Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

laverniusregalis

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    294

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by laverniusregalis

  3. Posted

    I'm in favour of OP's and maturin's arguments. As we can't give precise voice commands to AI like we can to human drivers, manual input is the next best thing. One player juggling two tasks is far from being overpowering.

    I'm puzzled by steamtex's ad hominems and claims of game ruining effect when he agrees to rundll.exe's workaround suggestion (#56) in #59. Rundll.exe's suggestion of removing LEFT/RIGHT commands tries to achieve what steamtex's argued against the whole thread - direct control that is. Although, AI would still get confused by nearby objects and maneuvering the vehicle would still be crippled and unpredictable.

    Disclaimer: I've never played CoD, Battlefield or any other fragfest games, lest my opinion gets dismissed on that basis.

    I'm not sure if you're intentionally misunderstanding me or not, but I'll explain:

    I disagree with a "manual drive" system, but I think it would be a good idea to remove the voiceover from the "LEFT", "RIGHT", and "FAST" commands, since they just delay the action more than is needed. What would be really interesting to see instead would be the ability to order the driver to drive at a certain speed, for a certain distance in meters, or to turn a specific number of degrees.

  4. Posted

    True, it's genuinely much more tactical than what the vast majority of public servers on Arma3 can offer, plus the insane amount of maps and factions it has. Moreover I find it funny NeuroFunker would mention performances while PR runs much slower than BF3 for me, because they actually pushed an obsolete engine to its limits.

    Yeah, I've been having a lot of fun on it recently just screwing around with some mates on Fallujah.

  5. Posted · Edited by steamtex

    i brought me extra BF2 last week, to try project reality. Tbh. i appritiate the effort, devs put on work, but it looked to me like BF3 for "poor people", who can't afford good rigs to run it. BF3 is just sligthly faster then BF2 pr. And no idea when the graphics became important to me, i couldn't stand bf2 graphics in 2013.

    You're fucking with me right? PR is slower than ArmA3 most of the time! That allows for some great downtime between battles to build tension or to have a few humorous moments involving the building system.

  6. Posted

    Dodge rockets? In a tank? lolwut? A human driver will always drive better than a gunner-driver. They can turn out and look where they're going, instead of squinting at the enemy down the scope. Maneuvering in tight spaces is a laughable prospect when my turret is swung 90 degrees off-center and I'm spraying MG fire all over the place. There's a microscopic delay in movements that will go away, but that's it. In all other cases the human driver is better and the AI driver is just too gamebreakingly worthless to compensate.

    So why don't you remove those and stop trying to ruin the game by shackling us to the awful AI?

    I don't think you even believe that. You can't shoot and rive in confined spaces at the same time because the gunner has the narrowest FOV of all. You're just locked into arguing this doctrinaire position with religious fervor.

    IRL the driver has mirrors, periscopes and cameras. Only in ArmA's non-existent tank simulation is he restricted to a tiny viewport on the glacis. His situational awareness up close should be even better than the gunner's is now. You have ceased to argue for realism, and just try to defend the unrealistic status quo.

    And it's all due to the gunner being able to drive. That's the most worthless excuse for an argument I have ever heard on this forum, at least in a post with halfway decent grammar.

    No, there is always leftrightleftrightleftright spam as I make slight heading adjustments on the move. Also, I dare you to say that the current situation is acceptable. I freaking dare you.

    Also, I've been wanting to tell you how bullshit your signature is. ArmA 2 had no bleeding and no threat of death from wounds, as you fucking perfectly well no. And no need to pull bodies anywhere, unless you used the uselessly glitched injury module that no one ever turned on outside the campaign. Stop comparing ArmA 3 to ArmA 2 ACE.

    Just gonna remind you guys that the controls are stupid because your guy waits until he's done talking for AI to register his orders and won't give another until he finishes saying his last.

  9. Posted

    Just one little note: We fixed this in the OFP CTI community with a very simple mod: We simply removed the sound files (and proper config I guess) of the LEFT RIGHT FORWARD (etc) and it turned out, you get the exact same behavior as direct control! (The driver responds with an action AFTER the voice command has played, so there's no delay anymore.)

    Now I'm not surprised if this would still work in A3, and I'd welcome such a mod, because without it, it's just really really really annoying to drive a tank by voice commands. I've completely abandoned tanks actually, just because of the frustration with the incompetent AI.

    Actually, I'd like BIS to do this, until they fix their horrible AI driving...

    That's actually a good idea, remove the fast/left/right messages.

  11. Posted · Edited by steamtex

    Alright, how about a different solution? Why don't we just smooth out the existing system we use to give orders to the AI manually, so there's a timeout on the voices so there isn't as much "FORWARD - FAST - LEFT - FAST - RIGHT - FAST - RIGHT - FAST", and there's a smaller delay between pressing and the action being executed? We won't have to add a player-is-commander/gunner-and-driver-at-same-time system in, then.

  12. Posted

    I know what it's supposed to simulate but functionally it's exactly the same, the only difference being is the AI will randomly disregard orders (like you will be moving *FAST* down a road and it will suddenly slow down because of a street sign on the side of the road as if it's trying to obey road rules). Having it be direct control will leave you with the exact same system but working better because there's no AI in between your orders and the actual act to screw it up.

    Except the commander can't reach the fucking controls from his seat, and he isn't about to climb out of his seat in battle?

    Explain how it ruins the game. Really. Name one serious difference.

    THE CONTROLS ARE THE SAME. You give the exact same orders. THE CAPABILITIES ARE THE SAME. The difference is that you're simulating a human driver... with a human driver. Instead of a human driver... with a computer that can only move in straight lines if it's lucky.

    So a human driver makes a tank a super-maneuverable machine of doom? And by the way, a turned out driver has better situational awareness than a scoped-in commander. So a manual driving tank is still less useful than having a real driver. But it somehow ruins the game? Just because BF does it? You are a fanatic.

    But the AI is useless. And you know it will never be improved so that it can stand in for a player. Seriously, pressing W to give a move forward order is the same as pressing W to move forward directly. Except the former is fucking broken because the AI doesn't know how to back up. REALISM!

    NO ONE has suggested that manual driving be made standard or anything more than an option. NO ONE has suggested crewing tanks with only one soldier.

    This thread is a good acid test of ArmA fanboy idiocy.

    Spoken as someone who loves pretty much every bit of obscure realism that ACE churns out. But you can't sabotage gameplay for the appearance of realism.

    So play with real people, or mod it in.

    Heh.

  13. Posted

    Because pressing WSAD to make the AI drive for you is so much more realistic than allowing you to directly control it when there's an AI in the driver seat.

    Seriously some of you need to lay off the bleach

    I'll assume you're directly insulting us.

    NONONONONONONONONO, you people..... It 'simulates' giving orders to the AI. Besides, most of the time we just click the map to tell the AI where to go or drive the damn tank ourselves and designate targets for the gunner. It's not perfect but it's a helluva lot better than just being a one-man tank crew.

  14. Posted · Edited by steamtex

    Oh really? Have you ever tried to throw a grenade in any of the Arma series' games? And how did you like destroying tanks with machine-guns in Arma 2 for couple of years? And how do you like AI units taking bullets in their chest while still being perfectly able to shoot back? How do you like AI inability to peak and shoot from a cover, AI not running away from grenades or throwing them back? How do you like absence of proper stealth and stealth kills in Arma with no knifes at all? And don't even want me to mention sound-engine of BF3/4 (even the first two games had it on a completely different, more realistic level than Arma has now).

    Both COD and BF have these issues sorted long ago and for example in BF when you reload a weapon with a bullet already in the chamber it stays there so you have one extra bullet to shoot, just like IRL. Not happening in Arma. Quite a few would-be-good-in-arma features for a Quake, hm?

    Yeah. "Arcade" prohibited. Idiotic allowed. Wannabe-realistic (non-functional) demanded. Gameplay damaged. How productive.

    Then leave.

    Ahem, first of all...

    >Implying ARMA3's grenades are like those of ARMA2

    >Implying that the ability for 30 human players with LMGs to shoot at a tank all at once, somehow survive long enough to kill it is likely

    >Implying AI is perfect

    >Implying stealth isn't possible

    >Implying ARMA is perfect

    >Implying all of that is reason enough to turn this into arcade garbage

    No. Just stop. If you don't like it, don't let the door slam you on the way out.

    That's a mighty big attitude for a newcomer.

    The point of ARMA is that you can CHOOSE how to play.

    Since the AI are not capable of driving efficiently (and probably never will be) then a compromise must be accepted.

    ...and if you don't like it, don't use it.

    I've been playing since ARMA1, you presumptuous nut.

    The point is that even though ARMA isn't perfect, it does what it tries to do well: Giving us a decent niche title with a focus on realism. WE COME HERE SO WE DON'T HAVE TANKS THAT ARE CREWED BY ONE PERSON! Also, Gnat kind of knows his stuff. Don't insult the Gnat.

  16. Posted

    Man, please, stop with the BF3/4 bullshit. It seriously pisses me off how many times it was mentioned already when somebody wants to bring a compromise for sake of better gameplay. I am OFP player since 2001 and have never enjoyed Battlefield series nor COD series so go somewhere else with your rage against "BF agenda". Arma is so unrealistic in so many ways and in some even less realistic than BF or COD yet you still mention those two games regularly. You are so short-sighted.

    I don't care, this would be a bunch of bull████ if it happened. Take it to a mod, I'll grab a pitchfork if it's brought to vanilla A3.

    And don't even try to say that it's less realistic in virtually ANY way than BF or CoD. Those games are like Quake with equipment which actually exists.

  18. Posted

    Well, really, if this engine can't render anything more than a flat desert, what good is it? Even Battle Field can do this stuff with ease.

    Reasons why:

    1. Because BIS decided so.

    2. Because the AI is a bag of terrible when near buildings of any kind.

    3. Because VR engine has enough trouble as it is, as we've seen.

    4. Battlefield has tiny/actually not as detailed as you think maps. ArmA has to have constant detail, not just a small detailed area surrounded by sort of detailed terrain.

    5. It isn't done yet. We might see it later. But for now we stick to Stratis/Altis and any mod terrain.

  19. Posted

    yeah, i'm starting to think this game is going to have about the same lifespan as Crysis 3. The characters, weapons, graphics are good. Unfortunately, there's really not much to do with them, and the editing suite is an ancient hell. Wish BF looked better.

    ---------- Post added at 02:30 ---------- Previous post was at 02:28 ----------

    Actually, they do, but we don't know about them, because they're SECRET. Lol.

    People still play ArmA1, and all that had going for it was a crossover desert-evergreenforest-plains-thingy which lacked some truly unique landmarks and places. And mods.

    Emphasis on Mods, Canyon.

  22. Posted

    It has not been fixed IN 12 YEARS Since flashpoint the AI driving has been a primary complaint and through all the updates and improvements, its COMBAT viability is still horrible at best.

    How much longer would you like to wait?

    ---------- Post added at 15:14 ---------- Previous post was at 15:13 ----------

    Non-solution...

    Go hop on a MP server and see how many players you can find who are willing to be your chauffeur.

    Even assuming you can find somebody who is willing to sit in a seat and do nothing but drive wherever you tell them to... is that a solution? tanks only viable in Multiplayer? not effective in single-player? campaign?

    Just stop arguing with OP and let him go play Battlefield. We might as well, he doesn't want to just improve the AI...

×