Jump to content
Ghost Recon.net Forums

Recommended Posts

@ Krise

Just to give you an answer to your queries.

1. There is alread soul-switching in Arma and will be in Arma2.

2. Squad commands seem to be more comprehensive then GR although I havent tested them a lot to see how well they work.

3. Definite fire limitations and on the weapons - v well done in my opinion. Only problem was the weapons just didnt have the right 'feel' as they did in say GRAW - this has been addressed and improved for Arma2.

4. Draw distance- nuff said - its amazing in Arma.

5. Insertions are brilliant - just pick the vehicle and start it from whereever you like - land, sea or air - live insertions and extracts every time.

6. I will never allow vehicles to become the focus of my work - I would allow one chopper pilot and chopper, possible humvee use depending on the mission, and the use of certain vehicles if specified for a mission.

The BIGGEST downside of Arma was the ability of AI to see through trees and grass while the player could see nothing - not a fair fight at all AND the poor performance of the AI in CQB and midrange combat. I know the tree/cover issue has definitely been resolved, and understand the AI behaviour has also be rebuilt and is much more pwerful and intelligent.

I am very optimistic about ARMA2 and is the reason why Im working hard to become a mission builder to produce GR specific material.

Well, get on with it then! ;)

Yeah, I'm getting good vibes about ArmA2 too. Everything I've read points in the right direction (from my GR-fan single player perspective). I guess we'll have to see if it's moved far enough in the right direction when the game comes out.

Respectfully

krise madsen

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I am very optimistic about ARMA2 and is the reason why Im working hard to become a mission builder to produce GR specific material.

See you @ Class ;)

The editor is not super slick but it does the job, not as pretty as FC2 (Farcry2) but the setup of missions flows well, choice of vehicles, men, weapons & support are all easily definable with triggers on route and triggers when conditions are met.

I liked ARMA I editor for missions .

Link to post
Share on other sites

well today i spent testing airstrikes and playing about with grass levels - hopefull alot if not all of Arma will be cross compatible.

also messed with the AnimationsViewer - v handy tool

and used ArmaEdit to build various files...all great stuff and such a good community.

added the aircraft carrier Nimitz to the map too to use as a launchpad for airstrikes.

and finally, learnt how to add custom sounds to the game - i dloaded a couple of cracking sound files to use well into the future and have started a soundpack folder to use for modding.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck LS. We have a handful of BOTA guys that have been playing ArmA alot lately and all of us are looking forward to ArmA 2. We have a 10 slot dedicated server that is located in Dallas through Art of War Central. We usually run Evolution Blue/Red on it, but I could easily add any mission/mod to it if you need some testing done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanx mate appreciate the offer.

at this stage, it will be a while b4 i release any if anyting for Arma - its more of a learning process and arma2 might be out by then - but thats when ill really get cracking and get some good coop going.

its actually very easy to create missions but i want to make all the GR diehard skeptics true believers in Arma2.

would be nice to see them all come across finally.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We tried the move to VBS when I was in Red Sector mate, the biggest problem is the size of the maps, GR was all nice small maps and you knew where you were going, once you start making missions that can take a couple of hours to do, and its not hard once you start playing around in the editor, thats where you'll put some folks off.

Addons too, while nice, can be a right pain in the bum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The free-range nature of ArmA (and hopefully ArmA2) is one of its main selling points; you can approach that obj from any direction or scape that flank as narrow or as wide as you like, depending on or regardless of the circumstances.

And while it's true that knowing a smaller map by rote (such as those under the GR moniker) or a map having just a few avenues of approach can/does cut down on the time required to complete the level, at the same time it limits your gameplay options -and its replay value.

To me that would just be importing one titles shortcomings into another title...sort of like a global ban on vehicle use. :shifty:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having vehicles in the game is quite nice, the Landrovers with mounted machine guns are really handy for getting around, especially for knocking out a couple of base type missions.

Helicopter insertions/extractions add to the atmosphere and calling in a helicopter gunship to take out enemy armour before you move in is always a nice backup.

Link to post
Share on other sites

as long as the scope of the mission is limited i cant see people being put off.

i agree that when missions start to push out to over 1 hour to complete then a lot of ppl dont have the time and thats why I aim to create missions that will only take 4-10 ppl an hour max to complete.

as i mentioned b4 re: vehicles, they will be there but limited in use - as infil/exfil or airstrikes essentially.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ArmA has a genuine coop and MP experience and I believe a 4-12 player coop, even MP is very fun. I have the GR sounds in my Custom Audio Sound pack. This gives you the ability to communicate with other players and use commands like

-In Position

-Enemy Down - "Kill Confirmed"

-Roger

...and others

I use these everytime I play to communicate. Here is a link to get those sounds and others.

http://shadowcompanyelite.com/forum/index....amp;showfile=31

Some folks have created a Ghost Recon coop map (search on armaholic maps for it), but I don't think it did well (could have been the scripter or overall objectives - not sure).

I am stuck on the WARFARE gameplay which can be played either via Coop (with the great work of doomguy and his WACO cooperative Warfare) or Player vs Player. For anyone who doesn't understand WARFARE you start with supply points and each soldier has money. The objective is to destroy the enemy Headquarters.

I highly suggest supplimenting WARFARE with the latest Expansion mod to come out for ArmA which is the A.C.E. Mod. You get to carry bandages, epinephine, morphine, etc. You can launch a UAV in the sky and using your laptop get a clear picture of enemy down below which can help you coordinate tactics, you can release your parachute at an altitude of your choice, and more. I am scripting the WACO map to have custom loadouts for various classes (Frontlines Soldiers, SF Recon Soldiers, and more) and am going to eventually place this in a custom island for some nice games. Light - I think you know how to reach me bro. :D

http://arma.shadowcompanyelite.com

To find our ArmA server just search the lobby for Shadow Company Elite. We are mostly running the A.C.E. - Advanced Combat Environment game so you would need it and be running it only to access the server. Good stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We tried the move to VBS when I was in Red Sector mate, the biggest problem is the size of the maps, GR was all nice small maps and you knew where you were going, once you start making missions that can take a couple of hours to do, and its not hard once you start playing around in the editor, thats where you'll put some folks off.

Addons too, while nice, can be a right pain in the bum.

I think we can have a big map and not have the player get lost. Not sure exactly how ArmA works yet (buying it soon), but I sure there is some type of map/GPS system in place. So objectives will be marked on the map, or it could just say head east for 3 clicks, etc.

One thing that would need to be taken into consideration is pacing. So don't make the player walk for 10 minutes to the target without seeing a single enemy patrol or something.

If there is a long way to go then maybe the player could steal a jeep or something to get there quicker. Although, I know you don't want vehicles LS, it does keep the action flowing somewhat, and it could be there as only an option, rather than making players take the vehicle.

On a site note: anyone know where I can get a copy of ArmA in Australia (specifically Ballarat).

Link to post
Share on other sites

as I said before, the objectives will be in close proximity to eachother, and the insertion will be close too those.

if the scripter gets it right then the missions should suit GR player and be no more then 1 hour long.

ive already had heaps of ideas - and will start plotting them on the editor and transfer them to Arma2.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if the scripter gets it right then the missions should suit GR player and be no more then 1 hour long.

I have a cool rope insertion script for arma, but im not sure how well it will go for arma II, You can basically press a trigger for insertions and maybe extractions...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a great idea but I'm wondering how exactly the end result would more closely reflect GR.

I guess the first order business would be to address the grand scale of ArmA/ArmA 2 (i.e. reducing the scale) and constrain vehicle/aircraft usage...a lot. And maybe cut back on some of the custom toys like heavy support strikes...that's if you're really trying to get the GR feel.

Unless Arma 2 improves upon CQB (from ArmA), I think the whole CQB concept (or lack thereof) will be the biggest thorn in the project. IMHO, it just doesn't exist in ArmA. In Arma, simply walking through buildings can be an exercise in aggravation. And I think lack of scripted CQB encounters is deliberate - I just don't think the AI in ArmA is up to that task. Hopefully, that will change in ArmA 2. Even player control in Arma is a bit clunky for CQB though I'm sure that was to reflect "realism".

If you told me I was going to play a infantry-only, small-squad based combat game that takes place in the jungle and that I could choose playing either in GR or ArmA. Hands down, GR would be the better choice.

I'm guessing it will take some serious cherry-picking of functionality to get ArmA 2 to feel like GR. That's based on the fact that ArmA feels absolutely nothing like GR. The upside might be that in ArmA (and hopefully ArmA 2),if you can imagine it, you can probably make it...as witnessed in the "mega-missions" Evolution and Domination and conversions like ACE and XAM and mods like Kronsky's Urban Patrol Script.

I think this whole project will boil down to the quality of AI behavior in ArmA 2 and whether they're up to the task of CQB. If the OPFOR is a fearsome, cunning foe at close range, maybe everything can be tweaked or limited to resemble a tight, small-squad based game. If not, we'll still be dealing with an medium-to-long range open-field style of engagement game that sort of depends on a lot of "vehicle presense".

Link to post
Share on other sites

^

Good points. :thumbsup:

I'm not about to try to compare the two titles as they are wholely different in their approach and style but was CQB and AI interaction really significantly better in GR as opposed to ArmA? I seem to recall a few stock levels and more than a few 3rd-party missions where either the size of the environment (or location) , collision issues, or scripting limitations led to some frustrating situations. Locating some UN officers in need of rescue in a second floor board room only to have them get stuck (repeatedly) between the door entrance and a chair prop, leaving you unable to advance to the next trigger, recently comes to mind.

It all comes down to maneuver room, and that equals scale, and BIS has that market cornered. With the reported Dual Core optimisation/requirement, improvements to the AI, and the higher poly count of the models lets just hope that they have also increased the amount of elbow room (for player and AI alike) in those doorways, stairwells, and rooms to boot, as they are well aware of these close quarter bottlenecks.

____

It is just now beginning to dawn on me that I was either misinterperting or reading too much into the GR style of the OP.

My bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its nice to have a bit of ACDC playing on the chopper when you're going in too mate. Its traditional ;)

ahaaa,, Then the XAM mod is right for you for arma, in a blackhawk you have a radio addon the songs include "Little Richard - LONG TALL SALLY", the song from the insertion scene from PREDATOR.. Now that's amazing.. :whistle:

Link to post
Share on other sites
was CQB and AI interaction really significantly better in GR as opposed to ArmA?
That's a good question but I think I have to say "yes" to the CQB part. The CQB in GR is similar to typical shooter games...i.e. you can indeed have gunfights inside buildings, structures, caves (like the first mission in GR), etc. Yes, things got "smoother" with each generation of the Tom Clancy games but there didn't seem to be any problem with having the fight "indoors" in GR.

In ArmA, everytime the enemy gets close, you can tell they're one sandwich short of a picnic basket. Sometimes they run right by you and then slowly pivot toward you. Often, in a surprise encounter at point blank range, the enemy AI, being programmed to do so, will go prone before firing at me at a range of two feet! It's like the devs never thought there would be engagments closer than 100m. I recently went to capture the "enemy officer" in Evolution and he was surrounded by enemies. I was able to jack them all up at about 15 feet away as well as any that came running - just by myself. And oddly, I knew it wasn't going to be a problem.

Admittedly, I'm running ArmA on default AI skill/accuracy settings. Upping those might improve their abilities but it probably won't cut back on stupid behavior.

Still, I think it's a great idea and if there ever was a game that could be modded to reflect a different combat game, I think the Arma series is it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
was CQB and AI interaction really significantly better in GR as opposed to ArmA?

Yes, but entirely unrealistic in it's own way. CQC in stock GR is totally hit and miss as far as whether you live or die. You will NOT enter and clear a room using realistic movement. You will die. The guy behind you will die. The guy behind him will die.

You will be forced to abandon real world tactics in favor of video game tactics (you know, the little peak-a-boo shots from the doorway, instead of moving in and clearing the damned room like men, lol)

In order to make the game "challenging", the A.I. have superhuman reflexes and accuracy. This is a painful shortcoming at close range.

The ONLY thing I like about moving in close quarters in GR is the A.I. squad moves with you pretty darn well. It is at least acceptable, unlike Arma which is clearly meant for more ranged combat.

The free-range nature of ArmA (and hopefully ArmA2) is one of its main selling points; you can approach that obj from any direction or scape that flank as narrow or as wide as you like, depending on or regardless of the circumstances.

And while it's true that knowing a smaller map by rote (such as those under the GR moniker) or a map having just a few avenues of approach can/does cut down on the time required to complete the level, at the same time it limits your gameplay options -and its replay value.

To me that would just be importing one titles shortcomings into another title...sort of like a global ban on vehicle use. :shifty:

Totally agree. I was watching some of the GR sniper tourney replays, and they did an amazing job, but I'm sad to say I saw very few realistic tactics, and saw mostly what I call video game tactics, made all too possible by the ability to move along the map border to avoid contact, as well as the limited size of the maps, which allow you to memorize your surroundings and ignore areas "known" to be void of theats.

I realize the competive nature of the tournament contributed to that style too, but it just wouldn't be possible in Arma, and that's a huge plus. I don't play just for the big win, I play for the realistic experience, win or lose.

Edited by doubletap
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 months later...

I remember I started a thread about this ages ago but I cant find it now?

Anyone?

Either way, would be good to get a team together who can start producing some Arma2 missions in the style of GR.

Real insertions this time round but.....not travelling 10 km to hotzone

Missions no more then 1 hour long

Limited use of vehicles - helis, trucks, jeeps etc

Multiple objectives which can be completed in any order

Max - say 12 players sounds reasonable

Complete kit loadouts but restricted by the type of specialist you choose to be

And that's about it.

Except I would like to do a Tourney Coop Campaign to promote this style of play.

Thing is I dont mind Domination for a while and some of the others but its never ending and the chance to complete mission and feel satisfied is virtually impossible unless you play all day.

Anyone interested in working on this?

[Merged with the original thread]

Edited by Pave Low
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...