ArmA2: Operation Arrowhead

[Grimes]

The main reason I like this game is the fact that if you get shot down you can fight your way on foot, bike, car, tank, apc, tractor or call in a heli extraction etc back to the FARP or AB get another bird and go at it again in a open sandbox world.

 

I agree, I just wish the chopper combat was a little more complex. With Hellfires its practically a point and click adventure game.

 

"Next Target... Fire"

"next Target... Fire"

 

its just way to easy to rack up kills like that. The unmanned little bird targeting helps, but I've yet to see it used at all online.

[leafer]

How's single player?

[RedTiger]

Hi folks! Been a while since I've posted here. I've lost interest in flight sims for the time being, but I've been messing with the demos to both ArmA II and OA as well as doing some research on both. I REALLY want to like this game, but there's bunch of nitpicky problems I have with it that just add up to a deal-breaker.

 

1. The control of your playable soldier is sluggish, just like the original ArmA and OFP. Everything feels like it has a ramp-up time, or like I'm controlling him with strings. I'm not sure why an "arcade" shooter like MW2 can get this right but these realistic ones cannot.

 

2. The mission editor is complicated to the point of needing scripting to do very simple things. It's the equivalent of needing to script a plane to be on the runway ready for takeoff in LockOn.

 

3. It would be nice to have an actual random mission generator or have the templates work better. I use a template and I get enemy infantry 1 km away standing in a line in plain sight. I'm aware of the ability to sync to a SecOps module, but unfortunately that isn't available in the demo or I couldn't figure out how to do it.

 

4. To me, the player-controllable vehicles break my immersion and detract from the infantry portions. Private Ryan, the infantrymen, can climb into an F-35, huh? I can forgive this in something that is obviously a game like BC2, but in ArmA, it leaves me scratching my head. I would rather them put more work into making the infantry control work better and be more dynamic than figuring out a new fighter jet for my USMC sniper to fly.

 

Just a preference here, but why can't we get a game/sim with this much realism on a smaller scale? Something like the original Ghost Recon, for example? I'd much rather leave the large scale warfare in a war game and have something like ArmA really nail the infantry portion down to perfection. It can be a big sandbox world, but one where the action is much more covert and smaller scale.

 

It's a shame, because this game is a step in the right direction. In a market where the next Ghost Recon game might as well be Crysis, we need more games like ArmA.

Edited July 26, 2010 by RedTiger

[104th_Crunch]

Hi Red Tiger. Have you tried adjusting the floating zone for mouse control in the game options? This option controls the amount you move your rifle before your waist turns. If you set this 0 then you have the same setup as other FPSs.

 

Think of the aircraft and vehicles in Arma as simple Bonuses. Stick with Infantry and you'll have fun.

 

The problem I am having is framerates. In the campaign I get 18 fps. -I am good in open areas though.

[RedTiger]

Hi Red Tiger. Have you tried adjusting the floating zone for mouse control in the game options? This option controls the amount you move your rifle before your waist turns. If you set this 0 then you have the same setup as other FPSs.

 

Think of the aircraft and vehicles in Arma as simple Bonuses. Stick with Infantry and you'll have fun.

 

The problem I am having is framerates. In the campaign I get 18 fps. -I am good in open areas though.

 

No, I wasn't aware of the floating zone. That would probably fix a lot of what I was experiencing.

 

As for the vehicles -- aren't they an integral part of the game? Doesn't the campaign have you pilot them eventually? I also could have sworn that by the end of the original ArmA II campaign, you're practically playing a war game in the amount of units under your control.

 

Pass.

[winz]

1. The control of your playable soldier is sluggish, just like the original ArmA and OFP. Everything feels like it has a ramp-up time, or like I'm controlling him with strings. I'm not sure why an "arcade" shooter like MW2 can get this right but these realistic ones cannot.

Because in an arcadish shooter your camera is floating in the world (you are just a point in the world, nothing more). The weapons and hands you see in mw are not in any way conected to the world, they are there just for the effect. Other players see a model where your camera is floating, but what that model does is in no way restricting you.

Im ofp, arma, armaII, you have a real body, that has it weight and momentum, try run around in 20kilos of gear and I guarantee you that your movement will be ever more slugish.

2. The mission editor is complicated to the point of needing scripting to do very simple things. It's the equivalent of needing to script a plane to be on the runway ready for takeoff in LockOn.

It's not. You just place units and assign waypoints, as in lockon. In arma2 you can get complex functionality (like ambient life, combat, patrols, artilery, uav), just by placing a simple modules.

Scripting only kicks in when you wanna do complex stuff, like units behaviour based on some conditions (finite state machines), which is way beyond anything you can do in lockon.

 

3. It would be nice to have an actual random mission generator or have the templates work better. I use a template and I get enemy infantry 1 km away standing in a line in plain sight. I'm aware of the ability to sync to a SecOps module, but unfortunately that isn't available in the demo or I couldn't figure out how to do it.

This would be really nice, but some user created missions offer decent randomization of events.

[RedTiger]

Because in an arcadish shooter your camera is floating in the world (you are just a point in the world, nothing more). The weapons and hands you see in mw are not in any way conected to the world, they are there just for the effect. Other players see a model where your camera is floating, but what that model does is in no way restricting you.

 

Correct.

 

Im ofp, arma, armaII, you have a real body, that has it weight and momentum, try run around in 20kilos of gear and I guarantee you that your movement will be ever more slugish.

 

Yeah, but last time I checked, I'm not. I'm pressing "W" on a keyboard and moving around a mouse. ;)

 

The point is you are simply getting rid of one unrealistic thing for another. They are sacrificing the floating camera for the feeling of mass and the accompanying momentum, yet they don't take into account the fact that I'm still using a mouse and keyboard. Now I've got "realistic" momentum but 4 digital buttons and a mouse to move it around with. That opens an entirely new set of "unrealisms".

 

It will *never* be perfect. You have to pick and choose. Since I'm using an imperfect method of control to move a simulated human body, I'd rather you just give me the floating camera to simulate the assumption that I'm a physically fit soldier capable of reasonable agility given my equipment. If I press "W", I want to move forward. It's not like I'm pushing a 500 lbs box on the floor where physics say I should have to push with more force to get it started moving. I shouldn't perceive *any* delay. My brain tells my legs to move and it's instantaneous.

 

I could go a step farther and say that I'd be willing to accept a little bit more unrealisms just to accomplish something more dynamic. As of now, "using cover" consists of stading a foot away from a wall and using track IR to lean around it. I would be willing to have a teensy bit more "arcade" if it meant I could accomplish things that are reasonably realistic.

 

I mean, you already have to switch to 3rd person if you actually want any perifial vision. ;) Auto-switching to different 3rd persion views with different actions would make it more dynamic, closer to what an actual person could do.

 

It's not. You just place units and assign waypoints, as in lockon. In arma2 you can get complex functionality (like ambient life, combat, patrols, artilery, uav), just by placing a simple modules.

Scripting only kicks in when you wanna do complex stuff, like units behaviour based on some conditions (finite state machines), which is way beyond anything you can do in lockon.

 

Sorry, that's incorrect. Please explain.

 

Here's my example; I want to start the mission with my single playable soldier in an AI controlled helicopter carry me to an insertion point and drop me off.

 

In ArmA I can't accomplish this completely with the GUI. I have to put down a helicopter. I have type in a simple script to set it's altitude (but not its basic speed. Why is that? For that matter, why can't I specify it's exact speed in the GUI?). Then I have to plop down my soldier and then script him to be in the helicopter. I then place my steer points, the last one being the landing zone. I then have to put down an invisible landing pad, even when landing on a paved tarmac or runway (?), script the helicopter to land and script my solider to get out.

 

I understand that these scripts are simple, but why are they even necessary to accomplish this? I am in favor of them being available for complex behavior, but for something like this, I SHOULD be able to do this all in the GUI with drop-down menus and sliders.

 

This would be really nice, but some user created missions offer decent randomization of events.

 

Good point, and I suppose I could randomize my own if I took the time to learn how. TBH, I've never been a fan of 3rd party missions, but this is just a preference.

Edited July 26, 2010 by RedTiger

[winz]

Yeah, but last time I checked, I'm not. I'm pressing "W" on a keyboard and moving around a mouse.

 

The point is you are simply getting rid of one unrealistic thing for another. They are sacrificing the floating camera for the feeling of mass and the accompanying momentum, yet they don't take into account the fact that I'm still using a mouse and keyboard. Now I've got "realistic" momentum but 4 digital buttons and a mouse to move it around with. That opens an entirely new set of "unrealisms".

it's far from perfect, but it's a hell better than in Ofp and arma. It gets complicated in close quarters as the collision detection is far from perfect and the animations too stiff. But the momentum has to be there, as planing your movement should be integral part of your field operation. The last thing I wanna see is soldiers changing direction or, god forbid, bunny hoping around, because they have no mass. You cannot change direction in split second irl, despite what fps shooters try to teach us.

 

I shouldn't perceive *any* delay. My brain tells my legs to move and it's instantaneous.

No it's not. I never was in an army, but got some hiking experience, and with good load your movement is anything but instantaneous, it's in fact pretty damn slow :) And after few hours march it gets even worse.

 

Sorry, that's incorrect. Please explain.

 

Here's my example; I want to start the mission with my single playable soldier in an AI controlled helicopter carry me to an insertion point and drop me off.

1)Something such complicated is not achievable in lockon - you cannot load and unload infantry from trasport helicopter. You cannot even stop a unit, once it's activated, it's activated for good.

2)You don't have to touch scritps, you just have to use simple commands like fly in height, moveincargo. And afaik, you don't have to script your way out, just use 'unload transport' waypoint.

 

I then have to put down an invisible landing pad, even when landing on a paved tarmac or runway (?)

The H is there to tell the a.i. 'look this is a safe spot to land', as terrain analyze is prety cpu heavy and with varying results (the heli will try to land even without the H, but this can end in a disaster). This is pretty efficient way to be able to force the heli to land anywhere on map, something you cannot do in lockon.

[BKLronin]

What I really found disturbing besides the Handling and the quickmenuystem was that disturbing warping of all vehicles in the game. That ruins the hole atmosphere and I ´ve never seen something extreme in any other game. Nothing changed there through all the patches.

 

The network code really needs an overhaul at leat for vehicles.

[RedTiger]

it's far from perfect, but it's a hell better than in Ofp and arma. It gets complicated in close quarters as the collision detection is far from perfect and the animations too stiff. But the momentum has to be there, as planing your movement should be integral part of your field operation. The last thing I wanna see is soldiers changing direction or, god forbid, bunny hoping around, because they have no mass. You cannot change direction in split second irl, despite what fps shooters try to teach us.

 

 

No it's not. I never was in an army, but got some hiking experience, and with good load your movement is anything but instantaneous, it's in fact pretty damn slow :) And after few hours march it gets even worse.

 

We're going to have to agree to disagree here. I agree, you do NOT want Super Mario Bros in ArmA. ;) You want there to be a realistic amount of lag between changing directions. But at the cost of the game feeling terrible? (IMO) I'd just rather not have it if the implementation is actually a detraction.

 

 

1)Something such complicated is not achievable in lockon - you cannot load and unload infantry from trasport helicopter. You cannot even stop a unit, once it's activated, it's activated for good.

2)You don't have to touch scritps, you just have to use simple commands like fly in height, moveincargo. And afaik, you don't have to script your way out, just use 'unload transport' waypoint.

 

Again, gonna have to agree to disagree. Please, developers, give me a break. Give me the Fisher Price version of the mission editor, I don't care if even if you wanna call it that. What I described could be done with a GUI.

 

Also, I consider the "fly in height" command a "script". Is it hard to do? No. It actually will auto complete for you. I'm just not sure why it has to be there for such a basic thing. I'm not asking for anything fancy like a scripted engine failure or pilot getting killed.

 

The H is there to tell the a.i. 'look this is a safe spot to land', as terrain analyze is prety cpu heavy and with varying results (the heli will try to land even without the H, but this can end in a disaster). This is pretty efficient way to be able to force the heli to land anywhere on map, something you cannot do in lockon.

 

Ok, you're right about this, I'll give you that. This makes sense.

Edited July 26, 2010 by RedTiger

[digital_steve]

I'm confused

You want more realism... except for the soldier movement.

So everything else needs to be real, but you want to be able to move like a F1 race car?

 

Seriously... body armour + webbing + pack + ammo + weapon system = a lot of weight to move effectively. No one wearing that is going to run like asafa powell.

 

Remember, it's still a sim/game. For an ultra realistic experience you should consider joining your local defence forces.

[Grimes]

I kinda like the heavy feel of your character movement in ARMA. Its a welcome change to my gaming habits. I couldn't tell ya how many times I've turned around in less than a split second in games like TF2 to react to something. You really gotta anticipate and plan your movements with ARMA. The only issues with movement I have with the game is being indoors or behind cover. There really are times where the "attach to cover" features of Gears of War was present in ARMA. Simply because if you need to get to cover you would "know" how much you need to crouch or how best to position you body behind it. Having standup, crouch, and prone is quite limiting for cover. With interiors its difficult to gauge if your gun with prevent you from turning around while in a compact hallway. Its again another situation where you would either hold the gun different/physically modify it to make it smaller or to turn around you "know" to lower the gun and raise it again if you didn't have the physical space to move it. With the vast majority of games out there featuring a collision mesh thats basically a set cube around each player, its difficult to think of your gun as an extension of your characters mesh.

 

I agree with Red Tiger that the mission editor could be a little more straight forward. But in terms of placing units and giving waypoints, ARMA is a million times better than Lockon. Mostly because the AI is quite abit more intelligent and dynamic. They still do stupid things... without the "H" anywhere to be found I saw a Chinook try to land in a courtyard that a littlebird would have trouble with. But hey, without any pre-defined waypoints the AI pilot did take off and make it to my squad without any problems, they just got their ass stuck between a couple of buildings a few meters above the ground :D

 

4. To me, the player-controllable vehicles break my immersion and detract from the infantry portions. Private Ryan, the infantrymen, can climb into an F-35, huh? I can forgive this in something that is obviously a game like BC2, but in ArmA, it leaves me scratching my head. I would rather them put more work into making the infantry control work better and be more dynamic than figuring out a new fighter jet for my USMC sniper to fly.

 

Yeah, I hate that too. Part of that is the domination gamemode and the effect games like Battlefield have had on the player base. Not everyone wants to play the game RPG style, although that is when I enjoy the game the most. Some of it you can't get around, but in a heavy teamwork environment its inexcusable. Is it so bad if no pilot slot exists and someone fills that role the entire time even if they are a normal infantryman? The thing that bothers me the most is generally how Domination is played. Rarely do you see it done as a squad or a team. Everyone just fills up on ammo, they usually have a 2nd main rifle in their "virtual backpack" and they have a rocket launcher of some kind. The established "roles" in it are a joke. As an engineer you can steal a T-55 tank via damaging it so the crew gets out, do a field repair on it, then turn it on their former masters, and depending on the server settings a Blackhawk can fly in and chopper lift the tank to a new location.

Edited July 27, 2010 by Grimes

[RedTiger]

I'm confused

You want more realism... except for the soldier movement.

So everything else needs to be real, but you want to be able to move like a F1 race car?

 

Seriously... body armour + webbing + pack + ammo + weapon system = a lot of weight to move effectively. No one wearing that is going to run like asafa powell.

 

Remember, it's still a sim/game. For an ultra realistic experience you should consider joining your local defence forces.

 

Read my post. I said the reaction time on the controls are sluggish. I said nothing about how fast you move.

 

A lot of this is moot. I zeroed out mouse smoothing in the OA demo and much of these problems went away. I'll have to figure out a way to do this in ArmA II demo since it isn't in the menu.

 

I think I'm going to cancel a pre-order of another game and buy this instead since Steam has it for $50 for both. It's probably worth having around no matter my hang ups about it.

Edited July 27, 2010 by RedTiger

[digital_steve]

1. The control of your playable soldier is sluggish, just like the original ArmA and OFP. Everything feels like it has a ramp-up time, or like I'm controlling him with strings. I'm not sure why an "arcade" shooter like MW2 can get this right but these realistic ones cannot.

 

Just a preference here, but why can't we get a game/sim with this much realism on a smaller scale? Something like the original Ghost Recon, for example? I'd much rather leave the large scale warfare in a war game and have something like ArmA really nail the infantry portion down to perfection. It can be a big sandbox world, but one where the action is much more covert and smaller scale..

 

Read my post. I said the reaction time on the controls are sluggish. I said nothing about how fast you move.

 

A lot of this is moot. I zeroed out mouse smoothing in OA and much of these problems went away. I'll have to figure out a way to do this in ArmA II since it isn't in the menu.

 

From the first quote, it *seemed* like you were talking mostly about movement and that Modern Warfare 2 had much more realistic movement (:doh:).

Apologies if this wasn't the case.

In any case, the 'lag' on the movement in Arma2 is to try and convey a sense of proper movement (i dunno about you, but i'd get tired if i was sprinting around everywhere with weapons and what-not a la MW2).

Yanno? Slower, tactical etc etc.

 

Anyway, glad your mouse issue got sorted!

[104th_Crunch]

Just so there is no confusion

 

Game Options

Aiming Dead Zone - Your weapon cursor floats in a certain zone in the

middle of the screen. Change the size of this zone, or completely disable this

behavior by scrolling the slider all the way to the left.

[coolts]

hmmm. The lag is annoying though. Like a 'wading through custard' simulator sometimes. I know its touted as a realsm thing, but it only seems to end up simulating someone with slow reactions and ten thumbs. Someone who would get shot.

 

ARMA II - Grandad Simulator :smilewink:

 

I would prefer to be able to toggle the inertia. Unless its an engine limitation which my suspicious mind points towards.

Edited July 27, 2010 by coolts

[RedTiger]

hmmm. The lag is annoying though. Like a 'wading through custard' simulator sometimes. I know its touted as a realsm thing, but it only seems to end up simulating someone with slow reactions and ten thumbs. Someone who would get shot.

 

ARMA II - Grandad Simulator :smilewink:

 

I would prefer to be able to toggle the inertia. Unless its an engine limitation which my suspicious mind points towards.

 

This is the essence of my argument. The is the *exact* same argument people had about the old GLOC model in LockOn. People would say that it forced you to think about what you were doing and it promoted realistic flying. It also botched up the entire dogfight experience. While the model was sound, the curve was on the wrong part of the graph so that the effect would begin too early. We got a pencil-necked weakling vs. a healthy pilot with experianced, prepared for the onset of Gs and doing AGSM.

 

So...myself and many others set it to "reduced". We traded one unrealism for another. But our unrealism was more plausible.

 

Long story short: eveyone else screams "realism!" and I scream "doesn't matter one little bit if the game/sim plays like poo!" The road to hell is paved with good intentions. ;) If we're going to shoehorn in the sense of inertia into WASD and a mouse at the expense of play control and call it "realism", we should probably simulate sweaty palms and a button I have to hold down to make sure my solider grips the rifle properly. Or maybe an "SCRATCH THE ITCH" button the I'm forced to press at random intervals.

 

Anyway -- moot. I can set it up so that I get 1:1 movement between my solider and my mouse. I just don't think some understand what I was getting at.

Edited July 27, 2010 by RedTiger

[RedTiger]

Just so there is no confusion

 

Game Options

Aiming Dead Zone - Your weapon cursor floats in a certain zone in the

middle of the screen. Change the size of this zone, or completely disable this

behavior by scrolling the slider all the way to the left.

 

Thanks Crunch. Unfortunately, the demo doesn't have any such option. On ArmA II I get sensitivity for X and Y axis and that's it. On OA I get the same plus one additional for mouse smoothing.

 

If I'm looking in the wrong place, please let me know.

[coolts]

I know what you mean. The floating cursor combined with the, "drank ten pints the night before", inertia makes pinpoint control decidedly dicey.

I would much prefer the option to turn it off. It’s not exactly like asking for jump pads or anything. Reaction times are critical in this game where one shot kills. Lurching about like Frankenstein’s monster on roller-skates is not a survival technique IMO.

Still love ARMAII though. Bless it.

[RedTiger]

I know what you mean. The floating cursor combined with the, "drank ten pints the night before", inertia makes pinpoint control decidedly dicey.

I would much prefer the option to turn it off. It’s not exactly like asking for jump pads or anything. Reaction times are critical in this game where one shot kills. Lurching about like Frankenstein’s monster on roller-skates is not a survival technique IMO.

Still love ARMAII though. Bless it.

 

We can accurately represent a weapon system or an aircraft because we have hard, quantifiable data. As soon as you start trying to simulate the human element, it becomes subjective and I start to question it. As soon as the human element starts to intefere with the game play, I lose interest because it is subjective. There are probably no dog house charts for waist swiviling or arm flexing under a given load of body armor.

 

The only exception I make is for moral, like you might see in a war game, and that's only because it can be succesfully randomized and quantified in terms of troop quality and condition.

 

That's the last I'm going to say about it, I think I got my point across.

Edited July 27, 2010 by RedTiger

[digital_steve]

lol!

Floating cursors and drunken-moving soldiers!

 

For an experiment, grab a backpack and pack it with a wad of stuff and then grab yourself a broom handle.

Now go find a slight hill and run up it and when you get to the top, put the broomstick to your shoulder like a rifle and see if you can hold it on a man-sized target about 100metres in the distance.

 

Shooting accurately over a distance isn't easy, when you add exercise, increased heart beat and breath plus the weight of gear carried then you can appreciate that it's quite impressive that bullets even land near a target. That's why infantry don't run around with one-shot rifles... you need rounds downrange.

 

If you're looking for this quick action, pinpoint accuracy, one-shot head-shot kills then stick with MW2; that's what that game is designed for!

This game is designed to get in a good firing position with your team and then put rounds downrange, preferably when laying down.

 

I understand it can be frustrating if you're looking for something in the game that isn't there and you think it should be; God knows i've done that plenty of times with plenty of games... but i'm pretty confident that most Arma players would say that the movement and related POI shift is fine as it is.

[RedTiger]

If you're responding to me, I don't think you're understanding my point. You're bringing up specifics that I didn't get into. Please read my posts, then read them again for comprehension. ;)

Edited July 28, 2010 by RedTiger

[digital_steve]

Considering i was referencing comments from a post other than yours, i wouldn't get too huffy.

Mind you, it applies to you equally, so get huffy if you like.

I got what you were saying from your first post, the point is still valid; you're not going to get a 'run and gun' game from the Arma series. Soz.

[winz]

One advice for all that would like more instantenious movement - grap yourself few friends and buy yourself a paintball session. You would soon realize that the picture portraited by arcade fps is plain wrong. You have to plan your movemenet, you cannot magicali stop a run back the same speed.

And this is without body armor, backpack.....

[element1108]

Your legs will be feeling it the next day as well! ;)