LeMask

They took the power supply at the flying saucer that landed in Roswell... They dont understand the principle... But they can copy it and energy is energy... Here is the explanation. Obama said "yes we can."

I think that the game should be more about the use of "warrior skills" rather than "technology". I see a lot of a nice toys in the list of available items... Commanche helicopters and more... That's nice. But I dont need all this stuff is it's not properly added to the game. Do less with more quality please. I prefer an old M16A2 against an old well made AK47 with proper sights than all the armories of all video games in the world... And please please, the guns have to be as close to reality as possible. Guns have to jam. Overheat. Break maybe? at least the vulnerable parts like the sights... You cant maul an enemy with grenades and machine gun fire... And then retrieve brand new equipment from his body. Come on. And I dont like the idea of being able to change the weapons addons ingame... Maybe at base in the armory... But in battle? How many soldiers go to battle with the whole sopmod kit in their backpacks? Give them the ability to take off the sights... And that's it. You have the choice between iron sights/carrying handle, CQB sights, Assault sights, Sniper sights... Pick one. And you can take it off in battle... But good luck aiming with a gun without iron sights...

Well, you know, video games suffer from one thing... Lack of talent. I can give you tons of money and you will be able to buy skills on the market... But talent needs time and more talent in the management/leadership. Arma is a perfect exemple of that. Good potential... But it misses the target for some reason. You have two simple choices if you want to do things right. Simulation or illusion If you want to have a good damage management in your game... You do a real simulation, where the computer execute tons of math based processes to check the damage. Or you can make an illusion of realism... My call would be to use both and get both half way... Take the best of both techniques. Rather than to add tons of hitboxes for the simulation of a a torso with a heart etc etc... I would make categories of "shots". With two factors. Penetration/damage (high penetration/high damage for a 50 cal as an example, and a high damage/low penetration for a 9mm. And let a 7.62mm from a Sniper rifle be a medium damage/high penetration at close&medium range and high damage/medium penetration at long range... It's better than a math based simulation of ballistics. (the bullet transfers more energy to its target at long range as there is a loss of speed) And about damage, I prefer percentiles with an event system like RPGs (role playing games. Hit from the front in the upper torso Unarmored target Average damage bullet High penetration damage = 10% fatal heart wound 15% damaged artery + severe bleeding 50% punctured lung 30% destroyed shoulder etc etc... And if the bullet is low penetration, the chances of a severe wound should be higher And if the target is well armored. The bullet doesnt penetrate, but knocks the guy down and break some bones making the breathing hard. And if it's not that well armored (no trauma plate). The armor absorbs the some energy and fails with a catastrophic penetration... Following the quality of the armor. Real real events with huge grids of possible outcomes rather than Simulation.