nyles

Yet another idea from my side.. Seat management: Currently the "ride in back" option does not differenciate between seats available. there is this pool of "ride in back" places. If you are mounting a truck from behind, you are still being placed as passenger in the driving cabine, beside the driver place. The same way, if this cabine is already full of other passengers, and you want to mount a vehicle from the side, you are being placed on one of the spare seats on the back. Basically what I'm after is some sort of more realistic seat management. You should be able to only access the spare seats in the cabine from either the right front door, or from the driver door, but then only if there is no driver present (he would block the way to the passenger seat otherwise). Furthermore you should not be able to mount the vehicle from the back and then be transfered to a cabine seat. In this case you should only be placed somewhere on the back. This would differ from vehicle to vehicle, depending on weather a person could access the seats from different doors. I doubt this would lead to much confussion, as you are seeing if a seat is taken by another person. So if you see the driver is sitting in the car already. you shouldn't be wondering why you can't access the passenger seat beside him from the driver side, as he is blocking the way. It would be more logical. The only problem I see with this, is how to tell all this to the AI without getting AI controlled passengers to block the way to each other. I have no doubt however, that it could be done. Taking the whole idea one step ahead, I would also look into options where people could take over the places of crew members. This change of positions should also be able while moving, as long as changing would not require to get out of the vehicle and re-enter somewhere else, like with the isolated driver seat of most tanks. Switching from gunner to commander should be possible though, because they are both in the same place. In the m-113 apc for example, you should also be able to change to the driver position from either the gunner or any of the "ride in back" seats. Of course this has to be defined for every vehicle in detail. In the case of the truck, only passengers in the cabine should be allowed to switch to driver position, while in a standard 4 seat car, only the passengers beside the driver should be able to switch over. In the uh-60, ch-47 and mi-17, the co-pilot should be able to change to the driver position even while in-flight, making it possible to quickly take the rudder in case of the pilot being shot. It still would be hard enough to reinitiate the rotor thrust and get the helicopter back under control, but it would still be a possibility. In the cobra this would not be possible, due to the seats being isolated. (I know that in most aircraft you should be able to pilot from either seat, but for the start, the above mentioned way should do)

:O

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ALDEGA @ April 10 2002,22:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They have been giving support for OVER 9 months. Many games don't get any support. How do you like that?<span id='postcolor'> Yes, and many games without support are vanishing as fast as they have been released. Game support with patches, mod support or just by helping in establishing a community around the product is a vital point of game publishing. Most developers that don't feel the need for either of this have seen there product being on the last place of the charts. The job Bis is doing in this area is very good and in the end it will all come back to them when they look at the sold numbers of following products like "OP:FP Resistance" or "Idenpendance Lost"

Speaking of radio commands: I would love to see some sort of priority hierachy for the radio. Very often you are commanding a vehicle and want to order your gunner to open fire on a new target, but other incomming transmissions like info about newly spotted targets are delaying your radio command. In combat situations this can be fatal. I suggest some sort of priority system that allows specific radio commands to interrupt running transmissions. For example should all transmissions from the "vehicle" frequency get priority in favour of lets say reports about killed teammates on the "squad" frequency. There should also be a tad more efficient radio operating. Currently there is only the option to name either all members of a squad or seperatly name the numbers of the members you want to perform the action. You can't say: "all except 6, 7, disembark". Let the radio code auto-choose this depending on which way will get the whole radio transmission being send faster. Another example for this could be following situation: 2 and 3 have already mounted a vehicle. Now you want to order the remaining 9 men to mount as well. Currently the radio code would name each squad member's number (4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12, board vehicle) which takes a lot of time. The new system would see that 2 men are already on board and would therefore order the rest of the men in the vehicle by using a faster method. (all except 2,3, board vehicle) Get the idea?

you can already have this just go to kneeled position. then aim through sight (scope). If you will walk now, you zoom out and can move slowly. As soon as you stop you aim through your sight again. You can also move around and stay zoomed in if you do the above without kneeling.

No-one questions the efforts Bis has put into the community. People will always demand new things and will always come up with new ideas. Thats how it is, and its not a bad thing. Even if only a small percentage of the ideas mentioned in all these threads out there make it in the game, it was already worth the work to write them down. Please don't take suggestions and pointing out of existing bugs as insult towards the maker. I doubt anyone suggestion stuff on this board itends to criticize Bis with their posts. So, enough for now, think about some not too far-off things YOU would like to see in this game and write them down here instead of playing the knight in the shiny golden armour, placing himself before the poor and helpless developers, to protect them. j/k. Seriously, Bis has always understood how to deal with their fanbase and I have no doubts that they have no hard feelings against people suggestion things to improve the game.

Thx Mr ThunderMakeR. You made me happy with that. Another thing I always liked to see is an improvement of the ammo management of infantry weapons. If you reload a weapon which still had ammo left, you should get the fresh clip size plus the already chambered round from the last magazine. Its only a minor thing but I would love to see this being implemented for realism issues. Its just logical. Furthermore I'd also support the option to deploy the bipod of machineguns, to make them more accurate. Since MGs were introduced in the Half-Life mod "Day of Defeat" I really liked the option to deploy the bipod. Currently the guy playing the mg is least liked squad position. The weapons simply tend to be very inaccurate and can only compensate with huge ammo loadouts. Even the damage is very low taking the higher calibre compared to most assault rifles into account. One alternate idea to a completly new deploy option could be to auto deploy the m60 bipod when you go to a prone position via the weapon model. This would only require a rework of the weapon model without having to code in that other stuff. Moving parts on weapon models should be no problem as the grenade launchers have animated cycling of the drum as well. Â EDIT: teh GR4mm3r!!@

It seems unlikely that there will be another patch before resistance is being released but pesonally, I really hope there will be at least one patch with bugfixes and maybe even 1-2 new units. There is another thread floating around here with some sort of wish-list by some people, including me. Worth to check out and bump it.

Upping default crew loadouts would screw up most missions. Max unit limit of 12 men per squad could not be maintained. for example a 4 tank platoon would not be possible anymore. max would be 3 tanks due to the extra man per tank. Refer to my reply for an alternate solution.

99% of the above mentioned things are a must. I support most of them. Especially AI kneeling would enable a lot more atmosphere. There are some features regarding tanks that I really would like to see being implemented or tweaked: -Tank commanding is pretty easy in most tanks but when playing tank commander in the Bradley, I have huge difficulties to even get an small overview of whats happening around me withough switching to third person view. The main problem is that the bradley has no 360° cupola for commander like the t-80 for an example. I'm not suggestion to add an increased field of view for the commander as in real-life this limit might indeed be the case. Instead I'm for adding a completly new feature. When commanding a infantry squad you can command soldiers to watch a specific direction (the mouse cursor transforms when holding another key and you simply have to click to the position where you want them to look at), so why not allow tank commanders to do the same for the turret gunner. In the case of the bradley the commander could order the gunner to turn the turret and would therefore be able to look in the direction he wants. In my oppinion this is a vital feature for all players that mostly play in first person. This should also be possible when the commander is "turned out". -Another issue regarding the bradley is the fact that it originally is an amphibious apc. Currently it sinks like a stone, though. I would really like to see the bradley to be an amphibious unit. -When moving around with an tank platoon there is often the case that one of your tanks gets shot down leaving a few of the crew injured but alive. In such cases the whole movement speed of the platoon is crippled as the infantry moves very slow and if injured mostly can only crawl. I would suggest to give all of the MBTs another spare seat inside. This seat could simply be the position of the loader which most tanks lack as a crew member anyways in op:fp. I'm not suggesting to give the tanks 4 crew members by default as this would most likely screw up a lot of missions where the max. squadlimit would be exceeded. Just allow personal to use this spare seats (1 per tank) as a "ride in back" option. -The generel movement behaviour of all tanks/apcs seems more like a wheeled vehicle than a track unit. I would like to see more direct control about speed decrease and better behaviour when climbing hills (in terms of more horse power). A tank can come to an immediate stop in no-time and I don't really think that those huge speed decrease times in op:fp are needed. What I would suggest is to add another bindable key to the game: breaking. This would let any sort of vehicle or tank come to a full stop asap. Currently the only real way to decrease speed is to hold the "back" key, which is very time consumming at a certain speed. I don't mean to replace the "back" key as the option to simply decrease speed should still be possible, but I would like to see a break key for immediate (at least faster) stops. -Another thing with the tanks that really annoyed me is the way to high viewport of the M113 driver. If you want to drive without the "sight" view (toggled by the same button that lets you aim through scope etc..) you can only see a few meters in front of you and have no superior field of view like in the m60 or abrams. Driving without being "sighted" in is very useful as you can look at the sides while driving but with this limited field of view its almost useless right now. Please lower the viewport so that you can look more horizontal and are not limited to the area directly in front of you. Same goes for the Hummer view port by the way, where looking through the side window is almost impossible. -Staying with the M113s; In my oppinion the capacity of the troops that can "ride in back" is way to low. There is still some space that simply can't be used as a sit right now, but modifying this to allow a few more infantry men to mount the m113 would be great. You did something similar to the Hind in the last patch, if I recall correctly. Furthermore I want to point out that the vulcan still is off centre when swimming, meaning that one part is deeper in the water than the rest, making the vulcan look weird when amphibious. -One last thing, which is rather unlikely due to the engine I have to admit, but still an idea I want to bring up, is to give tank commanders an top mounted machine gun to shoot with. I know that there can't be more than one gunner right now, but I'm wondering if its really that difficult to implement a commander controlled, top-mounted weapon. I mean, commanders already control the rotation of the cupola. Adding an mg to that cupola could really be interesting. Tank commanders should only be able to use this machine gun when turned out though, kinda balancing this out. Only exceptions would be the M60 tank which normally has a machine gun mounted directly into the cupola which can be operated from the inside, and the bmp apcs, which should not get top mounted machine guns at all. Of course only tank with commanders will be given an extra machine gun. That's all for know. I would really like to hear some feedback directly from BIS about what I just suggested. Please think about it, these ideas are all well though about and in no-way uber complicated to implement.

There are some features regarding tanks that I really would like to see being implemented or tweaked: -Tank commanding is pretty easy in most tanks but when playing tank commander in the Bradley, I have huge difficulties to even get an small overview of whats happening around me withough switching to third person view. The main problem is that the bradley has no 360° cupola for commander like the t-80 for an example. I'm not suggestion to add an increased field of view for the commander as in real-life this limit might indeed be the case. Instead I'm for adding a completly new feature. When commanding a infantry squad you can command soldiers to watch a specific direction (the mouse cursor transforms when holding another key and you simply have to click to the position where you want them to look at), so why not allow tank commanders to do the same for the turret gunner. In the case of the bradley the commander could order the gunner to turn the turret and would therefore be able to look in the direction he wants. In my oppinion this is a vital feature for all players that mostly play in first person. This should also be possible when the commander is "turned out". -Another issue regarding the bradley is the fact that it originally is an amphibious apc. Currently it sinks like a stone, though. I would really like to see the bradley to be an amphibious unit. -When moving around with an tank platoon there is often the case that one of your tanks gets shot down leaving a few of the crew injured but alive. In such cases the whole movement speed of the platoon is crippled as the infantry moves very slow and if injured mostly can only crawl. I would suggest to give all of the MBTs another spare seat inside. This seat could simply be the position of the loader which most tanks lack as a crew member anyways in op:fp. I'm not suggesting to give the tanks 4 crew members by default as this would most likely screw up a lot of missions where the max. squadlimit would be exceeded. Just allow personal to use this spare seats (1 per tank) as a "ride in back" option. -The generel movement behaviour of all tanks/apcs seems more like a wheeled vehicle than a track unit. I would like to see more direct control about speed decrease and better behaviour when climbing hills (in terms of more horse power). A tank can come to an immediate stop in no-time and I don't really think that those huge speed decrease times in op:fp are needed. What I would suggest is to add another bindable key to the game: breaking. This would let any sort of vehicle or tank come to a full stop asap. Currently the only real way to decrease speed is to hold the "back" key, which is very time consumming at a certain speed. I don't mean to replace the "back" key as the option to simply decrease speed should still be possible, but I would like to see a break key for immediate (at least faster) stops. -Another thing with the tanks that really annoyed me is the way to high viewport of the M113 driver. If you want to drive without the "sight" view (toggled by the same button that lets you aim through scope etc..) you can only see a few meters in front of you and have no superior field of view like in the m60 or abrams. Driving without being "sighted" in is very useful as you can look at the sides while driving but with this limited field of view its almost useless right now. Please lower the viewport so that you can look more horizontal and are not limited to the area directly in front of you. Same goes for the Hummer view port by the way, where looking through the side window is almost impossible. -Staying with the M113s; In my oppinion the capacity of the troops that can "ride in back" is way to low. There is still some space that simply can't be used as a sit right now, but modifying this to allow a few more infantry men to mount the m113 would be great. You did something similar to the Hind in the last patch, if I recall correctly. Furthermore I want to point out that the vulcan still is off centre when swimming, meaning that one part is deeper in the water than the rest, making the vulcan look weird when amphibious. -One last thing, which is rather unlikely I have to admit, but still an idea I want to bring up, is to give tank commanders an top mounted machine gun to shoot with. I know that there can't be more than one gunner right now, but I'm wondering if its really that difficult to implement a commander controlled, top-mounted weapon. I mean, commanders already control the rotation of the cupola. Adding an mg to that cupola could really be interesting. Tank commanders should only be able to use this machine gun when turned out though, kinda balancing this out. Only exceptions would be the M60 tank which normally has a machine gun mounted directly into the cupola which can be operated from the inside, and the bmp apcs, which should not get top mounted machine guns at all. Of course only tank with commanders will be given an extra machine gun. That's all for know. I would really like to hear some feedback directly from BIS about what I just suggested. Please think about it, these ideas are all well though about and in no-way uber complicated to implement. Regards, Nyles EDIT: ehnglisch lingauage si suparieor!!@

*bump* I would really like to hear some comments. :/

I have been wondering if it would be possible to give the player a larger range of soldiers to command. The idea I had envolved some sort of command structure that you would take up the role of the company captain and get 11 soldiers under your command like usual. The trick however is that each soldier is accompanied by 11 other soldiers that follow him whereever he goes, basically turning this 1 soldier into a whole new squad under your command. To make those soldiers follow one of yours, you need some sort of script . The downside of this whole thing is that as soon as the soldier from your squad dies, the other 11 following soldiers will no longer be under your control. This could be bypasses though again by scripting. Basically you have to replace your dead squad member with one of the following soldiers who then again is being followed by the 10 remaining soldiers. This would continue until the whole squad is down. I assume this could work out, even though I am only having basic knowledge of scripting. Anyone here would be willing to fiddle around with company control? I would really really like to see something like this become possible.

anyone else?

I have 3 very small requests for new vehicles in op:fp. Basically I'm suggesting these to be included in one of the next smaller patches. The units would be: -UAZ with PK (opposite to the mg jeep) -Ural without cover on back (opposite to the 5t truck without cover) -Mi17 either unarmed or armed with pk (opposite to UH-60 with MG) These units won't take that much work as they are only modified versions of the units we already have. I really would like to see them included in one of the upcomming patches. That's all, and please don't let this become another thread about 25205027502 other unit suggestions.

Another two things I want to add to my first post are: -Generel improved behaviour of the gunner AI: Especially noticeable in the bradley is that the gunner sometimes turns the turret to odd positions even with no enemy in sight and when moving straight along a road. For the commander this turns into hell as he looses almost all control about the tank because he can't see whats in front of him. Only real possibility to get around is, is by switching to 3rd person view. Maybe improve this gunner AI a tad and implement the previously mentioned feature to be able to tell the gunner where to point his turret to. -Sticking with the bradley: the gunner only uses single fire with that bushmaster autocannon. I can understand that the drill might in fact be to only fire small bursts to mainain accuracy, but single fire in an combat environment seems utterly wrong to me. I would suggest to implement a whole new range based shooting system for all units. Basically before an AI unit gets to shoot at an enemy, the game first checks the range to the target and if the target is very close to nearby enemies. The game then decides which fire mode to choose. This would turn out to be a further step to realism and would make the whole scenery more believable for the player. Units attacking enemies on long ranges use single shots while units on medium ranges either use burts or full automatic firing. However I would not make a generel range for every unit, meaning that regardless if shooting from and bradley or of if shooting with an ak-47, the distance when a new fire mode is picked, would differ unit to unit. This would make the bradley use smaller bursts or even full auto instead of single fire even when having a greater distance to the enemy than the ak-47 would in the same situation. The ak-47 would be still firing in single fire. Another example would be a m-60 gunner which is firing a weapon aimed to suppress enemy movement and lay down covering fire. for this task single fire should only occur on extremely long distances. The check for the range of the target to enemies near it is to see if even at longer ranges a burst could be more effective than a single shot because of the crouded enemies. The distance between the enemies should be very minimal for this check to be true. This sounds like a pretty neat implementation to me and would eventually add new sound to the game as you mostly only hear infantry firing in bursts.

Yes, smoke launchers would indeed be a nice implementation, but what about those things I suggested? I would like to read some feedback about them.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Problems with bradley sight are real even in live bradley. It has no rotating sights for commander, instead it has prisms to maximize your view from inside. <span id='postcolor'> Yes I know, thats why I suggested this feature to allow bradley tank commanders to tell the gunner where to point the turret at. I'm not requesting a rotating sight.

Heh, I just suggested to add a break option for vehicles in my other thread about New suggestions for tanks. Basically, I suggested to implement a new bindable key which allows to for fast breaks when driving vehicles instead of this slow speed decrease when holding the "back" key. A possible idea to combine this key with the annoying thing to not being able to park, would be that once you pressed that "break" key while standing still would result in the vehicle to not move at all. Additionally it could be indeed a good idea to make this park option bein accessible via the small command menue on the bottom right. I agree that this might not seem to be that important to implement, but it's still ranking high up on my personal list of small but annoying bugs that should be fixed.

"setviewdistance x" :D ?

"setviewdistance x" :D ?

I guess there was an accident in his brewing cellar and he drowned in his beer

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">omg the ka50 and 52 would be so kick ass! that thing looks r0x0r i hope they will have it. and mad mike were the hell would the resitance get a huey from farming? <span id='postcolor'> Well, they didn't get their T-55 from farming either, right? And regarding the Hokum, am I wrong or have these never really entered full production?

...and furthermore, the model is already done as seen in vbs screens. It would be absolutly no problem and not a lot of work to add this to op:fp. I hope its one of the few units they might take over from vbs some day.

I love it for it's uber-realistic physics code *cough* bouncing helis *cough* hehe, nah, the fact that you can create virtually any kind of mission with the editor is one of the things that make you fall in love with that game. freedom of choice.