Player should change his position while driving vehicles much slower

[76 0]

I think when I take an vehicle with AI as crew I'm not so much changing positions as taking over their character for a few seconds. I wouldn't want lag between that.

Thats a very good point, at first I thought slowing the process of changing positions a good one, but Hyper is right and it should be left as is.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Thats a very good point, at first I thought slowing the process of changing positions a good one, but Hyper is right and it should be left as is.

Not if you are alone in a tank though, because then there is noones character to take control over and you would have to change positions. ;)

[irR4tiOn4L 10]

Not if you are alone in a tank though, because then there is noones character to take control over and you would have to change positions. ;)

So you want a delay added for the odd case where someone buys a tank in a warfare multiplayer mission, but doesnt spend just a few hundred more on another crewman, drives alone, gets the jump on you enough to have the extra seconds needed to switch, then kills your multi-crewed tank.

Im sorry, i really dont understand how this will solve anything. You really shouldnt be losing to single-crewman tanks. This whole argument is a huge Red Herring.

[An Fiach 10]

So you want a delay added for the odd case where someone buys a tank in a warfare multiplayer mission, but doesnt spend just a few hundred more on another crewman, drives alone, gets the jump on you enough to have the extra seconds needed to switch, then kills your multi-crewed tank.

Im sorry, i really dont understand how this will solve anything. You really shouldnt be losing to single-crewman tanks. This whole argument is a huge Red Herring.

Exactly right.

[LJF 0]

Some good points have been raised, but it's just another step toward "good realism" so long of course, as it's not done in a "penalty" sort of way. It could really add immersion and depth if done correctly (I'm not talking about full character animations).

I think it should be about the time it takes for a capable crew member to switch station in the real vehicle, and I seriously doubt it would take 5 or more seconds ... count that now:

One second ...

Two seconds ...

Three seconds ...

Four seconds ...

Five seconds ...

That's about as long as it could possibly take, any more and you'd be strolling into "stupid penalty" territory.

I really dislike the "BING! Gunner!" transition at the moment, I also dislike the fact that as a gunner in say, a blackhawk, I cannot climb between the seats and take the controls from the pilot, it's like, a meter away O.o

The realism I want is the kind that's not overly complicated, but that simulates ... well ... reality. I want realism in terms of recoil, maximum speeds (especially offroad maximum speeds ...........), splash damage etc to be as close to reality as they can be. I want it so that I can (with a fair amount of accuracy) simulate a firefight between insurgents and the USMC. I don't care if complicated and boring things like startup sequences are abstracted, as long as it fits with reality. For example, I'd be all for having to actually start the bleedin' engine on a car instead of having it start driving the instant you press forward :D Not saying I want correct ignition procedure, but a "start engine" button would be nice: abstracted, interesting and most important of all, it would fit with the time taken to realistically get a car driving.

Switching between positions is along these lines. It just isn't realistic to teleport between stations no matter how much you try to justify it. Furthermore, you'd only notice this few second delay once or twice during a game right? I mean the only people who would be really annoyed by it and see it all the time are those who switch between the positions and try to use a whole tank singlehandedly.

I really don't see the problem, it's a small abstraction to improve the accuracy of the simulation. Not only that, but it would be a small inconvenience, it's not like we want to implement a system where you must power up everything with the correct button presses and then do up your seatbelt ;)

A very similar system already exists with weapons. Would you propose that weapons instantly reloaded themselves without any delay? Wouldn't that be too unrealistic? It's so similar it's just not funny.

[abel 0]

LJF, +1 about weapons reload and switch, same system in all aspects.

[whisper 0]

can be done on a per-mission basis => not needed

[tcp 10]

I concur with whisper. However, with the script I posted earlier which no one seemed interested in (despite their interest in debating the inclusion of a delay), I wish there better commands than gunner or emptyPositions to make it work in the case of two gunners and one of them switching seats.

Edited November 24, 2009 by tcp

[LJF 0]

can be done on a per-mission basis => not needed

I'd rather see it as a difficulty/server setting.

[Jex =TE= 0]

Some good points have been raised, but it's just another step toward "good realism" so long of course, as it's not done in a "penalty" sort of way. It could really add immersion and depth if done correctly (I'm not talking about full character animations).

I think ....

Perfectly good points to be added to a sim that boast realism.

TCP: Great you have a script but this shouldn't be needed. I for one hate having to add more and more scripts to things that should have been considered in the first place.

Of course the ideal situation would be to have all of this options in the game though if we went that route, the options page would take an hour to configure :eek:

[LJF 0]

Perfectly good points to be added to a sim that boast realism.

TCP: Great you have a script but this shouldn't be needed. I for one hate having to add more and more scripts to things that should have been considered in the first place.

Of course the ideal situation would be to have all of this options in the game though if we went that route, the options page would take an hour to configure :eek:

True, but like reloading, I don't think this should be as much of an issue as currently is. I'd rather have a delay for reloading, changing weapons, switching vehicles positions, entering vehicles, changing stance etc than not, they should just ... be.

[Jex =TE= 0]

True, but like reloading, I don't think this should be as much of an issue as currently is. I'd rather have a delay for reloading, changing weapons, switching vehicles positions, entering vehicles, changing stance etc than not, they should just ... be.

I Agree. I'm not sure how it got missed in the first place. However it's easy to see in hindsight, but there are a million ideas to make things more realistic but we can't remember them all. This could just have been an oversight.

[whisper 0]

I'd rather see it as a difficulty

see CadetMode (and others?)

/server setting.

server side addon.

It's quite obvious the subject raises very different opinions. But can be resolved already today.

[An Fiach 10]

The problem with this whole argument is that you cannot be asking for one single change for realism's sake while not asking to change all of the other unrealistic features of the game. Additionally, this is still intended to be a game, playability and enjoyment are a concern, they do have the hardcore sim available for about $1500 for anyone who is interested.

I don't really have an issue with a small delay for single person manned vehicles (no teammate or AI) but the arguments here don't pass the test. It is something that can be implemented by those who want it while hard coding it could potentially have a negative effect on product sales. A person in the forums might post a poll and then count how many people agree with him but BIS must count how much revenue may be lost, those are the numbers that really matter at decision time.

[tcp 10]

Meet anfiach, the unofficial spokesperson for what BI will and will not do.

[irR4tiOn4L 10]

Meet anfiach, the unofficial spokesperson for what BI will and will not do.

"When left with no other argument, ridicule your opponent"

[tcp 10]

That's your perception, but you should check the facts. Every topic that anfiach posts in is the same argument. I actually provide solutions such as posting a script in this topic. This other topic on Secondary Map as Monitor I provide a valid argument which is ignored by anfiach as he posts his "form response". He instead points out flaws in less solid posts by other people.

[no use for a name 0]

well if we're going on the whole "realism" thing; it's not very realistic to have one person operating a tank/armored vehicle anyways; so there should be no need to switch positions in the first place...if you're playing "realistically".

Bottom line..it's still a game, and there's a lot of things that I don't want in a game that are a part of life and take away from the fun. Now if it was an option in multiplayer to keep people from running "rambo" style thru the map with a Tusk or T-90 then that's cool; but for the most part I think it would be more of an annoyance rather than a feature

Edited December 7, 2009 by No Use For A Name

[An Fiach 10]

That's your perception, but you should check the facts. Every topic that anfiach posts in is the same argument. I actually provide solutions such as posting a script in this topic. This other topic on Secondary Map as Monitor I provide a valid argument which is ignored by anfiach as he posts his "form response". He instead points out flaws in less solid posts by other people.

So there you have it, you would rather rely on character assassination than to provide reasoned arguments in support of your positions. You also do not seem to take the time to read my posts considering your statements regarding their content. That's ok, we can't catch everything, can we?

[tcp 10]

It's not character assassination when I am calling you out on what you are doing as soon as you do it. You should realize what you are doing and stop.

I've looked at the post histories more than one time. The record speaks for itself. I've provided well-reasoned arguments that you have ignored. I've been the one to answer your arguments while you go on nitpicking people's post. My posts are about what the feature will do or how it can be done, the popular support it would have, and its versatility. In your posts, you ask people to prove themselves to you, rather than support an opinion of your own. You call other people's feature requests insignificant, unfeasible, or unrealistic.

I don't mean to generalize, but I think if you asked a third party, they would tell you whose posts have more weight. I don't even want to argue with you but your posts are so unreasonable.

Back to the topic. The game is meant to be changed. It can be done via script but BI still needs to add better support for such things or at least fix the gunner command.

The problem with this whole argument is that you cannot be asking for one single change for realism's sake while not asking to change all of the other unrealistic features of the game. Additionally, this is still intended to be a game, playability and enjoyment are a concern, they do have the hardcore sim available for about $1500 for anyone who is interested.

I don't really have an issue with a small delay for single person manned vehicles (no teammate or AI) but the arguments here don't pass the test. It is something that can be implemented by those who want it while hard coding it could potentially have a negative effect on product sales. A person in the forums might post a poll and then count how many people agree with him but BIS must count how much revenue may be lost, those are the numbers that really matter at decision time.

You try to say that the game shouldn't be changed because there are just so many unrealistic features. That doesn't take into account that just like difficulty settings, it can remain optional and that you can fix everything at once, but the game can be changed over time. The changes they've made since release have made a lot of users happy. Would you have argued against those changes as well? Well enjoyability is always a factor, the game is not meant to be a standard shooter and couldn't be called a tactical game if it didn't have hardcore settings. Telling people to buy VBS is obviously a joke, but why are you always suggesting extremes when ArmA2 is providing a unique experience that is meant to be a step up from the average shooter.

You pretend to know how BI makes their decisions, but have you ever considered that the real money comes from providing a simulator used by armies around the world and that they only upkeep the retail version because it's a one of a kind game. While it's true that the game needs better mainstream appeal and that is probably their intention in releasing Operation Arrowhead as a standalone expansion, what's always kept people interested in the game is the amount of customization. In my eyes, Bohemia has always opted for adding more features, rather than sacrificing them for the sake of performance and bugfixing.

[An Fiach 10]

It's not character assassination when I am calling you out on what you are doing as soon as you do it. You should realize what you are doing and stop.

I've looked at the post histories more than one time. The record speaks for itself. I've provided well-reasoned arguments that you have ignored. I've been the one to answer your arguments while you go on nitpicking people's post. My posts are about what the feature will do or how it can be done, the popular support it would have, and its versatility. In your posts, you ask people to prove themselves to you, rather than support an opinion of your own. You call other people's feature requests insignificant, unfeasible, or unrealistic.

I don't mean to generalize, but I think if you asked a third party, they would tell you whose posts have more weight. I don't even want to argue with you but your posts are so unreasonable.

Back to the topic. The game is meant to be changed. It can be done via script but BI still needs to add better support for such things or at least fix the gunner command.

You try to say that the game shouldn't be changed because there are just so many unrealistic features. That doesn't take into account that just like difficulty settings, it can remain optional and that you can fix everything at once, but the game can be changed over time. The changes they've made since release have made a lot of users happy. Would you have argued against those changes as well? Well enjoyability is always a factor, the game is not meant to be a standard shooter and couldn't be called a tactical game if it didn't have hardcore settings. Telling people to buy VBS is obviously a joke, but why are you always suggesting extremes when ArmA2 is providing a unique experience that is meant to be a step up from the average shooter.

You pretend to know how BI makes their decisions, but have you ever considered that the real money comes from providing a simulator used by armies around the world and that they only upkeep the retail version because it's a one of a kind game. While it's true that the game needs better mainstream appeal and that is probably their intention in releasing Operation Arrowhead as a standalone expansion, what's always kept people interested in the game is the amount of customization. In my eyes, Bohemia has always opted for adding more features, rather than sacrificing them for the sake of performance and bugfixing.

Answer my arguments? You've attacked me. BI makes their decisions the same way that all businesses make their decisions. They also cannot indefinitely rely on bureaucrats spending money on a program that has essentially no training value for the military (yes I am qualified to make that statement), so they are going to go for economically sound ideas. Regardless, my original point was that the 30 people that agree in the poll do not represent the 5000+ people that own the game.

Regarding features, I'm saying don't ask for realism in a feature that will not enhance gameplay while choosing to ignore the lack of realism in features that have a greater impact on gameplay. I'm saying don't be selective with calling for realism (in this thread you demand realism, in another you demand a feature regardless of realism). A mod was offered up in this thread to give you what you are asking for, I even offered the suggestion to only have it affect vehicles that have no crew at all (no team mates, no AI). Neither of the solutions were good enough and you are calling me rigid and uncompromising?

I don't mean to generalize, but I think if you asked a third party, they would tell you whose posts have more weight. I don't even want to argue with you but your posts are so unreasonable.

Can we just point to the other thread where you were called out on this by a third party? I rest my case.

EDIT: In the ultimate irony, the mod/script was posted by yourself.

Edited December 7, 2009 by anfiach

[Axel88 10]

Does anyone else stop and think... at certain points when idling away the time playing at a war sim.... say at certain points when you might ... I dunno.. Fire your high powered high velocity assault rifle... at point blank range and put a few rounds through the head of a gunner or driver so you can take their place immediately... HANG ON!!... what are we saying here... I just climbed into a cabin that is totally splattered with a persons blood brain skull fragments... reminds me of the one time I shot a pilot out of an attack chopper in BF2 then skipped down and hopped into what would be the most disgusting thing...another example... tank running down victims...

WHat I am saying is no one here really wants realism.. but we dont want arcade either. We want a "game" that forces us to think strategically... incorporates our creativity (modding and editing)... competetivity and gives us something to do with our mates...

But man... we DO NOT WANT total realism and will never get it... I agree with both sides of this arguement and it should be considered over with good points on both sides and allowed to subside with my "colourful" and harrowing words echoing in our "ears"...

THIS IS WAR that is a "game" lets not forget that war is hell... not a game. I'd like to see drivers and gunners begging for life and running away or hurling themselves to the ground... or leaping for their lives and grabbing at their sidearms... considering the amount fo rewriting required to answer this question the debate has been long winded wouldn't you all agree?

[Kristian 47]

Yes, only if there was some sort of animation for it.