View Full Version : ARMA series - Great Soldier Sim, not so great Tactical Shooter ?
vini_lessa
May 21 2012, 21:49
Hello there boys and girls,
Im on that period of the year (again) when I must play a lot of tactical shooters. Thus Ive been playing Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon, GRAW, SWAT, Full Spectrum Warrior, Hidden & Dangerous, etc. for the last weeks. And I noticed something interesting that I would like to share, and hear your opinions about.
See, all the games cited have, in their single-player modes, have very efficient squad-based tactical functionalities - you issue orders through a simple and intuitive interface and your teammates (in general) execute it quickly and precisely. In ArmA/OFP:CWC, though, the tactical aspect always felt very unreliable to me: the interface is convoluted, making the issuing of orders and management/coordination of your soldiers/fireteams very awkward and slow ("weapons hold, go to house, turn north, lay low, weapons free"). And the teammates behave erraticaly at best - I remember simple commands like suppressive fire, flank, take cover, etc. being executed poorly, with teammates sometimes taking too long to follow the order, and other times simply doing anything at all (eg: one issue I remember is the impossibility to make a quick retreat in ARMA2 because your teammates would adopt a slow "bouncing-dance" advancing if there are enemies around; ). So the overall feel is that, despite being an unsurpassed experience in the sense of "being there" in the skin of a real soldier in a real war, the series always had a somewhat inconsistent and unreliable tactical aspect.
This always made me consider it a great soldier sim, but a not so great tactical shooter, if that makes any sense.
What are your opinions on it ?
Jakerod
May 22 2012, 01:08
I only really remember SWAT 4 because that is the one that I have played recently. I feel that ArmA gives you better overall control of units with the added "bonus" of uncertainty. Like in Rainbow Six (the original that I played anyway) you could only move guys in teams before the mission and you had to plan it out and execute and even then the AI wouldn't always use the best clearing tactics. Full Spectrum Warrior seemed quite limited to me. Ghost Recon I feel was similar to Rainbow Six but you could order them around in real time.
SWAT 4 the AI is still unreliable. I've had men die or do other stupid things a number of times when it should've been easy for them (ex. flashbanging the SWAT team instead of the enemy). I think certain tactical aspects of ArmA could be better but I don't think I would trade it for another game's.
Mr Burns
May 22 2012, 01:20
Remember all the games mentioned and still like playing them.
Yet i don´t see any of it coming to arma, mainly because of borderline stupid AI which you´ll never want to have on your own side/team.
Coop is (borderline) fine, but depending on "2 - cannot get there!" for a full fledged SP thing that does´nt feel anything near as good as OFP did, i´ll pass.
Just saying it´s not an issue with overlays, gui's or planning tools - rather than the gameplay mechanics that happen in execution.
Max Power
May 22 2012, 01:43
I think they always billed it as a combat sim. I'm not exactly sure what tactical shooter means, but if it means a lot of CQC functionality, then the answer is self evident. ArmA's action still exists on a tactical scale, though.
InstaGoat
May 22 2012, 10:09
Arma is about open spaces. The other games are almost exlusively about CQC. They excel there, while Arma excels at the open spaces. It´s still tactical. And many people would like it to be a proper soldier sim down to the nuts and bolts, but thankfully it isn´t quite there yet.
CameronMcDonald
May 22 2012, 10:40
There are a lot of facets of warfare that the ArmA series does much better than all those games listed. Sadly, CQB isn't one of them.
Those games you mentioned all have scripted AI. Meaning they follow certain scripts and use predefined pathways to get where they going. It may look tactical but that's because it has all been planned out with the developement of those games. There's no actual real AI. Arma's AI is unscripted and therefore a bit unpredictable but is in a sense much more tactical than those games mentioned as they use real tactics to perform the orders you give them. It's unpredictability however can cause some frustration but i found that when you divide them into small groups they tend to behave a bit better then when u use them as a hole squad.
Hans Ludwig
May 23 2012, 01:55
Arma's AI is unscripted and therefore a bit unpredictable...
If it's not scripted than what is it? Surely you aren't suggesting that it's real "AI" that BIS has in their game. I mean, if private and public universities with their millions in grants can't create AI, what makes you think BIS could? Hell, it took them 10 years to finally fix warping, but you want me to believe they have "AI" that's not "scripted"?
If it's not scripted than what is it? Surely you aren't suggesting that it's real "AI" that BIS has in their game.
In gaming world, "scripted" means "by mission script".
metalcraze
May 23 2012, 07:17
If it's not scripted than what is it? Surely you aren't suggesting that it's real "AI" that BIS has in their game. I mean, if private and public universities with their millions in grants can't create AI, what makes you think BIS could? Hell, it took them 10 years to finally fix warping, but you want me to believe they have "AI" that's not "scripted"?
10 years? It was broken in ArmA2 bro. Or at least I don't remember OFP having such issues.
There are a lot of facets of warfare that the ArmA series does much better than all those games listed. Sadly, CQB isn't one of them.
There were a lot of times when I shot a guy less than 5-15m away from me. Likewise I was shot by a guy less than 5-15m away from me.
If that's still not CQB to you then what is? Hugging the enemy?
I think the ArmA engine certainly gives you more control over your AI than the other games you mentioned.
The trick is finding the unpredictabilities (is that a real word?) and working with or around them.
There are alot of posts and tutorials on AI and mods which improve some aspects.
For example I use the zp_at fix mod and have it signed on our server as I hate the fact that the ai will use their longest range weapon to engage far enemies which is usually the AT launcher.
This of course waste that vital resource unecessarily.
Up to now it seems to work.
There are many other little tweaks around like this to customise the game to your requirements.
Dont think any other game has this expandability.
metalcraze
May 23 2012, 07:53
ZP_at fix needs more customization itself.
Since rockets being fired at infantry is something I began to notice in OA most of all I take it it was BIS trying to let takistani insurgents use RPGs against infantry (which is what insurgents in Asia/Africa do actually). The problem is that BIS made all sides act like that not just insurgents. And zipper's fix makes everyone not act like that.
I don't mind some BlackHawkDown-style RPG hell once in a while you know.
CameronMcDonald
May 23 2012, 09:16
There were a lot of times when I shot a guy less than 5-15m away from me. Likewise I was shot by a guy less than 5-15m away from me.
If that's still not CQB to you then what is?
I would suggest there is a lot more to CQB than simply expending rounds at 5 - 15m, and also that I said CQB is one of the facets that the ArmA series doesn't do well, not that it isn't done at all.
To further detail my statement, where the ArmA series falls down in CQB is in the movement of units in close terrain, particularly AI (who often refuse to participate at all where buildings are involved, whether mounted or on foot) and a lack of responsiveness/interruptibility in avatar animations which, at the ranges you describe, become fatal errors.
I think what OP means isn't CQB exclusive. In ArmA you can give single order at a time to units. In real life you could say "go to that hill, cover us till we apporach LZ, then regroup". I'm not sure how it's done in real military but I think it's better to tell short but a little bit more complex plan in cover before going to danger than issuing order while under fire (and you know the sequence of orders you'll issue before you advance).
In R6 (Rouge Spear) "wait till we do something complex that you stupid AI can't understand" would translate to "wait for code alpha/beta/gama/delta".
Yeah, something like this would be cool. Going to ArmA3 wishlist thread soon =).
EDIT: You can argue that I should wait till my units get to the hill before advancing but I may be changing my position with rest of my group in cover in the meantime (eg. being busy).
If it's not scripted than what is it? Surely you aren't suggesting that it's real "AI" that BIS has in their game. I mean, if private and public universities with their millions in grants can't create AI, what makes you think BIS could? Hell, it took them 10 years to finally fix warping, but you want me to believe they have "AI" that's not "scripted"?
"Scripted AI" means that NPC's use predefined pathways to move around and perform actions with triggers and scripts. For example a soldier is in a room, the predefined pathways tell him to move around the room and he will always use the same route. A trigger like the player opening the door to the room tells the NPC to move to a certain location like a desk and fire at the player from behind the desk. The NPC does not think for itself but is guided by scripts. The term Intelligence is therefore a bit misguided.
"Unscripted AI" does not use predefined pathways and scripts to move around and perform actions. In the same example an unscripted NPC roams the room choosing it's own path wich means it will not be at the exact same place everytime you play that mission. One time it might engage you from behind the desk, the other time it might be laying on the floor in a corner.
Now like you said it is not real AI but it does have a wide variaty of paramaters to choose from to determine what action to take, for instance when i order a fireteam to move through a village , they are not all going to use the exact same route to get through it. Also when you play that mission multiple times it can happen that the fireteam uses a different route each time you play it. With scripted AI they all would choose the same route everytime you play it.
Those games you mentioned all have scripted AI...
I still don't get why better (non-scripted) AI justifies lack of tactical functionalities.
http://lazarus.elte.hu/hun/digkonyv/szakdolg/katona/image/pc_game/074_02_rogue_spear_map.jpg
http://www.generation5.org/content/2001/images/rs02.jpg (146 kB)
It may look very old-school and little bit arcadish. Imagine you could make such plans on ArmA map. The plan is controlled by issuing codes.
maturin
May 23 2012, 17:34
It's two dimensional with a bunch of dots...
And from the looks of it, they can dedicate 80% of their resources to the AI.
Max Power
May 23 2012, 17:54
If ArmA had a preplanning phase like Rainbow six, I would not use it.
It's two dimensional with a bunch of dots...
And from the looks of it, they can dedicate 80% of their resources to the AI.
It's 13 years old game =). Rainbow 6: Rogue Spear it is. The thing is that you can make plan from orders. In ArmA you can do just issue single order at time. Here's example of planned first mission: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EB_cqUzM1eg (Alpha go is issued alpha code). IMO it could really benefit ArmA. Consider village sweep vanilla single mission (the one in Takistan with NV and lasers). Currently everything is setup by mission makers (eg. landing, two teams, ...). It would be more fun if you could plan it by yourself (eg. choose LZ, create teams, equipment, plan, ...). Or consider big attack on some town with several tanks, helis, ... much more fun coming up with good attack plan (including extraction of Spetnaz from Hind =)). Of course it's possible to do it in editor to some degree, but in-game planning would be better.
If ArmA had a preplanning phase like Rainbow six, I would not use it.
Not pre-planning. Just planning in real-time.
The problem with Rainbow Six's planning is that you can't change it mid-operation. The planning phase is basically scripting the AI teammates to do exactly what is says on the map, minus the autonomous shooting.
Max Power
May 23 2012, 18:09
I would not enjoy a map with fake lines and crap or the ability to somehow magically share my on-the-fly map plan with my fireteams through remote telepathy.
The problem with Rainbow Six's planning is that you can't change it mid-operation. The planning phase is basically scripting the AI teammates to do exactly what is says on the map, minus the autonomous shooting.
Yeah exactly. It should be realtime. You probably missed my last post.
I would not enjoy a map with fake lines and crap or the ability to somehow magically share my on-the-fly map plan with my fireteams through remote telepathy.
Well, when you plan you may draw on the map. Sharing lines could be done by contacting teams and telling them the plan. Or maybe there is some other way to stack orders (tell more complex orders like in real life).
Max Power
May 23 2012, 18:37
Well, there's a way to stack waypoints in high command.
Well, there's a way to stack waypoints in high command.
Hmm, ok... I should try high command first =)
SWAT 4 had a really good and intuitive dynamic squad control system. Raven Shield aswell. Would be a dream to tell to a squad to clean a building and so.
Current A2 system isn´t good at this point.
Max Power
May 23 2012, 19:03
Hmm, ok... I should try high command first =)
Well, it's for the RTS type game. You can stack waypoints for whole units, not sub unit fireteams like you're talking about.
SWAT 4 had a really good and intuitive dynamic squad control system. Raven Shield aswell. Would be a dream to tell to a squad to clean a building and so.
Current A2 system isn´t good at this point.
I didn't like RS as much as I liked SWAT. SWAT was a really tight game and I didnt' feel like I needed to be into tactical pre planning in order to play it. There was still a certain exploration element to it which I found quite nice.
You definitely do lack the tactical option to clear a building in a coordinated way. On the plus side, you do have the tactical option to knock the whole building down. Fortunately, there's no HRUs in ArmA 2.
froggyluv
May 23 2012, 21:03
CoC mod also has a more advanced waypoint system
http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m594/froggyluv/cex2s.jpg
http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m594/froggyluv/cex1s.jpg
metalcraze
May 23 2012, 21:16
Preplanning phase really doesn't fit the warfare in open areas.
In R6 you always have an idea where enemies are. It's really obvious to you judging from all the corridors where they may be.
ArmA is about conventional warfare mostly. How can you predict everything on a huge battlefield with so much free approach for both you and the enemy?
One of the things that I liked about CWC campaign is that a lot of missions never went according to plan. Which in retrospect is a point against R6 system being useful in a war simulation, unlike in a limited counter-terrorism operation.
CoC mod also has a more advanced on the waypoint system
There's no CoC mod for ArmA2 though.
SWAT 4 had a really good and intuitive dynamic squad control system.
That's how it seems to you because in SWAT4 all enemies are static turrets standing in one place all the time, waiting for you. It sure is easy to control your squad when nobody is trying to counter-attack you. I always wondered why an enemy facing a door with a gun and clearly hearing your team moving behind it, preparing to attack, even seeing the camera you insert below the door - never tries to blow your brains out by simply firing at a door.
They always wait until you'll storm in.
Really? Have you played SWAT 4? I don´t think so because that is pure BS dude.
Enemies not only have a random placement but also roam around and react to the player's actions.
But I really don´t want to enter in a discussion with you.
vini_lessa
May 24 2012, 05:13
ignore this post.
That's how it seems to you because in SWAT4 all enemies are static turrets standing in one place all the time, waiting for you. It sure is easy to control your squad when nobody is trying to counter-attack you. I always wondered why an enemy facing a door with a gun and clearly hearing your team moving behind it, preparing to attack, even seeing the camera you insert below the door - never tries to blow your brains out by simply firing at a door.
They always wait until you'll storm in.
They're not static turrets, I've had to deploy door wedges to stop enemies from attacking my team from behind.
vini_lessa
May 24 2012, 05:34
Hehe, lot of familiar faces around here! Metal from the codex and Smurf from adrenaline, how are you guys ? ;)
Well, on the SWAT4 matter I think I agree more with Smurf, even if Metal has a good point. In my experience (finished Swat3 and reached mission 11 on Swat4 ) the enemies are in fact randomly placed and they DO react when they hear or sense you by opening/checking out doors, shouting things out ("what da fuck!?", "Who is there?", etc), and even panicking. On the other hand, I think they could be a bit smarter sometimes and actually shoot doors or look (and shoot) through windowns, etc.
Anyway, I think SWAT4 is the appex of CQB tactics, surpassing anything else (R6s and H&Ds included) in interface functionality and teammates AI behaviour. What brings us to my original point:
The degree of "tactical tightness" seen in SWAT3/4 is light-years ahead of ARMA´s. And by "tactical tightness" here I mean teammates responsiveness, precision in executing maneuvers, and capacity to react to new situations - I can play the game just giving orders and watching my teammates do it, and they will do their jobs most of the time. While in (vanilla) ARMA2 not only the command interface seems awkward and labour-intensive to operate (resulting in high-risk operation if you encounter yourself in a hot firefight), but the tactical behaviour of your teammates is inconsistent at best. God knows how many times in the SP campaign I tried to execute simple commands like suppress, fix-and-flank, cover, retreat, etc. just to see the AI not responding in the way I intended, or taking too long to do so, or simply not doing anything at all ! Its really frustrating, and ends up with me doing almost everything by myself and simply giving the most basic of commands to my teammates (like changing stances and RoE).
Now, I see 2 valid counterarguments here:
1. The ARMA series environment is much more complex than the other games cited. Thus its much more difficult for the AI to asess all variables involved in a fast and flawless manner, resulting in a more unpredictable and inconsistent tactical behaviour (but a more realistic one, one could argue). Well, I totally agree with this. At the same though, this argument somehow helps to validate my original point: the game´s drive for realism and simulation made its tactical aspect feel "fragile" in comparison to the other less "simulationistic" games.
2. "Vini you moron, you didnt play the game recently did you? They released a lot of patches and mods that enchance your teammates AI tactical behaviour greatly!". If thats really the case, please tell me. Because I played the hell out of ARMA2 when it came out (stopped in last mission due to a game-breaking bug) and in that state the AI really felt fragile tactically - I remember there was a suppresive-fire command that simply didnt work; there was this issue where no fast retreat was possible because the AI entered a "bounce-dancing" [playing "carniça (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JcAO9C58QE)" for those from Brasil :icon_mrgreen: ] whenever a enemy was nearby; I remember setting up and coordinating fireteams was a chore; And I remember the impossibility to give and stack waypoints on the map for them (the fireteams) to follow. If those things were addressed somehow, just tell me and I will gladly reassess the situation (I will even reinstall my game here).
P.S:
The problem with Rainbow Six's planning is that you can't change it mid-operation [you should be able to do it in realtime]
Ghost Recon does this. You dont have a "planning phase" like in R6, but you can create on-the-fly "plans" in a very easy manner - just set (stackable) waypoints, fire-arcs, RoEs, etc. and give "go-codes". And the game is set in open-area environments like ARMA (its a military engagement game, not a counter-terrorism one). Just remember to use some gfx enhancing mods if you try it today, because its from 2001 (same year as CWC).
P.S²:
This "CoC" mod seems exactly the thing that could enhance the command interface. Its not for ARMA 2 ?
Max Power
May 24 2012, 05:38
The ARMA series environment is much more complex than the other games cited. Thus its much more difficult for the AI to asess all variables involved in a fast and flawless manner
Well, that and there are only so many hours in a day, and money in the world. There's a reason games have a limited scope. BI are not, as some might propose, infinite monkeys sitting at infinite typewriters.
Well, that and there are only so many hours in a day, and money in the world. There's a reason games have a limited scope. BI are not, as some might propose, infinite monkeys sitting at infinite typewriters.
Well, since OFP era we had mods that greatly enchace the AI in every aspect. Things like sharing informations, more efficient manouvers in overall, proper use of handgranades\GL\launchers, better use of buildings have been present in mods that have a limited scope to work with (engine wise) and somehow haven't been incorporated by the default game.
___
Well, Vini sums the "problem" very well: inconsistent AI (they are far from bad, but there is a huge room for improvment), no CQB habilities at all and problematic interface for control.
Hell, a high command like mode for your squad would make a huge difference.
Max Power
May 24 2012, 10:56
Well, since OFP era we had mods that greatly enchace the AI in every aspect. Things like sharing informations, more efficient manouvers in overall, proper use of handgranades\GL\launchers, better use of buildings have been present in mods that have a limited scope to work with (engine wise) and somehow haven't been incorporated by the default game.
___
Well, Vini sums the "problem" very well: inconsistent AI (they are far from bad, but there is a huge room for improvment), no CQB habilities at all and problematic interface for control.
Hell, a high command like mode for your squad would make a huge difference.
Probably because BI has certain design goals that are not compatible with hacking in external scripts? The AI does share information. In fact, it reports to an HQ about the things it sees and hears, and the HQ coordinates unit tasks. Since the OFP era I have not liked to play with AI enhancements despite trying many because I don't like them... although, maybe with A3's enemies with landwarrior type suits of armour some psychic AI script would make more sense.
Besides, taking external scripts would still require money, either to integrate, to hire the guy to rewrite it, or to buy it.
Well, that and there are only so many hours in a day, and money in the world. There's a reason games have a limited scope. BI are not, as some might propose, infinite monkeys sitting at infinite typewriters.
They should do it like Google (http://imagebin.org/213683)
post count whore mode off
Probably because BI has certain design goals that are not compatible with hacking in external scripts? The AI does share information. In fact, it reports to an HQ about the things it sees and hears, and the HQ coordinates unit tasks. Since the OFP era I have not liked to play with AI enhancements despite trying many because I don't like them... although, maybe with A3's enemies with landwarrior type suits of armour some psychic AI script would make more sense.
Besides, taking external scripts would still require money, either to integrate, to hire the guy to rewrite it, or to buy it.
You are aware that in most Ai mods they only share info (to actually help each other, not only to know whats going on) in a certain radius, right? Nothing about paranormal there.
And that is only one improvement, will you just ignore all the others and say that a full time employee can´t do what a random dude does in his free time?
And I forgot what I would write cause was in the RO2 topic.....
metalcraze
May 24 2012, 12:07
Enemies that are placed in their respective rooms will never go anywhere in SWAT4.
I've played through the half of it before getting bored and never did I see enemies trying to even counter attack.
Max Power
May 24 2012, 12:11
You are aware that in most Ai mods they only share info (to actually help each other, not only to know whats going on) in a certain radius, right? Nothing about paranormal there.
And that is only one improvement, will you just ignore all the others and say that a full time employee can´t do what a random dude does in his free time?
And I forgot what I would write cause was in the RO2 topic.....
What am I ignoring? I didn't realise we were in the middle of an argument where I need to pick up every example of every mod you make and write a counter answer. I answered you more generally. Let me rephrase it... or ARE you IGNORING it?
BI have a fixed budget, certain goals, a certain number of employees, and certain other factors. They decide what resources they have, what their goals are, and then they allocate 1 unit of resource per 1 unit of task until there are no resources left. Surely even you can't IGNORE that obviously they felt they had higher priorities to address than whatever it is you think is so easy that the community can just snap their fingers and make. Moreover, what about the computing resources? How much would it cost to make super macro, super micro AI, that can roam around a landscape and then come looking for you in houses like Sam Fischer? And if they did pour all of these resources into such a program, they need to replenish them with sales. How much would such a software cost? This brings us back to my infinite monkeys comment. This comment is about vast resources. If infinite monkeys on inifinite typewriters did eventually (instantaneously) create a simulator that was everything to everyone, you would probably need infinite monkeys printing money on infinite mints to pay for it.
What am I ignoring? I didn't realise we were in the middle of an argument where I need to pick up every example of every mod you make and write a counter answer. I answered you more generally. Let me rephrase it... or ARE you IGNORING it?
Nope. But you make it sound that this single feature would break everything and thou everything else should be dropped.
rest
Its not about making EVERTHING, but replicate what have been done in the pas ELEVEN years. Again, if someone can do those amazing stuff in his free time, why a full time employee, designated to do such thing that have acess to the actual source\core of the game, can´t ?
This protecionism towards BIS is making me sick. They are a great developer (probably the best all around), making a game that no one else dare to do, have a great post sale support but the lack of little things that have been done over and over again and only would improve the game just......ahh forget it. Made my point already and the topic went kind offtopic anyway.
Enemies that are placed in their respective rooms will never go anywhere in SWAT4.
I've played through the half of it before getting bored and never did I see enemies trying to even counter attack.
Well, we've must been playing different games. Actually, from our previous discussions and other post around the forum I think we live in diferent universes.
Enemies that are placed in their respective rooms will never go anywhere in SWAT4.
I've played through the half of it before getting bored and never did I see enemies trying to even counter attack.
So you're claiming something in a game that you've hardly played, I bet you didn't even play at Elite level with the more aggressive AI. I've played through SWAT 4 many times over and I've seen it happen often, it's the reason there are door wedges. Would an example from youtube change your mind?
Max Power
May 24 2012, 19:03
Nope. But you make it sound that this single feature would break everything and thou everything else should be dropped.
Its not about making EVERTHING, but replicate what have been done in the pas ELEVEN years. Again, if someone can do those amazing stuff in his free time, why a full time employee, designated to do such thing that have acess to the actual source\core of the game, can´t ?
You're obviously not getting it. Read the words and please attempt to understand them at least. You're hanging on to the wrong statements. I'm not making a logical argument based on infinity. I was just using that as a metaphor because I was exploring an idea creatively. In plain english: There is a hierarchy of goals, and based on that hierarchy, they chose what they wanted to allocate their resources to. Period. Obviously what they wanted to achieve was higher up their cost/benefit/pragmatic analysis- or even based on the potential of future development of a certain idea. It's not that they can't, it's that they choose other priorities.
edit: I don't see what's an inherent value statement in that explanans. Based on factors, they chose. Whether you like what they chose are not, it's up to you.
This protecionism towards BIS is making me sick. They are a great developer (probably the best all around), making a game that no one else dare to do, have a great post sale support but the lack of little things that have been done over and over again and only would improve the game just.......
What protectionism? I think you're not only not reading what I'm writing but actually putting stuff in there that isn't there. I guess, to come at it from another angle, just for fun, what would you cut from the game to integrate this AI?
Mr Burns
May 24 2012, 19:04
Happens all the time, AI in SWAT 4 qualify as sneaky bastards :D
OnlyRazor
May 24 2012, 19:48
Happens all the time, AI in SWAT 4 qualify as sneaky bastards :D
Also, they have an affinity for standing in doorways, usually right in front of grenades.
You're obviously not getting it.
I am. It is a question of time/money for each feature versus their priority in doing so. Nothing fancy about it, that's how everything in the business world work.
Mine is, if that have been done before (read: shouldn´t be that time\money expensive), it works (to a degree in some cases, but hey, we are still beta testing some stuff..), every iteration of the series spawn the same type of mods (means that people want it), why not make it default?
I am not discording from you, actually I agree, just adding a question to it; One that only the play callers at BIS can answer.
metalcraze
May 24 2012, 22:11
So you're claiming something in a game that you've hardly played, I bet you didn't even play at Elite level with the more aggressive AI. I've played through SWAT 4 many times over and I've seen it happen often, it's the reason there are door wedges. Would an example from youtube change your mind?
If completing 10 missions is not properly playing then what is a "properly played" then? Completing it several times?
Yes please give me a video example where AI in SWAT4 bothers to counter-attack or outmanouver the player.
maturin
May 24 2012, 23:37
SWAT 4 features armed criminals, not squads of enemy soldiers. The AI runs all the fuck over the place once the shooting stops, but this tends to be more individual evasion than tactical movement. And I can see this from a few LPs.
If completing 10 missions is not properly playing then what is a "properly played" then? Completing it several times?
Properly played? What on Earth are you talking about?
Yes please give me a video example where AI in SWAT4 bothers to counter-attack or outmanouver the player.
Nice try, but if you do actually want a video that refutes your statement that "Enemies that are placed in their respective rooms will never go anywhere in SWAT4." and I'll happily to provide one.
vini_lessa
May 25 2012, 02:40
Another game that I feel deserves mention for its "tactical tightness" is GRAW2 (for X360, not the PC version). Despite some console trappings, its tactical aspect is one of the best Ive seen (easily the best there is for a console ), and a great example of easiness of use and responsiveness we´re talking about here.
P.S: tried to play Rogue Spear here but no sucess. The game wont run on Win7 with ATI cards. Damn. :(
P.S: tried to play Rogue Spear here but no sucess. The game wont run on Win7 with ATI cards. Damn. :(
You better get Raven Shield. It should be like Rouge Spear with enhancements. I plan to buy it too in some way where my money will not go to Ubisoft.
vini_lessa
May 25 2012, 18:06
Batto, I actually have Raven Shield, but I don’t like its single-player campaign much. I think it deviated somehow from the planning emphasis of the originals to a more SWAT-like on-the-fly tactical action. Not that it’s a bad thing per se, but in case of R6 Im more a planner then a player, and always loved its “20 min planning, 2 min execution” thing. I even took more time watching the replays than actually “playing” the game, and finished RSpear in commander chair/watch mode in elite level. XD
By the way, I bought both Raven Shield and Ghost Recon through Steam for very cheap. You may want to take look there.
Not that it’s a bad thing per se, but in case of R6 Im more a planner then a player, and always loved its “20 min planning, 2 min execution” thing. I even took more time watching the replays than actually “playing” the game, and finished RSpear in commander chair/watch mode in elite level. XD
Same here =)
By the way, I bought both Raven Shield and Ghost Recon through Steam for very cheap. You may want to take look there.
Today I sent email to two people in my country offering gold eddition for cca 6-7$. I'm serious with Ubisoft boycott :nono:
metalcraze
May 26 2012, 10:18
Nice try, but if you do actually want a video that refutes your statement that "Enemies that are placed in their respective rooms will never go anywhere in SWAT4." and I'll happily to provide one.
I'm waiting.
Like it would be great to see them reacting when you kill their bros a room away. Not them just running away from/into your bullets when you enter their room.
I'm waiting.
Like it would be great to see them reacting when you kill their bros a room away. Not them just running away from/into your bullets when you enter their room.
Wouldn't want to keep you waiting now would we, 7 and a half minute mark, the player uses that fact that they move from room to room to draw them out and take them down, "static turrets standing in one place all the time" and "enemies that are placed in their respective rooms will never go anywhere" my bum, oh and see the use of quotation marks, that's because I'm quoting you metal "properly played" craze.
LOHcxtLWMLg
froggyluv
May 26 2012, 15:48
Not sure how anyone's whos played Swat4 could call the AI "static". No they are not as smart as humans nor always using tactical thinking but one thing they are not is stationary because that for me is a game-breaker and I wouldn't have played for more then 5 minutes *Cough* GRAW *Cough*. For a game as old as SWAT4, the cqb AI still holds it own.
vini_lessa
May 26 2012, 19:42
Great video, Mr Bump. In that case, not only the AI moved between rooms, but moved in group. Cool.
Another thing I like about SWAT3/4 AI is that it seems to have hidden morale and agressiveness atributes, giving it a very life-like unpredictness. Some enemies will give up on the first shout, some wont give up untill shot and shocked, and some will give up at first but then rise again and shoot you or then taking their weapon and running screaming, all the while speaking different and very appropriated expressions (like the one from the video "fuck, I wont die for this!").
By the way, on this hidden atributes thing - wouldnt it be interesting if ARMA had it too ? To be frank I never noticed this in the game myself (eg: it wasnt apparent if Razor team - Coops, Scarlet, Sykes and Robo - was really differentiated abilities-wise). Anyway, I think something like this would be interesting:
http://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/159377-tom-clancy-s-rainbow-six-windows-screenshot-team-selections.png
Or maybe making these atributes hidden, and just describing/suggesting the abilites in each soldier profile. This way would be more realistic and in line with ARMA premisse, I think.
NacroxNicke
May 26 2012, 22:30
I found that those attributes are just useless CPU demanding stuff that can be easily simulated by a good AI squad scripting or a good mission design
Because if you for example do an atributte called "Disciplined" and you have two npcs, one that has a lot of discipline and another that doesn't has any of discipline, one will keep formation and fight until death, and the player will see it as a "suicide attitude", and the other one will break and rout or surrender, and the player will see it as a nice touch, or a bug (when the units rout), but he will never think of the "discipline" of that unit, instead he will look at it as a nice feature of the mission or the scripting.
So you instead of assigning a valor of Discipline to every unit (a very CPU demanding stuff, as the game will have that stats into the memory all the mission, and will check it in every scripted action that the AI will do), you can just do a checking when the situation happens to a squad and do random actions for every unit (and that should be mission designing job, I will explain why), instead of checking individually what is the discipline of the units according to their situtation
Also, you need to do a very basic AI that can take cover and stuff like that, because if you script too much the AI by engine, you won't be capable of doing certain situations with them, because if you script that with all discipline units won't rout, then if you want to make them rout in a certain point, and the engine by start assign randomnly a lot of discipline, you won't be capable of doing that and it will get bugged (a problem where all missions makers can go into since everytime that one is designing a mission there is a point where the engine AI does what they want instead of doing what do you want, but some commands like DisableAI can help into this)
Also I wouldn't compare SWAT 4 AI with what a tactical game AI should have, as SWAT 4 AI is more based on the individual thing, as the terrorists plays a individual role or they don't have such teamwork that a squad, platoon or company will have in a battle. Moreover, if you developed such thing, then the player would be insignificant in the battle as the squad leader of 8 men, as the conventional battles are decided by big groups of soldiers, ranging from a Company to a Batallion instead of a Squad going rambo into enemy lines killing tanks or the such, because the player would follow chain of command orders from their platoon and that would take some of the funnyness of some missions, unless you are a grunt, but in that case tactical AI can be faked by the mission design.
I think that there should be an advanced AI pre-mission scripted for very basic skirmishing/battle missions, but the scripting pseudolanguage should have some commands to disable certain (not all by just having one command at all) attributes to have still some free will on what to design
Well I think that this will be inserted in ARMA 3 or maybe some closer expansion (It may be present in ARMA 2 at the moment but not in a totally friendly way
Hey if you guys are ever up for SWAT 4 (SSF mod, TSS) or RVS, PM me!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.