ARMA 2 (OA) : DLC discussion thread

[NoRailgunner 0]

SF do only use the stuff thats available and needed for the mission. They don't dress up to look cool or to show anyone their latest gear/equipment. Think that more people in A2OA are interested in playing authentic missions and not somekind of "We're SuperForces and pwn all with our latest Geardo fashion-stylz". ;)

Imho it would be better to integrate such SF stuff into DLC's or patches instead of making one DLC for SOF only. Guess BIS could make more profit per DLC if they offer some more and different stuff to play with....

[cas 41]

I would still like to see a realistic implementation of casualties and proper evacuation.

All the mods have problems implementing such features because of the handling of dead units. I think it needs changes in the game engine. So I hope for an engine update possibly sponsored by a DLC!

This would give (change) the game much more compared to just another unit or map and give us a feature no other game has!

More details on a possible implementation in this separate thread:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=106757

[CarlGustaffa 4]

I don't know. I'm kind of split in this. If the medics "magic heal" is problematic, why not simply exclude him from the mission, because magic is this games only way, and it needs to be so.

With a "normal" unit, you can still check conditions, get heal actions, carry, even perform the cool and immersive new healing actions - except there will be no healing. For healing, you would have to get back to base. For me, it's a bit over the top for most missions, and belong with the ACE realism level instead of vanilla.

Not sure what is problem about the dead. I consider a major change to have huge potential problems with existing missions. On action, move the dead off site, while adding parameter value to the extraction vehicle. On delivery, move the dead to landing, job done.

[That guy 10]

rather than making MORE blufor tact-ti-kool 1337 k1lla3 units that are redundant, why not focus more on OPFOR? or new interesting campaigns?

and yeah, SF do what they need to do when they need to do it. in some theaters they look just like regular forces, save maybe the SF tab and patch.

really, WTF is wrong with the current SF units? nothing!

and another thing, i would love to see another harvest red type SF campaign. you something that resembles what most SF teams actually do? but no, they cant do that because you guys will whine that its not "tacticool" enough. not enough fast roping wile shooting bad guys in the face, and big dramatic but harmless explosions and wise cracking dudes with miniguns (lucky for you all you have sick1's SEAL team6 campaigns). bah

[stupidwhitekid75 11]

I don't think anyone really said a whole lot was wrong with the SF units. Maybe they're a little generic when compared to regular US Army Infantry, thats about it. What was suggested was that their role get expanded upon..maybe some diversity in units, a new storyline, new map..etc. Thats almost like saying, "WTF is wrong with the U.S. Army units? Why did we need BAF?" ..It just adds to the game. The only reason I suggested SF in the first place is because it seems like it might fit the whole storyline judging by the hints that have been given about the PMC DLC and news reports on AAN. I agree though, I am all for a beefed up OPFOR before anything else.

I don't want it to be symmetrical and have the OPFOR countering the BLUFOR with something every time, but having an advanced force that is a capable threat would make the game so much more interesting.

[AnimalMother92 10]

really, WTF is wrong with the current SF units? nothing!

FPDR

Edited October 26, 2010 by AnimalMother92

[enad 11]

That and much much more.

They just look like crap in general, that's all I can say.

[Mr. Charles 22]

Is that a crosshair? Tsss......

;)

Anyways, I want more Isles, not more units!

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Oh dear, is that your big worries? I've never even noticed it... Ok, fix the problems if possible (I still don't care), but it's not a good reason to make new ones. Try focusing more on the enemy ;)

A bigger issue for me is the bad head lods. I think taki special forces and US commander models make it so that they can be seen and identified long before they should, because their eyes stand out in the dark and/or fog.

That at least affects gameplay. But this? .....

[That guy 10]

so ignoring a graphical error, some guys wearing ACUs w/(ranger!) Green plate carriers and gear with shemaghs and tan spray painted ACHs are some how sub-par? why because they don't have every (tactical) pouch available from UScav crammed onto their vests?

I am sorry, but i really don't see what is so "bad" about them

[cas 41]

I don't know. I'm kind of split in this. If the medics "magic heal" is problematic, why not simply exclude him from the mission, because magic is this games only way, and it needs to be so.

I do not agree the medic has a place here to stabilize patients so they don’t die. Ordinary soldiers could have the basic ability to do the same just not as effective and with less resources (bandages fx.).

With a "normal" unit, you can still check conditions, get heal actions, carry, even perform the cool and immersive new healing actions - except there will be no healing. For healing, you would have to get back to base.

There should not be healing at the base neither, only even more effective stabilization. Healing would only take effect in context of long campaigns where several months lie in between missions. You should be allowed to "leave" your incapacitated body and respawn as another soldier (preferably an AI soldier of your team you brought close to the action).

For me, it's a bit over the top for most missions, and belong with the ACE realism level instead of vanilla.

I agree this should surly be an option (module) only.

Not sure what is problem about the dead. I consider a major change to have huge potential problems with existing missions. On action, move the dead off site, while adding parameter value to the extraction vehicle. On delivery, move the dead to landing, job done.

It would make a big game play difference: You have to improve your team play, nobody will find you if you are attacking alone. Squad leaders have to make new decisions about priorities do you attack or recover?

You get additional time pressure: if you react too slowly, will the casualties die or be captured by the enemy?

It would be a much better representation of the dilemmas, fears and feelings you see in real combat.

The worst is not just to die, but to die alone and in agony or to be captured by the enemy and to be abused for their cause (dead or alive).

Soldiers talk about a special brotherhood, meaning they will do all for this will not happen.

And finally most high awards in R.L get awarded in context with the recovery of casualties.

[Steakslim 1]

On the topic of a Special Forces DLC, perhaps it doesn't have to be one country's specific unit. The DLC could have a combined collection of US, British, Russian, and perhaps some other country we have yet to see BIS include, with all (or some) of the guns and toys to use from each respectable unit, as well as vehicles like SOAR related variants of aircraft (MH-60L DAP).

[stupidwhitekid75 11]

On the topic of a Special Forces DLC, perhaps it doesn't have to be one country's specific unit. The DLC could have a combined collection of US, British, Russian, and perhaps some other country we have yet to see BIS include, with all (or some) of the guns and toys to use from each respectable unit, as well as vehicles like SOAR related variants of aircraft (MH-60L DAP).

Exactly what I was going for.

On another note, I was thinking about an OPFOR DLC and I'm hoping that should they make one, it would be in the style of the BAF DLC, giving us the option between desert/woodland units. Takistani soldiers don't look right in Chernarus and Utes, and the Russians/Insurgents aren't at OA standards.

Be nice to see OPFOR using something other than AK's and it's variants too. FN FAL was a nice change but to me it just got old kind of fast.

[bascule42 10]

IMO...OA is crying out for an OPFOR modern army.

Or if we want to go further:

IMO...OA is CO for an OPFOR MA.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

@CAS:

To me such changes doesn't fit the bill of a DLC, it's more a change on how the game works. It wouldn't work with the already existing features, and I think it sounds more like a suggestion for Arma3.

Most campaigns seems to span over hours or days, not several months. I think I would like it if mission dates in a campaign could be affected by causality levels, but it could turn out to be a mission making nightmare for the designer (expected behavior failed due changes in brightness etc). I don't think this level of realism is feasible, or even wanted among most, even fairly hardcore players.

I like the new engineer repair ability. I don't like that it is so speedy though. But unlike the old ways of having to use support trucks, it doesn't completely halt the game, while still it remains useful to have them around as the engineer can't repair fully. Naturally it's not realistic. If I wanted realistic, I would destroy the vehicle (beyond repair) once the engine was blown, as it takes a while to replace it.

I think a similar concept should be developed for medics. Even the medical modules are fairly basic (only deals with dead, incapacitated, or bleeding), and everyone can stabilize using first aid. Maybe it should be so that medics are the only ones that can make you stand again, and heal you to a certain level but not fully? I don't even think there is need for bandages, at least on in vanilla. As some of the emergency equipment you'll need can already be built into the combat gear. Also think about how AI too is supposed to use this stuff well. Takes time to develop, time that could be spent on other stuff. I like realism, but this is a combat sim, not an medic sim. Doesn't make sense to me to make the medic system super realistic, while leaving helicopters super easy to fly. Rocket launchers ballistics are a different matter though :p

[Mac_Spliff=ISK= 10]

@CG a.k.a Carl Gustaffa

The medic system should also be tuned up with some nice features as it is a part of the logistics and THE THING that keeps you alive longer.....

Like, First aid @ Medic, MASH, then MED Evac by Air that keeps you alive till u come at the Hospital at your main-base...there u can heal for good, then u return to the battle field :) this is how it should work, oh yeah, the Ambulance also should keep you alive as long as you in it, till u get tot the main hospital to get full Cure

Should be a Chain, U get hit, First aid by medic, then medic gets you at the MASH

From the Mash out, u stay in range u stay alive, from there Ambulance (Slow-ride) or Med Evac Helo (Fast-Ride) back to Main base's or Outpost's Full health regeneration as long you are inside the Medical transport u stay alive...

till u come at base...

Something like that :) then the Medics get really something to do :)

Med Evac's get done more often :), more traffic around to shoot at 2 lol

what ever....my view for the medic thing :)

Oh yeah LMAO, something dropped in my gray matter...

Make soldiers that have different blood groups, then if at the Mash Blood is needed for another soldier, call in the same type guy to spend some blood to keep the other alive LOL..? ehmmmm, yeah carefull with diseases ROFL

Defibrilators..yeah ZAPPP ZAPP...mwhuhahahahaha lol

Use the chernarus electric grid to suply you with power for your gear

lol could be done, so if a cable snaps somewhere, u cant use your gear

and will have to change location or repair the power grid pole's along the roads, work for engineers logistics yeah !, man, i can think about lotsa things to make ArmA 2

Go PLATINA hehehehe'

Well for the Medical part of ArmA2 there is lotsa features to add...

ok it's really going Deep aye...?

So that why i always say, dont look to BIG

Try to look the other side, Zoom inside things, there is place enough

In the small......

Mac out....

[Mac_Spliff=ISK= 10]

Hmmmm, u folks remember M.A.S.H the TV Series LOL...???

u could make a Mission like that.....????

1: Create a battlefield

2: Create a MED Units and vehicles only

3: Make a Medical forward base!!! M.A.S.H

4: Make a Military Hospital At Main base

Then Let the Battle rock & Roll..... they will provide you with work

Wounded's all over the place, get medics out to give first aid

Ambulance go go go, MED evac helos hoppa get them out guys

bring back home...

Time for a Nurse Add-On Pack for the Hospital at mainbase !!

Oh yeah give them a Lipstick kit for looking good LOL

Oh yeah....they keep coming LOL

Only ideas for you folks :) only ideas, if only i knew the editor like my pocket, oh boy oh boy...

[NoRailgunner 0]

Mac_Spliff=ISK= would you stop eating LOL cookies and mwhuhahahahaha pills? :cool:

[cas 41]

To me such changes doesn't fit the bill of a DLC, it's more a change on how the game works. It wouldn't work with the already existing features, and I think it sounds more like a suggestion for Arma3.

The modules (the 3 first aid) are actually already in game. And it has to be in modules because the missions have to be designed for it. So old missions would not take any harm because they are untouched.

The missing features are the loading into vehicles and first aid that only slows the bleeding down.

Most campaigns seems to span over hours or days, not several months. I think I would like it if mission dates in a campaign could be affected by causality levels, but it could turn out to be a mission making nightmare for the designer (expected behavior failed due changes in brightness etc). I don't think this level of realism is feasible, or even wanted among most, even fairly hardcore players.

The new DLC could have a campaign featuring the new modules. It could be centered on a PJ unit with view new units and updated ambulances with the feature to carry casualties. Working stretchers would be nice too (so you can move faster).

Maybe it should be so that medics are the only ones that can make you stand again, and heal you to a certain level but not fully?

Not even the medics should be able to do this, no healing but the medic should be better (more effective) in stabilizing the patient.

I don't even think there is need for bandages, at least on in vanilla. As some of the emergency equipment you'll need can already be built into the combat gear. Also think about how AI too is supposed to use this stuff well. Takes time to develop, time that could be spent on other stuff. I like realism, but this is a combat sim, not an medic sim. Doesn't make sense to me to make the medic system super realistic, while leaving helicopters super easy to fly. Rocket launchers ballistics are a different matter though :p

For me it would be fine with just a medic pack, symbolic for the different kinds of medical equipment. Most effective in using it should be the medic units.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

I don't know. I'm starting to go more and more against it. I foresee some problematic implementation issues (conflicts), and it would (for me) slow down the game too much. Most of the time when I take a bullet, I simply die, after which I tend to think "there is no way I should be hit like that". And most of the time (in coop) when I actually get hurt, I feel it's due to bad game mechanics (i.e. due to lack of spatial awareness combined with driving difficulties, or falling of some object like a stupid rock whose "walking geometry" may even be invisible). To me it would be far too punishing having to deal with all that mess mostly for the wrong reasons.

Feels more and more like Arma3. Maybe not even there but ACE. As much as I'd like to slow things down from the current CoD tendency, I also want it to be fun and playable, also for the CoD player. A player should be rewarded for doing the right things, and I can not think of a good way to do that on a mission basis, for this medic system.

Keep in mind the tendency lately has been focusing a bit more on gameplay (ref engineer repair system) rather than strict realism. In one way I'm against it because I tend to prefer realism. In another way I'm for it, as hopefully that will be a united way of doing things instead of many missions scripting around it to make it faster.

See how Domination was and is. It used to have magic engineers that repaired fully. Because dragging the ammo truck around was "too much hazzle". New version uses the new engineer repairs, which is much more balanced. You're not forced to haul the truck around, but doing so will allow greater benefits, while not doing so still doesn't completely halt the game. But many are shouting "no, I want the old engineer system back"...

So, like the AC130, despite useful and realistic in some circumstances, I think it is a bit on the overkill side that many/most would have problems actually utilizing while keeping the mission fun. At least if considering the cost to implement. There are (to me) more important things.

[cas 41]

@Carl Gustaffa

I hoped ACE or SLX could implement the feature but they seem to have problems.

For me ARMA gets more and more like games as MOH or COD and sometimes you have to be a bit visionary to stand out. In the old OFP days people where complaining about the one shot one kill feature and the wide open maps that often resulted in you not even seeing the enemy that shot you. People concluded the AI is cheating and shooting thru obstacles etc.

Lots of people only enjoy a game when they get lots and lots of kills at best with one shot headshots but as soon as they get hit themselves they prefer to be able to take several hits and if injured to be patched up as fast as possible and continue as if nothing has happened.

But don’t we have too many of these games for ARMA just to be another one?

Until now BIS went a long way and things went into the right direction for me evacuation would be the next step to bring the battlefield simulation genre forward.

A game play example:

4 people joining a coop MP session

They take 4 slots in a 12 men infantry group including the leader the rest is AI

Group moves forward to an enemy position

The AI gets placed in the second line or in over watch positions for not being slaughtered.

During the fight you get hit in the arm and your aiming gets worse.

You fight your way out of this dangerous situation and retreat to cover to get your injury treated.

If you or a fellow soldier treats the wound there is bigger risk that you get worse again compared to a medic treating the wound.

Your aim will remain worsened under all circumstances.

You report to your squad leader who will point out an evacuation point for you and all other wounded incapacitated or dead soldiers and mark it with smoke.

After you reach the evacuation point you “leave†your character to the AI and take over one of the remaining men of your group.

Over the radio medevac is called in.

The new module would make sure that a helicopter lands at the evacuation point collects the casualties and drops them off at a medical facility where they are totally stabilized.

On the scoreboard at the end of the game you will see how many times you where injured, incapacitated, killed and MIA (your body under enemy control dead or alive)

With your own rescue efforts you can participate to keep the number of incapacitated, killed and MIA low.

[Banderas 0]

On the topic of CASEVAC, I agree with CarlGustaffa, I think it's a little bit "camped up" (or what is the correct English expression) by people. I see the reason why people want to have it, and that VBS2 has it, but still they have to remember that VBS is used to train soldiers for situations they could be in the current (low intensity) conflicts. I think the current FA system implemented -I know it has its own problems- is a satisfying addition to the current game right now.

@CAS

4 people joining a coop MP session

They take 4 slots in a 12 men infantry group including the leader the rest is AI

Group moves forward to an enemy position

The AI gets placed in the second line or in over watch positions for not being slaughtered.

During the fight you get hit in the arm and your aiming gets worse.

You fight your way out of this dangerous situation and retreat to cover to get your injury treated.

If you or a fellow soldier treats the wound there is bigger risk that you get worse again compared to a medic treating the wound.

Your aim will remain worsened under all circumstances.

You report to your squad leader who will point out an evacuation point for you and all other wounded incapacitated or dead soldiers and mark it with smoke.

After you reach the evacuation point you “leave†your character to the AI and take over one of the remaining men of your group.

Over the radio medevac is called in.

The new module would make sure that a helicopter lands at the evacuation point collects the casualties and drops them off at a medical facility where they are totally stabilized.

I think, except for the proposed module, you can do almost all of it in the game right now, some scripting would be needed though. I'm not sure but I think there's at least one mod out there that uses only stabilization, and not healing ("HP reloading"). I remember that in Arma 1, in the squad commanding training mission you had to mark a place for a chopper to land at a spot marked with smoke for extraction, so that's available for us for a long time.

As for the collection of casualties, if we want to be absolutely realistic, then if somebody gets injured, then he/she has to be bringed to the CASEVAC point by his fellow squad members, and have to be embarked on it by them. I don't think it looks like that fighting units "dump" wounded in a pile and leave them there with a smoke grenade next to them, then the choppers come and sweeps the area from them. In real life, a whole squad or platoon will be out of action, because they have to secure the evac of the casualty(ies). Most people (players) couldn't give a damn about wounded -they would immediately switch to a non-hurt character-, for those who would like to set up this kind of feature, with the help of a little scripting, mission makers already have the possibility to realize it. I don't think that it even needs a separate module to work, but it's only my opinion.

About SF; it seems that so-called Tier One operators are starting to be todays' legendary knights in shiny armor who f*ck up dragons, the topic is getting over-abused. Growing up on action films and video games like MW2 R6 Vegas and recently MoH they seem to be the absolute ultramega killing machines who mow down battalions of enemies with the raising of their little finger, and it's understandable why a crapload of people want to jump into their boots, but don't you think ArmA 2 has a fine amount of SF already? Let's count how much are in Combined Operations: USMC Force Recon, Russian Army Spetznaz, MVD, US Army SF, German KSK, Czech SF, Takistani SF. That counts six different special forces group with real-life counterparts and one fictional. OK, I find it a bit sorry that BAF didn't include some SAS, but I can get over it very easily. Why should BI make an SF DLC, containing units that are already covered?

The only thing I agree with SF-worshippers that the texture problems on the vanilla US SF models should be fixed, but if it stays like that, I wont throw my A2 DVDs into the trash bin :)

Edited October 30, 2010 by Banderas

[cas 41]

@Banderas

I do not want to force players to play with the new evacuation feature like it only would be optional or modular.

But there is a gamer community interested in simulation close to realism and especially in games like ARMA. Look at the big interest in a mod like ACE simulating down to the detail of earplugs…

Until now no mod was successful in implementing evacuation of casualties (including dead) in vehicles into the game.

I just think it would add so much to the game that I would hope it to be available thru the vanilla game.

Besides higher realism it would add without additional scripting:

1. Time pressure

2. Side missions

3. Improved team play

4. Better use of already implemented features as the drag/carry option, medical units, smoke

With the successful implementation of a medevac and evac (for POW) modules it would be much easier to setup missions we already play now but that have to be heavily scripted- like rescue and capture operations.

[Banderas 0]

@CAS

I know you didn't mean to force everyone to have such a module, and I think I didn't express anything like that, you misunderstood me or I didn't express myself correctly. My main concern about that is, that I believe the vast majority of players aren't really interested in that kind of feature, most of us would still like to only "play" for a certain level of "relaxation" and "entertainment" (even if it's a bit morbid :D) for ourselves. Until there's no major interest for such a MEDEVAC/POW module, then we can assume BI won't be concerned to move further into the topic, and it'll be left for community modders to enhance that feature further.

Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy to see battlefields where there are more injured and POWs than actually dead people, but until there are more people wanting more clever AI, more sophisticated MOUT/CQB and crapload of new units, then I fear your request won't make it into a vanilla game feature - but who knows maybe I'll be wrong.

Anyway, did you try out Norrin's revive script - I don't use that mod, but I've read that you can load heavily injured/unconscious/dead characters into vehicles?

[cas 41]

@ Banderas

Thanks for the information about Norrins scripts. I remember playing it in many MP missions (the part where you get completely revived) but I was not aware that there are the other more realistic parts of the script –guess I have to try that one out.

I am still pretty sure that he did not find a way to load dead units… (Engine problem)

Guess that I am one of the more seasoned players and often get the “seen that done that†feeling when new games/add-ones come out.

I like ARMA for all the realistic new ideas and I am most excited about new features like high command, UAV, surrender etc. and improved AI of course.

Just another new tank or unit add close to nothing to me.

I still buy the new add-ons to support the engine -at least as long as I see progress with the engine.

As long as I remember following game forums there where discussions about realism issues. Lot’s of resistance on features like iron sights, one shot kills, or reduced/realistic movement skills.

Today most games feature these features anyway and it is still fun to play.

If it would only be about mindless shooting and point collection we would still be contend with pac-man and space invaders with the latest textures and factions…

If there was a 1-1 live simulation where you could jump in a situation you can choose. I guess most would love to try it out

Dumb down often is the wrong way at least when dealing with games that are trying to reflect real life settings.

Another thing is that videogames can teach you things. Why would you want to teach people that you can “heal†shot wounds on the battlefield, be “revived†on the battlefield or teach them to ignore incapacitated or dead comrades??

Just my 2 cents