Splintert

What would be nice, considering the futuristic setting, would be an item you can carry, something like a small laptop, that would give you a satellite view of your area, with allies and known enemy positions pointed out. You can then give your allies paths to follow simply by dragging the mouse. Those allies would then follow that path, in a certain level of engagement, so they don't shoot guys 1KM away or something.

They work for a living removing bugs from others' code. Of course they aren't happy!

This would be great. I wouldn't want to be the HC but I do want to follow his orders blindly, then laugh at him when he sends the army on a suicide mission.

While we're at it, why not the ability to actually shoot the gun? It seems odd to me that rifles are able to withstand hundreds of bullet impacts. Carrying a HMG actually works as armor, in the current system.

I agree with the core of the main post, all spec arguments aside. ARMA needs to utilize multiple cores and hyperthreaded cores better.

Rather than non-lethal weapons, why not disarming? Shooting someone in the hand is likely to make them drop their gun. Must less being able to shoot back semi-effectively. Shooting someone in the foot should make them drop to the gound in pain, and crawl around. Also, they should be able to get 20 bullets to the leg and being totally immobilized rather than dead. Legshots are hardly fatal instantly.

I think battalion vs battalion battling is, for the most part, unrealistic. In arma ii Warfare, the most you ever fight is a few terrorists or some OPFOR. There's no real reason for each player to have to command 50 soldiers, or AI to control themselves. It's really a server option to allow the player to control 24 soldiers. Those soldiers can be effectively commanded by someone with an overhead view of the battle, rather than being inside the battle.

A weapon attachment system would be lovely. Something like it brings up a GUI image of your gun with slots for each attachment. Different attachments are attached to the gun in different ways, such as the rail system or whatever the old AK's used. The ability to mix-and-match attachments would bring a whole new level of fun. Close combat with a M107? Strip the scope!

More variety in silenced weapons.

I don't see the point of this thread. It annoys everyone to see some idiot post an idiotic idea, sure. So what? Just ignore it and let the idiots have their threads.

I'm sure the lowest setting would see RTT off.

The number one job of a soldier is to stay alive. He is told by his commanders where to go, what the mission is, but in the end, he goes there then struggles only for survival. He completes the mission in an effort to get out of the area so he lives. War is not fought by soldiers, but by commanders. Soldiers are in a struggle for survival.

Maybe using a minecraft-like chunk system? Minus the cubes, tiny view distance, and mining.

Zombies should be lumbering idiots only killable by headshot. And there should be hundreds of them.

I believe a zombie mode would act best as a sandbox survival sort of thing. This would require advanced AI pathfinding, spawning mechanisms, and the ability to make barricades out of any object. I also think that slow, extremely dumb zombies are the way to go, rather than smarter, faster zombies. They are dead, after all. The actual mission would have to simulate not only zombies and survival, but a living, breathing world. Things would have to change dynamically, not be the same every time. A combination of rescues based on player action, ammunition rarity, and free-for-all player activity could provide for an interesting time.

When a milita hides behind a 3/4 foot pole as cover, with both shoulders and legs sticking out, something is wrong.

I think the current system is quick and easy. There's no reason for any player of a game to be 'out of action' while another sits there and works on them. In real life (though i have no experience, don't take my word for it) I highly doubt that combat medics perform more than basic stopping of bleeding/preparation for transport and actual treatment after they are flown out of the combat. Sure, it would be more realistic, but when does it cross the line between realism and not fun?

I don't see anything wrong with the ragdoll physics in ARMA, they seem pretty meager compared to some games. When someone gets hit with an RPG, i want to see them fly 20 feet because it looks cool, not because it's realistic that 100's of small fragments travelling faster than any bullet are hitting them at once.

I'd like to see more weapons, no matter realistic or not. More weapons = better. M14 is the best darn rifle in ARMA II OA, no questions about it (in my opinion). The M14 was also a weapon used in early Vietnam... not particularly realistic.

So long as it isn't annoying I'm cool with it. Players shouldn't be able to sit in a spot for more than 10 minutes twisting the turret around, but it should charge fast enough that you don't need to travel 10 minutes to get the battery up.

Though I use steam and love it, I am entirely against forcing players to get the game through steam/run through steam. Playing offline is a bugger, and the 76MB of RAM it uses in the background is a big waste on low end machines that barely run the game as is.

As long as I can tell an AK from an M16 I'm ok with sound.

I believe th game would do better with a Crysis 1 style sun, only blinding if you look right at it. This way it compensates for a real life person's ability to squint. Sunglasses would also be cool, so long as the effect is realistic (darkens entire view). There should also be an option to turn off all this advanced dynamic lighting effects. Some people can't run super-HDR with 16x AA.

that's a server setting.

Very true. the soldiers feel like mindless robots, following orders mindlessly even if it means sure death. I don't mind that for some games, but a simulator should be different. However, if people were actually afraid of dying (the AI), the pathfinding and general AI would have to be much more intelligent to balance it.