ARMA 2: OA release candidate build 78473

[Dead_Meat 10]

Public play will remain non addon play.

Unless BI implements addon download or makes mergeConfig available again (config tweaks as part of a mission).

Agree with Nyles here, but PvPScene explains it better than I did a few posts ago.

Running addons in PVP add a degree of complexity to the game as well as how to manage the public servers (especially with the amount of cheating bastids around.

/2p (again)

[stk2008 14]

"Better to remain silent and have others believe you are a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

You know who I'm talking to....

Me :)

Any who I just hope they really keep the old animation speeds.

[nkenny 1057]

Nyles for president.

-k

[sickboy 13]

Public play will remain non addon play.

Unless BI implements addon download or makes mergeConfig available again (config tweaks as part of a mission).

Agree with Nyles here, but PvPScene explains it better than I did a few posts ago.

Running addons in PVP add a degree of complexity to the game as well as how to manage the public servers (especially with the amount of cheating bastids around.

/2p (again)

Addons, regardless of PvP, coop, public or private, adds complexity. But admitted; it is a bigger problem for Public play than it is for Private (community/clan) play.

This is where tools like AddonSync and Six Updater come into play.

I agree that it would be cool if BIS added download-addons, or mergeConfigFile etc again, but regardless,

more support from the community (server wise, development (programming) wise and mirror wise) for the 3rd party solutions would go a long way too.

As to cheating; how are you more protected with not allowing any mods (signatures), versus allowing a set (&checked) list of mods (signatures also)?

Edited February 28, 2011 by Sickboy

[sbsmac 0]

Defunkt wrote:

This is not (or should not be) about P-v-P or Co-op, I much prefer adversarial games myself but that doesn't mean I want to see authenticity or visual fidelity compromised in this fashion. And in the name of what? So you got caught dead to rights by an opponent who's playing within exactly the same parameters that you are, I guess he positioned himself with more forethought and vision or was working closer with his teammates, that happens in real life - more often than not. Advocates seem to want the opportunity to Action Man their way out of such trouble, there are plenty of shooters that ignore realism in pursuit of that type of forgiving gameplay, why does ArmA need to be one also?

That's a misrepresentation of what was said which was, ironically, a complaint about _inacuracies_ in the simulation - ie the inability to interrupt animations and lag in the feedback loop between expressing an intent to move via a control input and actually sensing that move occuring. Your implied argument that the current system is fine because it is 'fair' is specious - I don't suppose either of us would enjoy playing a game where the delay between input and response was 10 seconds, even if it was the same for everybody.

Defunkt wrote:

Simulation of the real world should be the only yardstick and the movement speeds were, for the most part, already too rapid. As said, fix the glitches, work on making anims more interruptible but don't undermine the veracity of the simulation, it's precisely why we're all here.

Funny you should say that but that's NOT why we're all here (well, me at least). Frankly I couldn't care less that the uniform the avatars are wearing is exactly the right hue or that the MARPAT (whatever that is) is patterned accurately to the nearest millimeter. I hate to disappoint you but the reason I'm here is that ArmA 2 is fantastic fun when I play it in MP against other humans. Fortunately many of the reasons I think it's a fun _game_ align with why other people (rather pretentiously) think it's a _simulator_ - ie there is no dolphin-diving, bunny-hopping or instant-spin 360. Every shot counts, weapons are (kind of) realistically portrayed and it's not just a reflex-based twitch fest. ;)

Of course, from BIS's perspective it's neither simulator nor game, but _business_ and so they have an interest in making changes that expand the player-base. Personally I'm all for that, even if it leads to changes I don't like but there is a small but vocal minority here who seem to think that BIS should the perfect game just for them.

Metalcraze wrote:

Exactly. People just believe that if they will get the same retarded animation speed from BF2 it won't have them killed in PvP.

Beagle wrote:

I guess the PvP argument here is about the ability for speed volleys of RPGs against MBTs at 1000m and indstant switch to AK after that (don't forget to play a Doom style weapon switch sound in your head)...still a faulty feature in ArmA II. Next feature request will be the rocket launcher jump capability and bunny hopping for a better PvP experience?

By all means continue arguing against a straw-man if you wish but you are completing missing the point. :D

Beagle wrote:

I always really liked the slower pace of PvP compared to corridor shooters in ArmA, thats why im still here.

Fantastic - we agree on more than you think then :)

Beagle wrote:

I can only assume that you simply dont know much about the long time BIS gamers pvp scene. Maybe a lot of players are very comfy with the way BIS games play because we had 10 years to get used to it and to get around the problemtic parts

And some of us have been playing for more than 10 years and remember how vibrant the community was for OFP both in Co-op and PvP. Now, there may be many reasons why the competitive MP scene is now just a shadow of what it was for OFP but certainly one common complaint from people who moved from OFP to ArmA was the 'clunkiness' of the animations. ArmA 2 improved those tremendously of course but there is still room for improvement.

stk2008 wrote:

Plus I think the poll speaks for itself.

The poll has less than 200 votes in it. That's not a terribly high number and I think one has to be careful about drawing firm conclusions from results (fun fact: in contrast, squint has well over 1000 users and that's for an editing tool!). As I've said before, the people who are likely to participate in the beta program (and hence this poll) are skewed towards those who don't play MP and who (particularly recently) have an interest in AI changes.

Even if you accept that there really are much fewer MP/PvP players around, the poll is a bit like asking patrons of the local opera theatre whether they should start scheduling rap concerts in order to bring in more business. The people who already attend are only likely to give one answer and those who might give a different answer aren't there to differ.

Beagle wrote:

This thread and the poll above is unfortunately not about a new set of animatiosn or a new method for interupting a action, it is only about if or not we like the speed up old animations.

No place for muc discussion in my opinion, and thats why im so narrow minded in this thread.

Actually the poll says "Like the animation changes?"

I voted yes because I see that as a choice between

No: Never make make any more changes

vs

Yes: I don't like these in particuarly but please do keep improving the animations

Others,no doubt, see it as a choice between

No: These are wrong, but please do keep improving them

vs

Yes : Keep these new ones exactly and never make another change

;)

Nyles wrote:

The real issue is lack of control.

Spot on - and funnily enough I think we all agree on that - just have a difference of opinion about how best to get there ! :)

Edited February 28, 2011 by sbsmac

[Defunkt 431]

Frankly I couldn't care less that the uniform the avatars are wearing is exactly the right hue or that the MARPAT (whatever that is) is patterned accurately to the nearest millimeter.

Funny you should complain about straw man arguments while in the same breath trying to equate "the veracity of the simulation" with the particular hue of the MARPAT uniforms. Don't make me get out the Picard smiley.

Nor have I implied the current situation is fine, I'm all for improving the animation system but the solution to inaccuracies in the simulation is most certainly not to heap still more inaccuracies upon it.

[sbsmac 0]

Don't make me get out the Picard smiley.

Please don't - there should be a special place in hell reserved for those who think posting that stupid picture is an automatic 'win' for their side of the argument :D

Funny you should complain about straw man arguments while in the same breath trying to equate "the veracity of the simulation" with the particular hue of the MARPAT uniforms

But it's true - I really _don't_ care about those things ! :lol: Ok, perhaps it was a slightly pointed comment - I in no way intended to imply that you or other people here cared about the colour of the uniforms :p

[toxim 0]

Like almost everyone has already pointed out before me, the new animation speeds are way too fast and look really silly.

I find it rather hard to fight while laughing maniacally at the new animation speeds.

[-SBS-L!cK_My_GuN 10]

75 % say no to this changes because the animations are too fast.and animations are like COD or BF .i think 75 % of them havent played COD or BF because then they wouldnt say that the new beta patch is fast.

So i think this discussion is senseless.

BIS will do the right thing ,i hope for both sides.and running this with a mod is bullshit.

this changes in this beta patch gives me a little bit the good feelings of ofp1 back.and this was good for all pvp and coop players etc..

[xeno 234]

L!cK_My_GuN;1865353']75 % say no to this changes because the animations are too fast.and animations are like COD or BF .i think 75 % of them havent played COD or BF because then they wouldnt say that the new beta patch is fast.

First of all' date=' it's not a beta patch but a release candidate which could be the final 1.58 patch, means a full patch already and not just a beta patch.

Second, the animation speed is simply not right anymore. Speeding up animations doesn't solve the problems of the animation system, as already pointed out by others.

And I personally can't compare it to games like COD or BF, never played them.

L!cK_My_GuN;1865353']

So i think this discussion is senseless.

Your are right. No need to discuss here. The only option is to remove the new animation speeds and fix what is causing the problems.

And yes, I also say that lack of control is a major problem, but simply making animations faster won't help anybody.

Xeno

[.kju 3245]

The other option is to keep them in for 1.58 to have everyone actually try them in normal gameplay

rather to have most just post their opinion by watching a non representative video.

[Defunkt 431]

The better option is to split them out into a mod for revision alongside the next beta series and get them right before including them in 1.59.

[RN Escobar 0]

I have made a mod, albeit huge, but it works as modfolder.

it isn't exactly hard to make a backup and try it.

The anims DO need a speed change, maybe not as much as this, but i remember when ArmA1 came out that the change in anim speed from OFP to ArmA nearly killed the proper hardcore CTF side of the BIS gaming market, huge teams just upped and quit because the anims were pathetic for our gaming style, and they had a better time played BF2 COD etc etc, hell i even joined em for a long time, but i missed CTI so came back and stuck it out.

I think the final should contain a speed bump over the originals but do agree that the current ones do feel too fast.

my 2c

[maturin 12]

How long did crouching/weapon switching take in OPF and Arma? Could it have been this fast?

[nkenny 1057]

@Maturin

In OPF it was impossible to crouch without momentarily going full-stop. Even so it was quite fast. Then again there was no specific 'crouched movement' animation like in ARMA2-- so going crouched was more of a modified stance relevant only when stationary. The exception being AT weapons.

Changing weapons was quite slow-- painfully so when a BMP2 was rolling into view -- more significantly when you had a launcher weapon armed and ready; the avatar was unable to stand and had to move at a slow crouched speed. More to the point your weapons turning speed was limited when carrying heavy weapons (like MGs or RPG7s) so your crosshair would lag behind your current 'point of focus'

As noted elsewhere you had to remain static to reload your weapon.

Thusly Operation flashpoint (despite its awful LOOKING animations) presented a better flow or 'rythm' of online combat. Far from perfect, but any one who played would instantly recognize the benefits or faults in carrying certain weapons or performing certain actions.

-k

[Muahaha 10]

Did anyone noticed that BIS might have an internal dispute over this as well..

Maruk vs. Suma... 1 like and the other dislike... :) Funny how this plays out...

[andersson 285]

=> Maruk vs Suma <=

Who do you think would win in a fight?

[Brainbug 10]

Regarding this, I can assure you we are not losing hours. Tweaking animations is not something a programmer would do. Optimizing performance on the other hand is a programmers job.

People whose only tool is a hammer tend to see every problem as a nail.

Or put otherwise: Since this is a problem that needs to be fixed by the animation designers, let THEM do the job and keep the programmers busy with things they CAN solve. With all due respect.

For example, the problem with the climb-over-fence animation is not the speed of the animation but the little pause before and after it that feels like the soldier would stop for a short time, feeling very uncomfortable to play. If you could traverse a fence more fluidly and smoother, this would be welcomed by pvp and coop players alike. But that obviously needs some artistic fine tuning inside the animation, not a simple speed up.

Or you could introduce a new animation, for jumping over the fence quickly when the soldier is sprinting, and when he walks the existing one-leg-then-the-other animation is used.

=> Maruk vs Suma <=

Who do you think would win in a fight?

I don't know, but I now that we all would loose.

[Capt. Sand 10]

@PvPscene

non-representative video is right, man. I suggest checking out the RC for the slower turning speeds when changing stances, too.

[Hanzu 10]

I have a general question about this RC and I guess this thread is for that too.

Someone please translate what are proper mission names for those "codes" (I2, C1, I1, C5, C6, C3 and C2). I know in what missions SD pistol mags were "missing"(actually there were non-SD mags for SD-pistols), because I CIT-reported that bug, but why so different codes for missions that are continuation for each other?? I need to know since I want to verify those fixes myself and compare to other campaign related bugs not yet fixed.

ARMA2 1.08-1.09 Changelog

---------------------------

* Fixed: I2 - mission is not failling before the takeoff.

* Fixed: C1,I1 - SD pistol mags were missing.

* Fixed: C5 - high command icons were not loaded.

* Fixed: C6 - task waypoint for transport important POW is fixed.

* Fixed: C3 - smuggler not shooting.

* Fixed: C2 - Pepan is not at the pump.

* Fixed: I1 - Shilka too strong.

* Fixed: I1 - Razor is hunting down one enemy on whole chernarus.

Anyway why so cryptic names and brief comments? And do not tell its because of spoilers...

Just in case there is somebody who has not completed Harvest Red campaign and does not want to see mission names that are my guess, I put spoiler tags on:

C1 = Into The Storm

I1 = Ambhibious Assault

C2 = ?

I2 = One Week Later?

C3 = Manhattan?

C5 = Badlands?

C6 = Dogs Of War?

Edited March 1, 2011 by Hanzu

[kevaskous 10]

I also really doubt it takes as long as some think to perform these functions RL, knowing a fair few Ranger's they don't seem to have a problem with it.

[maruk 80]

Is this topic still providing any valuable information to the release candidate of the patch or maybe we simply should close it now?

I would like to clarify few things:

* the reason for this topic originally was solely to release patch to the community as rc to ensure there is no major bug found

* it was our mistake to attach (later) a poll to it that diverted the discussion here towards animations speed changes in the patch only. It also created false impression we were able to change animations for the final patch release (despite there no feasible way how we could do it).

Re: feedback to animations, there is a lot of different changes and adjustments (some made also to the player collisions with objects) and it would be much more helpful for us to get more specific feedback to particular animations instead of just general opinion. We will certainly look at this problem for next update more thoroughly.

[ast65 10]

It also created false impression we were able to change animations for the final patch release (despite there no feasible way how we could do it).

Wait a moment, this doesn´t mean we have to live with speed up animations till 1.59, does it? :eek:

I hope you mean we have to wait till 1.59 (at least) for a complete overhaul of animations.:confused:

[pauliesss 2]

I don´t understand, why you can´t just change animation speed back to original values(or better said, previous values) before releasing next official patch?

[dmarkwick 261]

I haven't seen or experienced the new faster animations, but I have experienced faster animations as produced by the SLX addon suite. So this opinion is based on general faster animation adjustments and not this particular patch animation adjustment. It sounds to me like the SLX adjustments are between the original and the new RC adjustments.

I like the slower ones, it feels more in keeping with how I remember it. People seem to generally over-indulge themselves I think when they say they can consistently perform faster RL movements under strain and in context. It's an illusion though, a person may be able to demonstrate it under a test condition with no previous activity but a sustained timescale reduces this, the slower animations are far more realistic. And lets not forget that they don't pose a disadvantage as all entities suffer the same limitations.

I might make the suggestion that the animation speeds, if they must be tweaked for gameplay, be the result of a multiplier applied based on the difficulty setting. The higher the difficulty setting, the lower the multiplier and the closer to the original speeds.

Edited March 1, 2011 by DMarkwick