Cookieeater

Steam should be focused as the main distribution platform. Steamworks is a godsend for a lot of crap. It would be really nice to ditch GameSpy and use Steam's server browser. Steam is mod friendly as well, how do you think we have all of those Half Life 2 mods out there?

ArmA II really needs to improve CQC AI. The AI is good from far away, but up close the glaring delays with AI are immense. Everyone has had moments where you're fighting a soldier less than 20m to you and be saved due to AI being extremely delayed by taking 5 seconds to shoot at you. AI is perfectly fine other else than that.

I've just played Operation Flashpoint Cold War Crisis and comparing it to ArmA II, it just feels like Operation Flashpoint had more "soul" in the game. Maybe it's just the old graphics and the cheesy voice acting for Operation Flashpoint, but in ArmA II, everything feels so sterile, souless, and simulatorish. In summary: Operation Flashpoint: A video game that focused on realistic combat with infantry and vehicles. (Swat 4, Rainbow Six 3 Raven Shield) ArmA II: A simulator that was ported to civilian use with realistic combat with infantry and vehicles. (DCS : Blackshark, IL-2 Sturmovik) The first one was meant for having realism in a video game, while the latter was for how many realistic features they could push out the door.

Oh please, publishers have been saying piracy will kill PC gaming since Neverwinter Nights came out. Starcraft II, which is an extremely unfriendly PC exclusive RTS game sold 1.5 million copies on release.

Phong shading is nothing new.

Lag is insane. Everybody warps. Even on LAN with 2 computers next to each other and the host hosting on a Quad core with 4GB of LAN it warps. I wonder how they could have screwed up the net coding so bad. Battlefield 2 had 64 players, it had vehicle physics infinitely better than ArmA II. It had bullet drop and penetration on the same scale as ArmA II. Battlefield 2 was a lot more smooth than ArmA II. People will laud Battlefield 2 for it's bad net coding but then i'll show ArmA II, with soldiers rubber banding everywhere, vehicles driven by other players crashing into a tree, and then warping 10m away again.

I play it for mods. If it weren't for mods, around 75% of the community would be gone.

A scenario where I can see Cryengine's physics being essential in a military simulator environment are the vehicle physics. ArmA II's vehicle physics are absolute garbage. They're dampened heavily, collisions are garbage. Crysis was a game that had jeeps that felt like jeeps instead of jeeps feeling like super weak tanks that halted everytime it collided with something.

I think the videos were prerendered just for smoothness. The stuff they are displaying inside the video is not hardware intensive. Any computer can definitely display that at an acceptable FPS. Look at ArmA II for example. If it was prerendered, why does the FPS fluctuate in these videos? SYUrbOvzlsQ 6gjoRuOEMv4 (notice the FPS drop when there are explosions) If it was prerendered, it would be at a stable FPS at all times. These videos show otherwise. You can clearly see the FPS drops. ---------- Post added at 04:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:08 PM ---------- That is why there is something called serverside and clientside. A client is an ArmA II player who is playing on a server in this situation. A server is a computer running an ArmA II server that allows people to connect to it. Clientside is something that is simulated on every computer independent of other compuers connected. Your view distance, sound settings, your reloading animations(Other players cannot see you reloading in ArmA II!). Serverside is something that is synced across ALL clients from the server. Examples would be locations of players, locations of vehicles, location of trees, health of players, what weapons they are carrying, if they're wearing night vision(Players can see other players wearing night vision) in ArmA II. These things are very important that should be synced across all clients. The problem though is that since it's serverside, the dedicated server has to do the work, putting load on the server and potentially lagging everybody. In your tree scenario, this can easily be remedied if physics were server side. This means that the server is calculating the physics. If a tree falls down, the server will constantly send the information of the tree falling down to ALL players. So all players should see the same position of where the tree is at. The only downside to synchronizing physics is that it causes strain on the server calculating it. Physics in general require a lot of processing power to calculate. KEEP IN MIND THOUGH ArmA II synchronizes vehicle physics, which means that the player can see where the vehicle is at the exact coordinates of where all the other players can see it. ArmA II already simulates physics. Same with Cryengine, same with Source engine, same with most online games out there that have physics. It is perfectly doable to simulate a tree and have players see it at the exact location as everybody else. The problem is though, how will a server handle many trees blown up at once without lagging? ArmA II remedies this by having trees not being simulated by physics but by a simple animation. Crysis can definitely replace physics on trees with animations falling down like ArmA II. I just wanted to get this point across because you do not seem to understand server networking. Any server can process physics and distribute the data across all players. You just need a strong server to do that though. It is VERY POSSIBLE to have physics on a server that is synchronized with every player. Heres some more info about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Client%E2%80%93server_model An example of a game with serverside physics Counter Strike Source: rROewTU9zvg Notice how the physics of the vending machines and couches are synchronized across all players. The zombie player cannot walk in because it is blocked by the vending machine and couch.

Many times while playing ArmA II I zoom in on some random spot like through a bush or heavy forestry or villages to radio automatically "ENEMY at X o'clock" when I have no idea where the units i'm reporting are at. Couldn't BIS add a feature that marks your(not the squads) spotted unit for around 10 seconds with a reticle such as the one where your squad leader assigns a target for you? I'm getting sick of being a sitting duck in ArmA II not knowing where the enemies are at when my soldier is reporting out where he's seeing the enemies at. The radioed spotting system is one of the most important parts in the OFP and ArmA series and it just infuriates me how the AI and my character can spot units in a forest with the AI responding by firing and me not knowing a clue where I spotted my unit at. EDIT: I don't think most people here are understanding what i'm trying to say. I'm not talking about just marking units that your squad reports. I'm saying that if your character can report and spot enemies that the squad hasn't, you should have a target reticle where you spotted the enemy from, not the entire squad. It's extremely often that the player in the AI controlled squad is the first one to spot units because he zooms in everywhere. A lot of the times, the player has no idea where he actually did spot the unit from because the computer is spotting the enemy for him like everyone else. All i'm saying is add a target reticle where the player JUST saw the enemy at, if I run in some forest, and yell 12 o'clock ENEMY MAN 500 METERS, I don't need to check my map and see where the enemy is mapped at when technically I just "reported" him a second ago when the computer reported for me the enemy location. EDIT: I know what target marker's are and they work fine but they work for the whole squad instead of a single person. What i'm saying is, add the target marker system for the units that only the player spotted and only allow the player to see the unit he just spotted temporarily. fMDIydYvhb0 This is a classic scenario of what happens a lot in ArmA II. In the beginning I spot a bunch of units that I have no idea are at. Your character starts spotting enemies that you yourself have no idea where they are at. So your soldier "knows" where the enemies are at but you don't. What would solve this is a temporary red reticle placed over the unit that your character just spotted that only the player can see, not your entire squad. It would keep the player "up to date" with what the soldier that he's playing knows. Obviously this should be a setting for realism junkies out there BUT it makes less sense how you can spot a bunch of dudes and have them marked on your map when pressing M, but not knowing where you just spotted them from other else than general direction!

If they could recreate the first missions in OFP CWC and give us Morton, that would be awesome.

It is probably most realistic to disable auto reporting, but that only really concerns people who play multi player only and disable the auto reporting since they have microphones and are disturbed by having the computer report for them while they're reporting at the same time. It is too micro intensive to report every unit that you see manually, since you have to hover your cross hairs over a 4-6 pixel wide target, and then press a button to report. This could be in packs of squads too so you would have to repeat this many times. In real life, your vision of the soldiers would be much clearer due to no limitation of resolution, also in real life, it wouldn't be really a good idea to hold back reporting an enemy unit that you saw that your allies didn't since you're supposed to work as a team. BIS probably ran across a design decision in OFP, whether to add in auto reporting or not. Placing your mouse over extremely small targets just to report them would be too counter intuitive ,redundant, and would take a long time when you could have spent that time shooting the enemy. OFP shipped with auto reporting. BIS has added stuff that normally wouldn't be considered normally realistic such as third person, and colored blobs representing units on the sides of the screen. These things were added in though due to limitations of computers, specifically monitors, which don't give the full range of vision that a human normally has. My suggestion would fit under this category. And to answer your last statement, i'm not saying that the reticle should be placed on the unit forever, it should be there for around 10 seconds JUST to get the player oriented to lock onto his shouted target.

I think that you should re-paraphrase again, but if you're asking why my proposal is better than the current system where your character shouts out units is this. When you're playing ArmA II, as long as there is another person in your squad, you will shout out any unknown or enemy unit that comes across your FOV. Realistically when you shout out where the enemy is, you should know where your reported enemy is exactly at(across those trees, at that tower, in that house) because you just saw them! In ArmA II however, your soldier only reports out his bearing(12 o'clock, 9 o'clock, left, right). This information isn't sufficient enough in an environment where there is a lot of cover(villages, forests) because there are so many spots to look at that even though you shout their general direction, you don't know where he still is even when you're looking at the general direction. Logically this makes no sense because technically you just spotted the enemy unit, you don't need to rely on o'clock because you saw him with your own two pairs of eyes, so WHY wouldn't you know where he is. ArmA II makes a lot of mistakes with it's spotting system such as spotting through houses or heavy forestry, but it's better to tell us where the enemy is at with a reticle over it when your character spotted it, then to have your character spout out the direction the enemy is at while the person playing has no idea where he is at even though the person he's playing as has saw it. As by yourself, you should have a pinpoint location where your shouted out enemy unit is at, your squad mates however can't see in your perspective so they would only really know the general direction. That is why i'm saying to only add the marker to the person who reported the unit, NOT THE ENTIRE SQUAD, because the person who reported the enemy unit should exactly know where the person's at.

I don't understand how many people aren't understanding what i'm trying to say,:confused:. It's a little bit hilarious but all so frustrating. Ok where would it happen in real life that you looked through your binoculars, yell out that an enemy is there, and still not know where you just spotted the enemy from? ArmA II is supposed to be a simulator, yet through the monitor and mouse and keyboard interface, some things just have to be adjusted for computer playing. It's why you have the "extended" vision in First person where you can see blobs on the edge of your view to simulate the full FOV that humans can see. The vision system for the AI is obviously not perfect and makes a lot of mistakes such as reporting units through trees or houses. Even when it doesn't make a mistake, you almost always barely see the unit you just spotted due to limitations such as low resolution. This would curb the problem of player's not knowing where they just shouted their units from and would make ArmA II more realistic. You shouldn't have to check on the map for the unit that you just "saw" a second ago. A lot of the times you run through areas reporting units that you didn't see even though the computer spotted it for you. That is much less realistic then actually just telling the player where he just spotted his unit he reported.

No, i'm asking that a temporary red reticle should be placed over the reported unit that you(NOT YOUR SQUAD) shouted so you know where the dude you shouted out is at instead of looking around everywhere for the unit that you just technically saw.

I voted yes. It's better to have competition so that technology will keep on constantly improving. I have to admit, Macs are overpriced shit, BUT they do speed on the race of Microsoft and Apple trying to create better computers that are faster and easier to use. As of right now, ArmA II is in the bin with all of the other Windows exclusive games that only encourage people to switch to a PC and create more stagnation in development. BIS porting their titles to Mac and possibly Linux, are truly speeding up computer development.

I'm talking about if it was just solo and you are the first one to report the unit. This is not AI, this is your character reporting units that you can't see that he can see. I know what target marker's are and they work fine but they work for the whole squad instead of a single person. What i'm saying is, add the target marker system for the units that only the player spotted and only allow the player to see the unit he just spotted temporarily. fMDIydYvhb0 This is a classic scenario of what happens a lot in ArmA II. In the beginning I spot a bunch of units that I have no idea are at. Your character starts spotting enemies that you yourself have no idea where they are at. So your soldier "knows" where the enemies are at but you don't. What would solve this is a temporary red reticle placed over the unit that your character just spotted that only the player can see, not your entire squad. It would keep the player "up to date" with what the soldier that he's playing knows. Obviously this should be a setting for realism junkies out there BUT it makes less sense how you can spot a bunch of dudes and have them marked on your map when pressing M, but not knowing where you just spotted them from!

I think you would know where the enemy is at if you shout out " 12 o'clock Enemy riflemen 300m" when walking through a forest instead of just being, OH SHIT MY DUDE JUST REPORTED AN ENEMY, gotta check everywhere for it. It's a lack of the blending between the soldier and the player when the soldier that you're playing reports target's that YOU can't see.

I don't think you're understanding what i'm trying to say. I'm not talking about just marking units that your squad reports. I'm saying that if your character can report and spot enemies that the squad hasn't, you should have a target reticle where you spotted the enemy from. It's extremely often that the player in the AI controlled squad is the first one to spot units because he zooms in everywhere. A lot of the times, the player has no idea where he actually did spot the unit from because the computer is spotting the enemy for him like everyone else. All i'm saying is add a target reticle where the player JUST saw the enemy at, if I run in some forest, and yell 12 o'clock ENEMY MAN 500 METERS, I don't need to check my map and see where the enemy is mapped at when I just "saw" him a second ago.

But i'm talking about marking the units that your character spots and reports.

I think that the colored markers should extend to regular and veteran difficulty as long as you're the only one who can see the markers. Its different if you're squad reports it and it's displayed to everyone than yourself. When a squad member reports where he saw an enemy, you don't always see the enemy he reported so it doesn't need to be tagged. When you report an enemy, you should be able to see it because you reported it due to your vision and you're not relying on anyone's else's eyes.In real life, how could it happen that you report an enemy and his direction and NOT know where the enemy is at that you reported? This happens frequently in ArmA II. You have extended vision in ArmA II which would be considered more unfair then marking the target you spotted that YOU should be able to spot.

Thats why we use blatant rip off names such as Takistan instead of Afganistan ;).

Yes but you already have most of the content made for just creating a campaign, such as models and textures. All that is required is voice work, and a good scriptwriter and mission maker. I'm pretty sure you can gain heavy money off of making DLC story packs such as something like EW. Look at GTA IV's DLC packs, all they add are a few weapons and vehicles and a new storyline, but the main focus is the storyline, not the new weapons or vehicles. And Rockstar can create very good and immersible storylines. People who play ArmA II aren't solely just people who want a simulator, they're people who love the realistic gameplay and a well thought out storyline. a2hnXgrnlUQ I think this would make a really good campaign, a newly trained soldier that comes to a U.S. Army combat outpost, and you would have constant ambushes by the Takistan militia during the day and night. On some parts you would venture out to the local village to try to interrogate the locals about the whereabouts of the Takistan leader operation in the region in where you and you're squad are supposed to kill. It would be a grim and gritty look on the war in Afghanistan that a lot of games IMO fail to grasp with their hoo-rah Marines coming in shooting everything.

Red Orchestra had a perfect mature system on how it handled gore IMO. There's no over the top organs or blood being splattered everywhere. Just some blood splatters and limbs flying off if getting blown up.

Do you think it would be best for the predator not to attack as often but stalk his prey? The predator seems to be a little bit too kamikaze running up and wristblading people. Also the Chakra disc aims a little bit below where your aiming and the view moves up.