Idea for a complex aiming system

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Yeah why improve anything lets just keep the game the same through every iteration and not try innovate or improve...........(sarcasm).I like smurfs idea too btw.

Did you even read what I said? Improvements on things that need improvement is one thing (and there are plenty of those in ArmA), but "improving" things that work perfectly fine just for the hell of it is nonsense.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Big Dawg KS

[maddogx 13]

... improving things that work perfectly fine just for the hell of it is nonsense.

Actually improving things is always fine in my book.

The idea just needs to be an improvement in the first place, not merely an additional layer of unnecessary complexity.

I would say: "changing things that work perfectly fine just for the hell of it is nonsense." :)

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Actually improving things is always fine in my book.

The idea just needs to be an improvement in the first place, not merely an additional layer of unnecessary complexity.

I would say: "changing things that work perfectly fine just for the hell of it is nonsense." :)

Fine, but you get what I mean.

[Flash Thunder 10]

Actually this is brillaint.

Line up the dots game

Vertical and horizontal dots race across the screen and you have to line them up.

If you miss just one, an A-10 Warthog is dispatched to your AO and it goes to town with lots of bombs! :D

[crazyirish93 10]

Did you even read what I said? Improvements on things that need improvement is one thing (and there are plenty of those in ArmA), but "improving" things that work perfectly fine just for the hell of it is nonsense.

Yeah i did and what i said still stands.It all depends on each person opinion on what need's to be improved and nearly everything in arma can be improved the sights in ofp worked fine but they improved them didnt they.

[Militant1006 11]

yeah, a new game means as many improvements as possible basically, you can't just re-release it, but, then again, no one said that BIS must include any of the things discussed here, just some suggestions, if people want to share their ideas on what they think will improve the game then I see no point posting just to say no one should do any of this.

and by the way I did really like smurf's idea, sounded good.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Been thinking about it for a while. Some have earlier desired a free 6 DOF system, although maybe especially for vehicle mounted MGs etc. Although I personally think a "minigame" (I see it as holding ctrl while aligning the sights) for iron sighted weapons would be painful, how much alignment you had to do could be coupled to "aimingskill" (max skill = perfectly aligned) if we didn't want to use it. The stepping up to red dot sights would feel like a significant one.

If tied to "aimingskill", it could have value in some RPG like approach. As a freshman, it would be a struggle. As skill increases aiming becomes second nature. Problem now is that aim dot sights doesn't have the same advantage to iron sights that it has in real life.

But again, I'm worried it will be too much. If having to choose, I'd say it's more important to give us grenade control, and make other aspects of the game more challenging. Being a simple infantry grunt is way harder than being a helicopter pilot doesn't quite add up.

[Innomadic 10]

Actually, if you think about it we already have this, its called right click.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

For simplicities sake, we could say that the animation speed in which you bring up the sight is governed by what kind of sight you have mounted. Iron sights = slow, red dot = fast, sniper scope = slow, acog = medium.

[wamingo 1]

At least he's thinking outside the box unlike most of you relics. ;)

ArmA weapon handling already has one minigame - breath control, or temporary focus, or whatever you want to call it. It's a simple feature and could perhaps be beneficially made more intricate.

Americas Army the game had a pretty good breath control system for instance.

Anyway, that's one alternative to making shooting more interesting.

[Innomadic 10]

At least he's thinking outside the box unlike most of you relics. ;)

Theres a difference between thinking outside the box and complete lunacy.

ArmA weapon handling already has one minigame - breath control, or temporary focus, or whatever you want to call it. It's a simple feature and could perhaps be beneficially made more intricate.

Americas Army the game had a pretty good breath control system for instance.

So basically make weapon sway when press right click greater than it is now...not quite revolutionary

5 charas

[roberthammer 582]

I like VBS2 style of breath control

[kotov12345 10]

problem why people what to change something because current aiming system is rubbish.

Take AK74 and try shoot target at 100m in real life and game you will understand what I'm talking about.IT IS SO EASY!NO recoil no sound effect no desperation no specific things like every gun have own trace for bullet.Feels same as you kill fly with gum.

Thats for every weapon in game.I'm not understand why so diffecult go to YouTube and see effects and sounds and specs.

[kernriver 4]

problem why people what to change something because current aiming system is rubbish.

Take AK74 and try shoot target at 100m in real life and game you will understand what I'm talking about.IT IS SO EASY!NO recoil no sound effect no desperation no specific things like every gun have own trace for bullet.Feels same as you kill fly with gum.

Thats for every weapon in game.I'm not understand why so diffecult go to YouTube and see effects and sounds and specs.

You have a point.

But if BIS would make lining up the ironsights of an AK as difficult in game as it is in real life (and hit the target), nobody would ever play Arma (with AK atleast).

There's a reason why in Arma or any other "shooter" you can hit enemy in a few seconds at that distance with fireing a few bullets, while in real life you can't. It's a game. :)

Edited July 29, 2011 by Kernriver

[Windexglow 10]

I've never fired an assault rifle - what is difficult about aiming it? Lining the sights up? Getting the position right? Actually pointing it correctly in the direction?

[kernriver 4]

I've never fired an assault rifle - what is difficult about aiming it? Lining the sights up? Getting the position right? Actually pointing it correctly in the direction?

Yes. (I'm talking about AK-47, don't know about other assault rifles).

It's not easy if you want to hit the target with one shot. (100 meters away)

Not as easy as it's in Arma. :D

[Militant1006 11]

The reason I thought making it harder to shoot would be a good idea is because in PvP games I find that people are very accurate, as opposed to real life, so it is harder to use fire and maneuver, it also defeats its purpose in Coop when AI can be killed from 600m easily, and yes, while many weapons that are standard issue are "effective" up to 600m, that is for an area target, I seriously doubt that a standard rifleman is killing point targets at 600m easily.

Also, after firing a few weapons in real life, I can fairly easily hit targets at 100-200m in controlled conditions, as in, no people shooting at me, and I have time to line the target up.

[Nicholas 5]

Just curious, but have you ever actually fired a rifle, let alone an AR-15 (M4)? It's as if it's an extension of your body. It takes very little skill to easily fire and maneuver a weapon. In Africa, there are children using AK-47's with no problem.

PvP isn't the only game mode in ArmA. As for the problem of people being easily killed at 600m? A mini-game isn't going to help that at all. It will just take longer to pull up the firearm.

[Windexglow 10]

Than obviously the ideal (on paper) solution would be to have your character bring the rifle up - fireable at this point- than slowly fix itself. Moving, firing your weapon, shaking(explosions, tanks) ectect all would cause your character to adjust the rifle.

Weapons would have variables that determine how easy/fast this is. A heavy sniper rifle should be very difficult, while a rifle with a reflex sight should be fairly fast.

Soldiers would also have proficiency with each rifle (or class -- Blufor or opfor. Light, machine guns, rifles, ectect).

Than you could have misc affects. How tired is the soldier. How much adrenaline. ectect.

I think that sounds good on paper - but gameplay wise it could be a totally different story.

[Innomadic 10]

I like VBS2 style of breath control

Actually the part i liked most in that was the movements between standing, crouch and prone...

[Antigoon 10]

It takes very little skill to easily fire and maneuver a weapon.

Are you serious? We all know the difference between Ronny O'Sullivan hitting the cue ball and ourselves, atleast I hope so... Yet we all enjoy a game of snooker, it just takes a lot of practice to get anywhere good at it!

Edited July 30, 2011 by Antigoon

[Militant1006 11]

Just curious, but have you ever actually fired a rifle, let alone an AR-15 (M4)? It's as if it's an extension of your body. It takes very little skill to easily fire and maneuver a weapon. In Africa, there are children using AK-47's with no problem.

PvP isn't the only game mode in ArmA. As for the problem of people being easily killed at 600m? A mini-game isn't going to help that at all. It will just take longer to pull up the firearm.

dude, I have fired quite a few weapons, M16 (A2 style), SLR (Australian/British version of FN FAL), and the F88 Austeyr, aswell as weapons I have fired at shooting ranges, now, each weapon of course can be fired easily and pointed the in direction of the target, but it takes a lot more time to pull up the weapon, aim down the sights, and accurately hit a roughly 2m x 0.5m target at 100-200 meters, let alone 400-600.

Minigame is not the right word, that is just an idea, the overall point I was trying to make was that an accurate, aimed shot should take longer to do, shooting without using the sights does not have to change, that means CQB can still be very fast and not lose any momentum, but shooting at longer ranges, whether any game mode, not just PvP, is harder to do quickly, so accurate shooting also means being exposed for longer.

I actually play Coop more than PvP too, so your comment "PvP isn't the only game mode in ArmA" is just stating the obvious, and another thing, most children in africa firing weapons could not land a first round hit on a target at 150 meters, which is easily possible in arma.

[Nicholas 5]

So how about instead of some "minigame" (I will call it a minigame if I please), they just reduce the accuracy over a certain amount of distance?

---------- Post added at 10:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:53 PM ----------

Or maybe just implement the same amount bullet spray that is included with illegal copies? :D

I mean really, there is no need to implement a "complex aiming system" just because the player is accurate. Instead, just reduce accuracy.

Edited July 30, 2011 by Nicholas

[kylania 568]

most children in africa firing weapons could not land a first round hit on a target at 150 meters, which is easily possible in arma.

Most professional soldiers should be able to. Especially most SF guys, which is essentially what we the players are in ArmA. If someone is dying too much in PvP find better cover. If someone is killing things too easily in Co-op use better AI mods. No need to mess up everyone's gameplay with arbitrary minigames in order to shoot.

[5LEvEN 11]

My memory is a little bit rusty on this, but some years ago the US military was investigated because of the amount of headshots to the enemy. They suspected we were excuting people, but they discovered it was because our soldiers where accurate, and when only given the option to shoot the head (enemy head is only visible) that this would be expected...

The accuracy of how civilians shoots is really irrelevent in a game like arma. Its the accuracy of the soldiers that matters. The USMC (which will probably be the main blufor faction, because its on an island, and its NATO), train with their rifles for a considerable amount of time. If you were to train for the same amount of time, you would probably be proficient with it as well. So how about instead of civilians giving their opinions about the accuracy, some people from the armed forces give us their opinions...