Development Blog & Reveals

[maturin 12]

Indeed, Luca meant just what he said: getting 'shot at'. That means he's trying to create a set of standards (across different classes of weapons) for how accurate the AI can/should/will be. It's certainly not easy, nor will the results be perfect, but it's a long-overdue and worthwhile endeavour, evidenced by hiring developers dedicated to this role.

The point is not that one can 'absorb' any more fire to the cranium, but that the enemy - while trying to blow your head off - are perhaps a little less likely to do so in one or two shots (this goes back to what we've been talking about for a while: 'problems' with AI tied to un/under-configured base classes, rather than an innate in/over-ability).

Also, I think it would be inaccurate to suggest that anyone here is trying to attract a 'console' shooter crowd. Arma 3 might well appeal to those 'moving on' from that style of gameplay, but it surely doesn't seek to encroach upon it. :)

Best,

RiE

I hope you guys move more towards a learning AI in accuracy and spotting. The precision of their shots should start low and and get better and better as a foolish player tests his luck and the AI zeros in, responding to range and concentrating on a target.

And as always, ignore the hysterical mob who are convinced you are about to turn the entire game in BF3 overnight, without telling anyone.

[metalcraze 290]

Yeah. "Accessible" should usually mean something is better to use. That means the core has not changed but it is just easier to get to that same core.

The problem is that atm the core has changed.

For a human player shooting someone became ridiculously easy. Whereas it should be the exact opposite.

As long as you see an enemy you can put quite precise shots very fast since weapons are weightless and there's no wind which in ArmA3 is now needed more than ever - now that sniping enemies with any weapon be it MG or a usual assault rifle is not a big problem.

Edited May 17, 2013 by metalcraze

[purepassion 22]

What made it easier?

[metalcraze 290]

Lack of turning speed limits, lack of inertia for heavier weapons, lack of body inertia. When you are laying down on your belly you can rotate from target to target in a blink. So as long as you see enemies you can have a score just as big as a high skill AI (which as we know is actually an issue with said AI). Except AI takes a long long time to turn.

There shouldn't be uncomfortable obstacles like in ArmA2 but there gotta be limits to everything.

[purepassion 22]

Yup, I feel you on that! Heavier weapons definitely lack inertia :) Is there a ticket for this yet?

Though the MK200 is quite light (~5kg) so there might perhaps just not be a weapon such as the GM6 which uses it? But then again the NLAW weights about 13 and doesnt have any...

Edited May 17, 2013 by PurePassion

[metalcraze 290]

There are multiple tickets by now I think. At least I have mine for sprint inertia/turning speed in a sig.

Also even a 5 kg MK200 gotta have some inertia/turning speed limit. 5 kg in your hands would have some inertia when turning fast. Right now you can aim at a target with a pixel precision. And yeah - rocket launchers are quite broken in this regard.

A good solution will be akin to guns on vehicles. They don't have "negative mouse acceleration" but they do have turning speed limits. Obviously for hand guns/rifles they should be really minimal - but also depend on stance. If you turn at a normal human speed - there will be none. If you try to do a 180 degree turn in 0.1 seconds with a 5 kg MK200 - there's gotta be some inertia at least.

Because if BIS won't add them to this game and if the new recoil improvement is anything like fraggers want (weapon returning to its original position) - the game will turn into an arcade shooter.

Since current recoil is literally the only thing that stops fast frag streaks - because you have to line up every shot instead of just hitting LMB as fast as you can. Sounds like doomsday-speak? Well you gotta remember that without wind and human-like imprecision in handling guns are dead-on precise plus minus ballistic curve which isn't big. Since there's no dispersion - which is how arcade shooters tackle the issue.

Edited May 17, 2013 by metalcraze

[instagoat 133]

..

Also even a 5 kg MK200 gotta have some inertia/turning speed limit. 5 kg in your hands would have some inertia when turning fast. Right now you can aim at a target with a pixel precision. And yeah - rocket launchers are quite broken in this regard.

A good solution will be akin to guns on vehicles. They don't have "negative mouse acceleration" but they do have turning speed limits. Obviously for hand guns/rifles they should be really minimal - but also depend on stance. If you turn at a normal human speed - there will be none. If you try to do a 180 degree turn in 0.1 seconds with a 5 kg MK200 - there's gotta be some inertia at least....

Well, realistically, you would drop the weapon from the shoulder and close to your body when turning quickly, ie like this ->

That way you don´t have to deal with moving all the weight around on a long lever. Basically like an animation that would make your character drop your gun when turning faster than a certain speed and while not aiming down the sights?

[Smurf 12]

Movement inertia with current animation system is very unlikely, unless you wanna see some ice skating.

The suggested new recoil model has nothing to do with fraggers, rather it's about muscle memory and gravity. Returning to the exact same spot isn't the way to go and I don't think anyone disagree with that. Current system is idiotic, at best. EDIT2: Could stay in for civilian classes or unskilled militias :rolleyes:

Weapon inertia is a more delicated subject since now no mouse aceleration and no free aim not only became standard but highly adopted and accepted. It may piss of some here but I have to say - Red Orchestra 2 nailed it (aswell the other two points of this post). You feel the diference between short and long weapons, aswell heavy and light ones both in "hipfire" and ADS . The little free float that you have while ADS makes movement and target adquiring so natural, in no-so-close quarters you barely have to actually look where you are aiming, you just know; Like RL I guess.

EDIT:

Or this if want to "make pretend" if such animation is not implemented.

Well, realistically, you would drop the weapon from the shoulder and close to your body when turning quickly, ie like this ->

That way you don´t have to deal with moving all the weight around on a long lever. Basically like an animation that would make your character drop your gun when turning faster than a certain speed and while not aiming down the sights?

Edited May 17, 2013 by Smurf

[chortles 263]

As importantly, "no (negative) mouse acceleration" was a specifically promoted change from Arma 2, which is why I don't see too much change, because "no (negative) mouse acceleration" is an "intentional design decision"... no free aim as default on the other hand, one might see it as a concession to "the casuals" but the other thing is that this game was designed by a guy who doesn't use it and whose fingerprints I saw all over the initial alpha release. :p

Heck, maybe these days the devs have a different idea than in the past of (or merely feel better able to show) what they consider to be "the core".

[Smurf 12]

The removal if the neg. acceleration is a good thing IMO, but it was (or wasn't?) used to emulate the weight of the weapons.

[metalcraze 290]

It wasn't there by a pure coincidence.

Heck, maybe these days the devs have a different idea than in the past of (or merely feel better able to show) what they consider to be "the core".

ArmA3 got different devs. Some key OFP people left too I bet over the years.

Right now it's in hands of people who did OA and PMC (that PMC DLC... why BIS why?!) and if showcases are an indication of how mission design is done the future doesn't look too bright.

[el_muerko 0]

In my mind no weapon, item or vehicle in the game should be balanced, you can't balance a Light 50' against an MK19 or an AK, you should instead make them handle are realistically as possible. That makes balance almost exclusively the task of an AI programmer and maybe the animator when it comes to weapon reloads, sway, inertia etc...

[schaefer 53]

In my mind no weapon, item or vehicle in the game should be balanced, you can't balance a Light 50' against an MK19 or an AK, you should instead make them handle are realistically as possible. That makes balance almost exclusively the task of an AI programmer and maybe the animator when it comes to weapon reloads, sway, inertia etc...

Exactly my thoughts about it!

[Wolfstriked 11]

Yes, it's a great advancement. The extra stances gives you more movement options, which is awesome. But what does this have to do with being "accessible"? It's more complex, because it has some extra controls. So it takes a little bit longer to learn and "access" fully. It's great because it is more complex, not because it is more "accessible".

I see your point.You dont have to use the new stances though and I actually use them only when I just cant get a good shot with decent cover.

[nodunit 397]

Ironicly authenticity and realism can provide an excellent balance its own...wind to bullets making sniping more difficult, weight to heavier weapons making them slower to move with, easier to exhaust and more sluggish to aim.

Likewise for body armor.

Want some vehicle balance? Give tanks the ability to stand up to weaker AT weapons based on where they are hit, but put the crew in a solid black shell with periscopes wherein their vision is limited like the real things.

Want to balance attack helicopters?

Make them require a line of sight on a target to use missiles or other laser guided weaponry unless there is a fire control radar present.

Want to balance them against AA? Give them jammers that can go for a max of X seconds before burning out, not allowing anymore useage.

If mobile AAA has the ability to sit without their radar on and thus less detectable, then they get an opportunity to sneak surprise, while the helicopter gets a chance to jam (but don't make them 100% effective) and requires a direct LOS on target to which the AA might see and react.

It's not damage values or things as such that should be considered as the balance, but how a skilled user would use them, just like the real world.

[k0rd 3]

Ironicly authenticity and realism can provide an excellent balance its own...wind to bullets making sniping more difficult, weight to heavier weapons making them slower to move with, easier to exhaust and more sluggish to aim.

Likewise for body armor.

Want some vehicle balance? Give tanks the ability to stand up to weaker AT weapons based on where they are hit, but put the crew in a solid black shell with periscopes wherein their vision is limited like the real things.

Want to balance attack helicopters?

Make them require a line of sight on a target to use missiles or other laser guided weaponry unless there is a fire control radar present.

Want to balance them against AA? Give them jammers that can go for a max of X seconds before burning out, not allowing anymore useage.

If mobile AAA has the ability to sit without their radar on and thus less detectable, then they get an opportunity to sneak surprise, while the helicopter gets a chance to jam (but don't make them 100% effective) and requires a direct LOS on target to which the AA might see and react.

It's not damage values or things as such that should be considered as the balance, but how a skilled user would use them, just like the real world.

Well said!

[chortles 263]

I'm reminded of the old "Multiplayer Balance?" thread :lol: sounds like sometimes the "balance" exists in real life, it's just whether that is simulated or not... otherwise, "Tunguska TAB targeting."

[metalcraze 290]

NodUnit is absolutely right.

[froggyluv 2130]

Ironicly authenticity and realism can provide an excellent balance its own...wind to bullets making sniping more difficult, weight to heavier weapons making them slower to move with, easier to exhaust and more sluggish to aim.

Likewise for body armor.

Want some vehicle balance? Give tanks the ability to stand up to weaker AT weapons based on where they are hit, but put the crew in a solid black shell with periscopes wherein their vision is limited like the real things.

Want to balance attack helicopters?

Make them require a line of sight on a target to use missiles or other laser guided weaponry unless there is a fire control radar present.

Want to balance them against AA? Give them jammers that can go for a max of X seconds before burning out, not allowing anymore useage.

If mobile AAA has the ability to sit without their radar on and thus less detectable, then they get an opportunity to sneak surprise, while the helicopter gets a chance to jam (but don't make them 100% effective) and requires a direct LOS on target to which the AA might see and react.

It's not damage values or things as such that should be considered as the balance, but how a skilled user would use them, just like the real world.

+1! Agree on all points

[[evo] dan 79]

Ironicly authenticity and realism can provide an excellent balance its own...wind to bullets making sniping more difficult, weight to heavier weapons making them slower to move with, easier to exhaust and more sluggish to aim.

Likewise for body armor.

Want some vehicle balance? Give tanks the ability to stand up to weaker AT weapons based on where they are hit, but put the crew in a solid black shell with periscopes wherein their vision is limited like the real things.

Want to balance attack helicopters?

Make them require a line of sight on a target to use missiles or other laser guided weaponry unless there is a fire control radar present.

Want to balance them against AA? Give them jammers that can go for a max of X seconds before burning out, not allowing anymore useage.

If mobile AAA has the ability to sit without their radar on and thus less detectable, then they get an opportunity to sneak surprise, while the helicopter gets a chance to jam (but don't make them 100% effective) and requires a direct LOS on target to which the AA might see and react.

It's not damage values or things as such that should be considered as the balance, but how a skilled user would use them, just like the real world.

+1 to this

[jw custom 56]

Ironicly authenticity and realism can provide an excellent balance its own...wind to bullets making sniping more difficult, weight to heavier weapons making them slower to move with, easier to exhaust and more sluggish to aim.

Likewise for body armor.

Want some vehicle balance? Give tanks the ability to stand up to weaker AT weapons based on where they are hit, but put the crew in a solid black shell with periscopes wherein their vision is limited like the real things.

Want to balance attack helicopters?

Make them require a line of sight on a target to use missiles or other laser guided weaponry unless there is a fire control radar present.

Want to balance them against AA? Give them jammers that can go for a max of X seconds before burning out, not allowing anymore useage.

If mobile AAA has the ability to sit without their radar on and thus less detectable, then they get an opportunity to sneak surprise, while the helicopter gets a chance to jam (but don't make them 100% effective) and requires a direct LOS on target to which the AA might see and react.

It's not damage values or things as such that should be considered as the balance, but how a skilled user would use them, just like the real world.

Indeed, just as posted right before:

In my mind no weapon, item or vehicle in the game should be balanced, you can't balance a Light 50' against an MK19 or an AK, you should instead make them handle are realistically as possible. That makes balance almost exclusively the task of an AI programmer and maybe the animator when it comes to weapon reloads, sway, inertia etc...

[Tonci87 163]

Ironicly authenticity and realism can provide an excellent balance its own...wind to bullets making sniping more difficult, weight to heavier weapons making them slower to move with, easier to exhaust and more sluggish to aim.

Likewise for body armor.

Want some vehicle balance? Give tanks the ability to stand up to weaker AT weapons based on where they are hit, but put the crew in a solid black shell with periscopes wherein their vision is limited like the real things.

Want to balance attack helicopters?

Make them require a line of sight on a target to use missiles or other laser guided weaponry unless there is a fire control radar present.

Want to balance them against AA? Give them jammers that can go for a max of X seconds before burning out, not allowing anymore useage.

If mobile AAA has the ability to sit without their radar on and thus less detectable, then they get an opportunity to sneak surprise, while the helicopter gets a chance to jam (but don't make them 100% effective) and requires a direct LOS on target to which the AA might see and react.

It's not damage values or things as such that should be considered as the balance, but how a skilled user would use them, just like the real world.

What he said +1

[bad benson 1733]

It's not damage values or things as such that should be considered as the balance, but how a skilled user would use them, just like the real world.

all hail the NodUnit!

but seriously. that's spot on and basically what simulation means (to me).

[metalcraze 290]

If you will look at animations in anim viewer there are actually quite a few for inertia when you switch directions fast - they look very natural but aren't used anywhere in the game yet. I hope we'll soon see them in action.

[Variable 322]

If you will look at animations in anim viewer there are actually quite a few for inertia when you switch directions fast - they look very natural but aren't used anywhere in the game yet. I hope we'll soon see them in action.

That's promising! I was starting to get worried that "no inertia in Arma 3" is here to stay.