of those who put together the rig below JUST FOR ARMA2 and haven't regretted one second. :)

does the graphics warrant the huge cpu requirement(it only looks marginally better than arma, and crysis still runs better than this)? i still think they need to optimize the game a lot more. ever visit chernogorsk or that elektra...city? wow, it's like they placed huge million polygon objects in there.

[An Fiach 10]

This OpF legacy lives on in ArmA 2. The game looks better than many others out there, and has features you can't get elsewhere. TheOpF way also includes releasing buggy games way too early, having a terrible single player experience and almost no multiplayer support. From the very first to the very last, BIS games will rely on the quality of its community modders and mission makers to make them a success.

[LJF 0]

This OpF legacy lives on in ArmA 2. The game looks better than many others out there, and has features you can't get elsewhere. TheOpF way also includes releasing buggy games way too early, having a terrible single player experience and almost no multiplayer support. From the very first to the very last, BIS games will rely on the quality of its community modders and mission makers to make them a success.

Bravo, I sure as s*** know what I signed up for ;)