Cover system for Arma3?

[4 IN 1 0]

a simulation game without cover? a FPS without cover? a modern war without cover? if it had used dynamic coverage like in GTA 4 would be perfect

Do you know what cover acturally mean in military terms?

@woore: That depends on whether you read more than the last page of the thread before posting. Nobody wants an arcade cover system. But given you have no problem hitting 'x' to crouch, or 'z' to lie down, I don't see why there'd be a problem with hitting 'x' to shift to a fluid posture adapting to cover (not any of this velcro to wall BS though).

In my case I only use 2 key: Q and Z for all those stance changing stuff:p

@Smookie, I love the idea of your pack and think its a great addition to the arma2/arrowhead mod scene. I suppose the biggest limitation for me is whether the AI use the animations too and in an appropriate way. This is what I see as the only limitation with modding this stuff into the game vs having it there from outset.

Thats why it have the word "PVP" on that pack, it mean to be used when PVP only.

Then again I find the pack not really useful for my mindset, too many key storke to remember and not always working = chance of mistake increase = death. I ended up just go back to my old, caveman way: simple move, single key + panic key press.

Edited June 5, 2011 by 4 IN 1

[elvinjones 10]

I think a cover system like GTA IV's 'lock in' cover would be terrible. It's counter to Arma's stylistic thesis of freedom - in this case freedom of movement.

Instead, the WAY one is able to manipulate his or her character's movement should approach realism, thus addressing anyone's desire to find cover in one way or the other.

[Militant1006 11]

Yeah I have liked the look of certain cover systems from games such as red orchestra, where you can duck behind a wall keeping almost your whole entire body (or all of it) safe from small arms while staying in first person, and it also looks pretty simple, and it doesn't seem "velcro" like Rainbow six vegas, GTA 4 etc.

[That guy 10]

a weapon rest feature is needed before any cover "system" in my mind.

it maybe possible to implement them into the same thing. you move to an appropriate terrain feature, hit the "weapon rest", it snaps you to another animation behind or around the "cover" and a directional or stance change breaks it. none of the silly arcady glue back to surface stuff with 360ing out and head shoting instantly

[metalcraze 290]

Yeah I have liked the look of certain cover systems from games such as red orchestra, where you can duck behind a wall keeping almost your whole entire body (or all of it) safe from small arms while staying in first person

You can do the same in ArmA. Try pressing 'crouch'

a simulation game without cover? a FPS without cover? a modern war without cover? if it had used dynamic coverage like in GTA 4 would be perfect

ArmA2 has cover. Or am I missing something? Like the magical button of GTA4 that makes the player invincible as soon as it glues him to a specially pre-placed brick?

Edited June 7, 2011 by metalcraze

[nkenny 1057]

I think cover systems appeal primarily to console players.

1. Most cover systems put you in a third person perspective-- more familiar to most console games granting the illusion of increased situational awareness.

2. Cover systems, particularly when employed against the AI, grant a moments respite or safety which buys you time to manipulate the clunky controls to put your crosshair on target.

3. Cover systems reduce the need for Lean left, lean right, and to a certain extent Crouch to a single button-- easier to manipulate on more limited console platforms.

While I'd love to be proven wrong, I believe cover systems to be unnecessary for shooters intended for a PC platform. The mouse-keyboard combo gives you unparalleled accuracy for both movement and shooting. Proof of this is seen in PC games such as Rb6 Vegas, where a cover system when used for other things than camping is usually a deathtrap as it sees you swiftly outmanoeuvred, flanked and destroyed.

The most successful implementation of a cover system that I've experienced so far interestingly enough enables it only for the AI. A sensible option as this creates a immersive AI and gives them a small leg up in surviving. The Call of Duty series does this to great effect.

As far as I know the two most popular tactical-shooter franchises Call of Duty and Battlefied are both making due without a cover system.

-k

[metalcraze 290]

Proof of this is seen in PC games such as Rb6 Vegas

Ughhh. R6Vegas is a console game.

The most successful implementation of a cover system that I've experienced so far interestingly enough enables it only for the AI. A sensible option as this creates a immersive AI and gives them a small leg up in surviving. The Call of Duty series does this to great effect.

Excuse me? How many of those hundreds and hundreds of "AI"s you kill in 4 hours get a "small leg up in surviving"?

("AI" because CoD has no AI. Static turrets that play stance-bunny-hopping animations behind a box != AI)

I agree with you. But your examples are wrong :)

[nodunit 397]

We do have a cover system, it's just more dynamic and manual requiring you to either crouch or prone and use the lean keys O.o

[trips 10]

1. Most cover systems put you in a third person perspective-- more familiar to most console games granting the illusion of increased situational awareness.

2. Cover systems, particularly when employed against the AI, grant a moments respite or safety which buys you time to manipulate the clunky controls to put your crosshair on target.

3. Cover systems reduce the need for Lean left, lean right, and to a certain extent Crouch to a single button-- easier to manipulate on more limited console platforms.

Points 1 and 3 are features you see often but they're not necessary features of a cover system, see Red Orchestra 2. If a cover system is implemented, which I hope it is, i'd also hope it wouldn't have those features.

Point 2 is kind of the whole idea of cover.

While I'd love to be proven wrong, I believe cover systems to be unnecessary for shooters intended for a PC platform. The mouse-keyboard combo gives you unparalleled accuracy for both movement and shooting.

I think there's room for improvement with movement. Analogue stances is something that gets resuggested for the Arma series every so often; being able to hold alt and precisely adjust your stance up and down. That could be an example of a cover system, it lets you use the in-game objects as cover a lot more effectively than the current stances and their slow transition animations do.

Proof of this is seen in PC games such as Rb6 Vegas, where a cover system when used for other things than camping is usually a deathtrap as it sees you swiftly outmanoeuvred, flanked and destroyed.

I don't think R6V makes for a good example. Compare the average engagement distances. In R6V it's practically all CQB, where being mobile is more important.

As far as I know the two most popular tactical-shooter franchises Call of Duty and Battlefied are both making due without a cover system.

Good for them, those are two titles I hope Arma never tries to emulate. They're a different genre as far as i'm concerned. (Battlefield I think could actually benefit from a cover system)

We do have a cover system, it's just more dynamic and manual requiring you to either crouch or prone and use the lean keys O.o

We have (some) cover and stances but putting trying to use the two together isn't always happy times.

Edited June 7, 2011 by Trips

[katipo66 94]

Not entirely related but Red River has a good system for cover, yes that game...

It seems if you are behind a wall and press aim, your weapon moves just above the wall enabling you to fire, not all walls but most of them that are of a height that you should be able to.

In arma if you crouch behind a wall you are limited to the the height of the crouch animation, so making it impossible to shoot from behind the wall because you are a few centimeters to low and therefore need to stand and expose yourself.

[st_dux 26]

If ArmA 3 doesn't get a cover system, then it at least needs weapon resting and a fluid stance system. Having only three options --standing, kneeling and prone -- is neither sufficient from a gameplay standpoint nor is it realistic.

[2nd ranger 282]

Come to think of it, the only thing I liked about Dragon Rising was that when you were crouched behind low cover and you went into optics mode, you automatically peeked over the top of the object while obviously looking down your sight, then when you released the optic button you ducked behind the cover again. And as I recall you didn't get 'stuck' to the cover, but it was a while ago so maybe I'm wrong about that last part.

[chris64 0]

Come to think of it, the only thing I liked about Dragon Rising was that when you were crouched behind low cover and you went into optics mode, you automatically peeked over the top of the object while obviously looking down your sight, then when you released the optic button you ducked behind the cover again. And as I recall you didn't get 'stuck' to the cover, but it was a while ago so maybe I'm wrong about that last part.

Agreed, I remember Vietcong doing this, and it definitely made firefights a lot more intuitive and fun

[metalcraze 290]

Except it will ruin them for AA2.

In AA2 you look at your surrounding more than anything. Popping out of cover only when aiming will completely ruin the gameplay.

Not mentioning it not being realistic.

do you see people constantly popping in and out of cover to shoot here?

No.

Do you see people resting their weapons on cover most of the time while observing and shooting?

Yes.

Real world firefights do look static. They are not hollywoodish bunnyhopping from behind concrete bricks with holding weapon in all retarded ways.

Edited June 7, 2011 by metalcraze

[st_dux 26]

Presently, you can't do 99% of what is shown in that video within ArmA. For one thing, you can't rest your weapon at all; you need to be prone to be accurate, which is completely ridiculous. You also can't line up nicely with cover like that unless you are up against something that is exactly at crouching or standing height and you only need to aim straight ahead, which is a rare combination. And if you want to duck away and protect yourself as you see done in that video several times, you need to awkwardly go full prone rather than simply move back behind whatever it is you are using for cover.

A system similar to the one used in Vietcong would be much more realistic than the current ArmA system. In the real world, people don't rigidly switch between three distinct stances, only using the ground for weapon support.

Edited June 7, 2011 by ST_Dux

[metalcraze 290]

Actually you can rest your weapon in ACE2 mod.

And somehow ACE2 manages to determine if the height of the object you are resting a weapon on is sufficiently high enough for it to get rested. In turn it steadies the weapon although you can't rotate fast (logically).

Which in turn says that engine can do that.

That's why I keep repeating that BIS should rip off some of the core features of ACE2 for their vanilla games.

I'm not against fluid stances. A fluid stance a la old R6 may work too - just don't force it on us like in OFP Derp Rising - make it adjustable on demand not automatically force it.

I will be more than happy to hold control and move mouse higher or lower to peek above the wall

[2nd ranger 282]

FAKE EDIT: uh, ST DUX basically said everything I had already typed out, but anyway:

You know what else I see those people doing? Tailoring the height of their stance to suit the cover they are hiding behind. Unless fluid posture is implemented in A3, the next best thing is being able to fluidly rest your weapon on the object so you're exposing only as much of your body as is required to return fire. Yes, I said rest your weapon, because that's what the DR thing basically did - I didn't say you should 'pop in and out of cover only when aiming', that's just how it worked in that game.

Currently in A2, if you are hiding behind a low wall and start taking fire, your only options of returning fire are to either go prone and edge out to the side of the wall, or to crouch from the prone position and try to get some shots off, then go prone again. This is clunky and dangerous.

REAL EDIT: Also, the very nature of a fluid posture feature means it is virtually impossible to 'force' on players. The way it works in RvS, the only game I've seen it in, you need to hold down a specific key for it and use the mouse to adjust your stance, while regular crouch and prone keys are still available. There's no way of making someone use it, unless they do away with normal stance controls.

Edited June 7, 2011 by 2nd Ranger

[st_dux 26]

@metalcraze:

I am aware of the weapon resting feature in ACE2; it's probably my favorite single feature of the whole mod. But really, it's something that should be a stock feature in an FPS that touts itself as a simulator.