ricnunes MODERADOR


 Registrado dia : 13 Dez 2007 Mensagens : 116 Localização : Castelo Branco, Portugal
| Assunto: Re: Friendly match ADW/GWL Seg 07 Abr 2008, 09:11 | |
| | WildCatPT escreveu: | Foi so um exemplo. Acredito que pilotando os AH6, seja possível pilotar todo o tipo de helis com o objectivo de transporte, como acontece no veículos de pequeno porte.
|
Ah ok. Tinha percebido erradamente que apenas um piloto poderia pilotar um tipo de aeronave. Eu realmente concordo que so os pilotos podem pilotar aeronaves, afinal de contas o "soldado piloto" tem que servir para alguma coisa e claro que na realidade não é qualquer pessoa que pilota um aeronave (alias so pilotos é que "normalmente" sabem pilotar aeronaves).
| Citação: | Eu proprio gosto mais de missoes em que se usem mais veiculos terrestres, colunas militares, acampamento, mini bases, do que pegar em avioes, limpara tudo e so deixar o resto para a infantaria. Concordo com o uso de avioes, mas nao exagerado. Tira um pouco da campanha, e fica mais um simples missão quase ja sem dificuldade nenhuma.
|
Sim concordo plenamente contigo neste aspecto.
| Citação: | Mas vamos ver o que nos espera no proximo mapa do Dynamic War. O primeiro até nao tava mal, tirando a execpções que decerto vao melhorar.
 |
Esperemos que sim... |
|
=FSI=Nemesi Segundo-Cabo

Registrado dia : 20 Mar 2008 Mensagens : 20
| Assunto: Re: Friendly match ADW/GWL Ter 08 Abr 2008, 02:51 | |
| | ricnunes escreveu: | Hi Nemesi, now that you ask I'll give you my thoughts/feedback:
1- The map that we played Friday is way too small and limited. This "eliminates" the biggest advantage that ArmA has over other similar games which is having very large maps and having a complete freedom of movements. Small and limited maps will "transform" ArmA a realistic wargame into an arcadish Counterstrike-style game which I really hate (could give you reasons for that, but that's not the point here). Also small maps will as we saw last friday, promote "camping" techiniques. For example and don't get me wrong but your tactics in Friday consisted only in camping in some "good spots". In the end we won but not because we were better than you but because and only because we found better "camping spots" than "yours".
2- Regarding limitations where and when you are server killed, I understand your reasons but honestly and please don't get me wrong but I don't like at all! The reasons for this are: 2.1- It's not realistic. I think that a game such as ArmA should stay as realisitc as possible or else it will loose the "it" that this game has over any other similar games. 2.2- While the point that "this is absolutely necessary to protect the resp and avoid players campering in the respawn" is certainly a more than valid point, I think that there are other ways to better and more realistically overcome this problem such as: 2.2.1- Use AIs in order to protect the repawn points. These AIs should be able to repawn after being killed and should be limited to the respawn areas in order to avoid them to wander around the map and to be more effective to protect the repawn points. For example these AIs could man fixed machine gun emplacements or patrol the respawn points. 2.2.2- Or in a diferent aproach, the respawn areas could be hidden or placed away from the strategical point in order to be hard for an opposing team to find those respawn points. 2.2.3- I'm also convinced that in missions where the respawn areas and strategical points are far away from each other this "players campering in the respawn points" problem will be greatly reduced.
Don't get me wrong Nemesi I'm not bashing your missions, I'm just giving my honest and straight oppinion about this subject and how things in my oppinion could make missions more "realistic" but I do appologise in case you think I'm being too harsh with my oppinions. |
Hi Ricnunes
thanks for your answer, I appreciate your opinions I'm not taking you wrong - I agree completely wth you that Arma should be a distinct game not be transformed in counterstrike and is what we are trying to do
probably you didn't play the Dynamic war map - that one is not small at all
regarding realism and simulation, is the concept of resp itself that is not realistic at all - we should have large maps with a lot of players and no resp to have a nearly good simulation - but this is not possible for several reasons, including people don't like to play maybe 2 min and then leave server - so we have to do what possible and reasonable
the resp protection is necessary because when you resp you don't have control on your soldier it would be realistic to protect your base but people get bored to stay there and placing resp far away from the battle then it takes a lot of time to reach the front - also the AI I think make server lagging when you have a lot of players
and as for campering and spotting points it is part of the strategy to get better spotting points than the adversary - so if you found a better spotting point you were good!
we reasoned a lot how to make the game more simulatory but still enjoyable and fun and of course not everybody has the same idea of fun
so if you have ideas you welcome!
as for me it is fun for example to plan the strategy in advance and the involvement yoi get during the battle
any suggestion how to have the battle more realistic is welcome
I remind the next battle will be tonight for those willing to participate |
|
ricnunes MODERADOR


 Registrado dia : 13 Dez 2007 Mensagens : 116 Localização : Castelo Branco, Portugal
| Assunto: Re: Friendly match ADW/GWL Ter 08 Abr 2008, 15:08 | |
| Hi Nemesi,
Actually I didn't play the dynamic campaign map and I only played the small one that we played last friday. Regarding this, I was only wishing that the dynamic campaign wasn't/isn't similar to that smaller map in the sense that I hope that the dynamic campaign doesn't have the same limitations such as "playable areas" surrounded by barbed wire or by instantaneous death scripts.
Regarding realism in ArmA, yes I understand that while the best realism for an ArmA online game would be not having any respawn at all, that of course is NOT feasable because of the reasons you mentioned above and compromises between realism and certain gameplay features (such as respawn) must definitly be made. But whenever is feasable or possible to have realism or to avoid "arcadish" features (such as again, areas limited combat areas) that action should without any doubt be made. By the way, an another good realistic feature is having like you already mentioned, aircraft flyable only by "pilot" soldier class.
Regarding the repawn and repawn points, I also understand that having AIs guarding the respawn areas will eventually lag the server when many human players are present but I completly disagree with the point that "placing resp far away from the battle then it takes a lot of time to reach the front" because fortunally ArmA allows you to drive/control a wide array of transport vehicles such as truck, Jeeps, APCs, Boats, Helicopters, etc... that would make the time of travel to the combat zone quite fast and of course more realistic. Those vehicle would also allow the players to aproach the combat area from diferent positions which will in the end limit the "campering techiniques". An another very interesting aproach (at least IMO) that you could take is by using mobile respawn areas, which could be vehicles (as M113 for example) in where the player would respawn (they would respawn near the position where the respawn vehicle is located at).
Regarding the following comment: "and as for campering and spotting points it is part of the strategy to get better spotting points than the adversary - so if you found a better spotting point you were good!" Sorry but I could not disagree more with you regarding that. Of course people sometimes (or many times) don't have the same oppinions about the same thing but for me campering is definitly NOT a strategy or else Conterstrike would be the best strategy game on the planet. You see, for me strategy is for example advancing with members supporting each other covered by machine gun fire with also the support from armor and aircraft and also Artillery support if avaiable. For example if the teams have Armour/Air and specially artillery support I doubt that most of the player would be tempted to use capering techiniques. Of course normally teams that are defending objectives trend to "camper" somewhere or perhaps a better word for this is to use "concelement" but if the enemy have Air/Armour/Artillery support available the defenders wouldn't be doing this in open camp or on the top of a hill and finally if the map hasn't a limited playable area then TRUE TACTICS such as attacking the rear or the flanks would be possible and campering techniques wouldn't be that usefull since you don't know where the enemy comes from. These for me are REAL/TRUE tactics and not campering! I strongly believe that in reality if someone used campering techiques like we saw last friday that person wouldn't last more than a few seconds before being killed.
So my suggestions how to have more realistic battles are: 1- Never limit the map, in order to allow true tactics such as flanking or rear attacks which of course will limit defensive campering "techiniques". 2- Put controllable armour and aircraft (which should only be controlled by the respective soldier classes) in order to give infantry essencial fire support. 3- Make the use of artillery support available. 4- Put the respawn areas far from the combat area (and specially in zones unknown to the opposing team) but with transportation available (transport trucks/jeeps/APCs/Helicopters,Boats,etc...) 5- Use mobile respawn point available. Being it by using captured areas as respawn points or using certain vehicles (a M-113 for example like we have in Domination) as mobile respawn point. |
|