MP thoughts

[antoineflemming 14]

How about what I say and not guessing what I think?

I agree that animations should be more life-like. But making them more lifelike will not give you a millimeter control over the soldier - it's the opposite. You can't just get your foot up doing a step and freeze in one place like you are still standing on both.

I also had to crawl with a rifle, it wasn't floating through the air together with me like during BF3's crawling.

Was this movement fluid with a 20 kg backpack on the back, magazines on the chest and inside some tight corridors with a ~1m weapon during a firefight? Were you able to hit anything well the size of a human 50m away while on the move?

If yes - that would be really impressive, like really really impressive and you should join Tier1 operators IRL.

This I agree with. BUT the solution of BF3 is far far worse because it isn't a solution at all (meaning stance changes in this case)

Do I say that there's no space for improvement? Of course not.

I just say that bringing something like BF3 as an example of how it should be done in a realistic shooter (or worse - hiding behind reality while giving BF3 is an example) is beyond ridiculous.

What about the dude sitting behind the monitor?

So why not ask for bulletdrop on DICE forum? I'm sure DICE would like to take it further too.

What about the dude sitting behind the monitor? Well the same principle of brain and body reacting at as close to the same reaction speed as possible still applies. Instead of the body of the player, it's the body of the character. BF3's third person animations aren't "floating" like first person floating hands. And the floating issue is not an animation problem. The animation is correct. It's placement is wrong. On that note I think BIS should have low crawl/high crawl. When your character walks and you prone, the character should low crawl, as it is the slower movement. When your character is running by default and you prone, you should high crawl, as it is the faster movement. And these movements should be correct methods of crawling, not what BIS currently has.

And fluid doesn't mean accurate. I never said you have to be accurate when you have a lot of stuff weighing you down. But bones (arms, legs, etc) pivot and rotate. That movement is fluid. I'm saying THAT should translate over to the animations. So I'd like BIS to mocap EVERY soldier animation. Mainly movement and looking. Not only that, but at least for rifles, I know I've been trained to tuck the rifle butt into my shoulder, so that in essence the rifle moves where I turn. So the rifle moving independently of the soldier should be at a minimal. It shouldn't be the rifle moves left and then the camera (your body) is pulled along after the rifle moves. I know this is mocapped, but the weapons aren't tucked into the shoulder. This is also useful for CQC and room clearance. No, it shouldn't be to the extent of BF3 and COD floating hands, but I would like for the rifle and camera to move at ALMOST the same time.

Even more so, I really wish the camera was at the same LOD as the highest LOD, so that the camera could actually be locked to the eyes. It would create a larger FOV (through the eyes of the character), adding more immersion. And, I think the camera movement (like using ALT or whatever to free look) should be tied to the eyes, not the head. And only after the camera moves to the edge of the screen should the head then move where the character is looking. Then you really get the sense you're looking through the character's eyes. :)

Edited December 20, 2011 by antoineflemming

[metalcraze 290]

On that note I think BIS should have low crawl/high crawl. When your character walks and you prone, the character should low crawl, as it is the slower movement. When your character is running by default and you prone, you should high crawl, as it is the faster movement. And these movements should be correct methods of crawling, not what BIS currently has.

I agree that ArmA needs more flexible stances but this is also a question of controls. What if I'm running and really want to go prone, not "high crawl". Stance changes controls and switches themselves are OK. We just need more stuff we can do with them, like a "deadzone" for standing - f.e. standing fully or ducking a bit - controlled by being in standing stance and holding CTRL + moving the mouse vertically f.e.

That way we'll be able to peek over walls without exposing the whole head right away. This will also work because you still will be able to aim and shoot since if you are aiming down the sights the weapon will still move with your view.

This I can easily agree on since I liked this idea in R6RS. Although in R6RS it was arcadey and you could scroll from prone to standing the idea of smooth stance-height change is good. It just needs limits.

So I'd like BIS to mocap EVERY soldier animation.

Fully agree. I'm not happy with retarded-looking hand animated animations myself. Weaponless and with the pistol especially.

It shouldn't be the rifle moves left and then the camera (your body) is pulled along after the rifle moves. I know this is mocapped, but the weapons aren't tucked into the shoulder.

I play with a floating deadzone which lets me move hands independently of the body which I find to be great since I can f.e. move forward while still being able to immediately return fire a bit sideways instead of turning directly to an enemy. Among many other things. So I'm not sure what exactly is bad here.

I take it you dislike that the weapon moves first and camera moves later only when moving the weapon very fast?

In that case BIS should limit the turning speed since f.e. in no way you can rotate as fast and as precisely with some Barret IRL as you can do in ArmA. Especially when prone.

ACE fixes that and I hope BIS will learn from it.

Even more so, I really wish the camera was at the same LOD as the highest LOD, so that the camera could actually be locked to the eyes. It would create a larger FOV (through the eyes of the character), adding more immersion

Do you realize that the default FOV is already zoomed out and the zoomed in one is the actual, real one?

And only after the camera moves to the edge of the screen should the head then move where the character is looking. Then you really get the sense you're looking through the character's eyes.

Ah.

But I think this is taking it too far, too much mouse movement just to turn.

[dmarkwick 261]

Ah.

But I think this is taking it too far, too much mouse movement just to turn.

I agree, plus it doesn't actually have any player functionality. And in fact, in MP if you were to turn your head to the right, then turn it back, the MP effect would be that you're not appearing to look where you're looking. And it would totally confuse the TrackIR user :D

[wipman 1]

Hi, @Metalcraze: The default FOV on the ArmA2 is in fact zoomed In, not out; there's a key to zoom out that i've to press always that i enter on a urban or closer enviroment for have a wider FOV with my 19" 5:4 monitor. Let's C ya

[katipo66 94]

I think the whole animation thing is not what's important and most probably will be addressed in Arma 3 maybe even improved a bit for A2 in a future patch unless I read something wrong.

It's more about offering gameplay options in MP that offer a more focused PVP experience, through either introducing a new gameplay mode and maybe maps that might work in favor of that mode.

[antoineflemming 14]

I agree that ArmA needs more flexible stances but this is also a question of controls. What if I'm running and really want to go prone, not "high crawl". Stance changes controls and switches themselves are OK. We just need more stuff we can do with them, like a "deadzone" for standing - f.e. standing fully or ducking a bit - controlled by being in standing stance and holding CTRL + moving the mouse vertically f.e.

That way we'll be able to peek over walls without exposing the whole head right away. This will also work because you still will be able to aim and shoot since if you are aiming down the sights the weapon will still move with your view.

This I can easily agree on since I liked this idea in R6RS. Although in R6RS it was arcadey and you could scroll from prone to standing the idea of smooth stance-height change is good. It just needs limits.

Fully agree. I'm not happy with retarded-looking hand animated animations myself. Weaponless and with the pistol especially.

I play with a floating deadzone which lets me move hands independently of the body which I find to be great since I can f.e. move forward while still being able to immediately return fire a bit sideways instead of turning directly to an enemy. Among many other things. So I'm not sure what exactly is bad here.

I take it you dislike that the weapon moves first and camera moves later only when moving the weapon very fast?

In that case BIS should limit the turning speed since f.e. in no way you can rotate as fast and as precisely with some Barret IRL as you can do in ArmA. Especially when prone.

ACE fixes that and I hope BIS will learn from it.

Do you realize that the default FOV is already zoomed out and the zoomed in one is the actual, real one?

Ah.

But I think this is taking it too far, too much mouse movement just to turn.

Wait, the eye turn thing isn't for turning movement. It's a suggestion for free look. You don't always need to turn your head to something in order to see it. You scan with your eyes, not with your head. When you reach the limit of your sight is when you turn your head. As far as the low crawl/high crawl, that's not a stance thing. That's a movement thing. So the prone stance would be the same. It's just that when you move you would move either in high or low crawl. Like in the VBS video.

The view is in fact zoomed in. As I said in my discussion with PuFu, if you take the screen to be your eyes, and you are looking through the eyes of a soldier, you should be able to see your charging handle on your M16. You really should be able to see some of the stock too, albeit in your peripheral vision (which is something BIS should add to ArmA3). The zooming out thing would be kinda okay if the camera wasn't distorted when doing so. So the issue isn't FOV, but that the camera is too far away. It should be moved back a little. Honestly, you should see a little blur from where your nose would be. That's why I really want BIS to put the camera on the primary, highest LOD, so that you can actually use functional eyewear and it actually look like you're looking through the character's eyes.

And yeah, that weaponless/pistol running and sprinting animation looks pretty ridiculous.

Edited December 20, 2011 by antoineflemming

[PuFu 4591]

Wait, the eye turn thing isn't for turning movement. It's a suggestion for free look. You don't always need to turn your head to something in order to see it. You scan with your eyes, not with your head. When you reach the limit of your sight is when you turn your head.

you are nitpicking. There is nothing wrong with the current freelook where you turn your head rather than the eyes

You really should be able to see some of the stock too, albeit in your peripheral vision (which is something BIS should add to ArmA3).

There are already in A2. The small dots on the side of the screen which very purpose is to simulate the peripheral vision.

If you want more peripheral vision, get yourself another 2 screens and a proper GFX card so you can run triple view.

Even a Track IR might help.

The zooming out thing would be kinda okay if the camera wasn't distorted when doing so. So the issue isn't FOV, but that the camera is too far away.

Good GOD...have YOU checked where the camera IS positioned like i suggested to you 2 days ago? I am pretty certain you didn't since you come back to the same wrong conclusion over and over again!

The camera is NOT far away (far away from what, only you might know).

It should be moved back a little. Honestly, you should see a little blur from where your nose would be. That's why I really want BIS to put the camera on the primary, highest LOD, so that you can actually use functional eyewear and it actually look like you're looking through the character's eyes.

FPDR...dude, really, you should learn how things work before you talk about them...

The LOD system is perfectly fine the way it is. Besides, no one exept you want a blurry black thing to mimick your nose center screen. If you want that, just go ahead and mod it in, it is more than possible in A2...

If BIS would like to have headgear and so forth viewable in the pilotLOD, they could just ADD it to the pilotLOD, instead of having to rewrite how the engine handles all the individual LODs...

Besides the gear you can put on your face from your profile setting is NOT defined in the damn character P3D!

Here is WHY BIS will never add real 3d gear to your precious LOD:

normal FOV - similar to A2

increased FOV - that can be setup from your profile.cfg

I for one like being able to change my FOV, oposed to most other game you keep bringing to discussion, where changing fov would mean seeing the floating hands and weapons

Edited December 21, 2011 by PuFu

[Tonci87 163]

I think I´ll drop that here too

I think I have to explain why I like Coop and dislike PvP

My group consists of many people (I even dare to say that we are the bigest really active group in Germany) and we simply like to play WITH each other. We like to be a Team and to have a good time. Its also much easier to have large scale Operations in Coop.

I have PvP and TvT experience. TvT can be really fun but some people can' handle loosing. I played in two leagues with large scale Bluefor vs. Opfor and both leagues went fubar because some people were more concerned about balancing (They have M1A1 we only has T 90) then about playing the game. And when they started loosing they didn't show up on the next session.

Stuff like that doesn't happen in Coop.

Coop makes friends not rivals.

[rye1 21]

Because when someone points out that a guy you agree with doesn't know what he's talking about or simply disagrees with his point of view he is a dirty troll.

No but when someone asserts their opinion in a manner that leads the topic completely OFF then they are dirty, fat troll. He has some good ideas. Let's leave it at that and for BIS to dissect it.

[roberthammer 582]

Problem is that "Eye" memory point in each of BIS Characters - it is placed in the middle between the eyes ,but it should be on right eye due of weapons view

Original left/middle side eye pos VS Modified Right side eye pos

Atm i using my small mod which makes alot better FOV like almost like VBS2 has

It is alot better ,because with original A2 FOV the M16 , it doesn't look that you holding a long weapon , which M16 is - with modified FOV the M16 looks how it should be and with minimal "Fish eye" effect

Edited December 21, 2011 by RobertHammer

[james2464 176]

great ideas, but realistically BIS isn't going to do this. we'll have to wait for mods or Project Reality to build it.

[PuFu 4591]

Problem is that "Eye" memory point in each of BIS Characters - it is placed in the middle between the eyes ,but it should be on right eye due of weapons view

Atm i using my small mod which makes alot better FOV like almost like VBS2 has

It is alot better ,because with original A2 FOV the M16 , it doesn't look that you holding a long weapon , which M16 is - with modified FOV the M16 looks how it should be and with minimal "Fish eye" effect

Well, you know as well as i do, that even if one would have the mlods so they could change the eye position, that would then misalign every crosshair in all vehicles using one...

great ideas, but realistically BIS isn't going to do this. we'll have to wait for mods or Project Reality to build it.

all praise Project Reality the MP savior....not..

don't get me wrong, i have nothing against anyone trying to improve the game, but certain things should be dealt by BIS. At least to make some stuff easier for the modders...

[twisted 127]

great ideas, but realistically BIS isn't going to do this. we'll have to wait for mods or Project Reality to build it.

i'm not so sure. BIS is very aware of things going on - whether or not they do it, well no non-bis people can really guess. they have an agenda all of their own. i just hope they consider a variety of official MP maps (must be official so lots of people can play on same playing ground easily.) - and if BIS decide not to do this well then the mp state of armaverse is their vision anyway.

if they would release some mp modes & missions where the gameplay is a bit more focused on that. the reason why many people dont touch arma´s mp is cause they experience boredom and unorganized gameplay on public servers.

if there were more gamemodes/official missions with that chokepoints and clear targets, maybe also a bit smaller playable areas there wouldnt be a need to join clans and squads but still have fast and fun teamplay.

you summarised the need for this very well.

[kuokenken 1]

Apparently,this suggestion will ruin Arma the right to be a sim

You should play BF2,or BF2:PR,that should be suit for ur description

Have u ever thought about what make Arma become realistic FPS?

The normal FPS like COD or BF,It create a seal or realativly open world

And use like Death Match,Rush,Conquest......mode

to let both sides fight in prescribe condition,and try to be balance

Like bot side got two tank,two plane,two APC......

And what ARMA has done not just create a sandbox world

Including the variont weapons,numerous vehicles,gears system

The whole thing to do is to create a most realitic world and play as a reallife battle

The free of deploying thing in mission editor let the mission maker try to create a reallife situation

Like a recon platoon in ten Hmmvees secure the mountain to build FOB

Or try to penetrate with special force and hunt the officer

It gave u the right to be god,and create a reallife simulation to fight like real mission

that what make Arma so realistic,no matter how the other FPS do

If they can't break the role of two side with balance and fight in prescribe condition

They cant never be a sim,try to play ARMA:PR or BF2:PR and u will know

That might be the best choose for u

And I think it's understandable for why people got mad when someone wanna change ARMA

That will make Arma not like a sim,and we won't have other same type game to play if it got ruined

If ARMA wanna attract more people,The free game mode create by mission editor is cool enough

Most important of all is try to optimize formula

let more people without need to worry this game will be a Hardware murderer,see what GTA4 has done

and maybe more faster online speed,etc

Second,in the way not to decrease the function,try to let command or editor more intuition

Like mission editor,the 3D editor is one of the most improtant improvement(except Physic)from ARMA2 to ARMA3

ARMA is survive by lot of mission create by player to live for such a long time

The old 2D need to take lot time to set the postion,3D will save lot work on creating mission

and next thing will be try no need to do everything with checking the god damn much scripts to creat mission

Third,better AI,not to spot u accross the forest,and I think BIS done a lot at this in OA 1.60 ver

But try to be more taticals,I know it mostly impossible because of the game type

but nowadays AI seems only know need to take cover when engageing enemy,and nothing on tatical conscious

Four,new animation,but not like BF or COD type,u wont be able to run like that in reallife

That all I think is primary,like customized weapon could be prolong,the nowadays way u want to change weapon with scope is to create several model for it and choose in the box

If there are not animation like it has been said in trailer,the only value of it might be save the time of creating model

and too much able to customized personal might let people seems not like a soldier,watch how BF3 done now

But no matter what,BIS still got good work on,and hope I can play ARMA 6 at ten years later and be waiting for ARMA7

BTW:sorry if my essay is hard to understand,I'm from non-department of English country

Edited December 21, 2011 by kuokenken

[james2464 176]

Why is everyone quoting BF2 and BF3 etc?

Nothing to do with these games, Arma 3 with a official or semi unofficial MP setup would be incredible. I refer to the thoughts of the OP and other under him. epic.

[Messiah 2]

Why is everyone quoting BF2 and BF3 etc?

Nothing to do with these games, Arma 3 with a official or semi unofficial MP setup would be incredible. I refer to the thoughts of the OP and other under him. epic.

I believe the comparison comes about because people feel some/many of the suggestions mentioned will invariably 'dumb down' and go wholy against the concept of Armed Assault.

Whether you agree or not, depends entirely on personal tastes, and thus the debate/argument/phallic gesticulation comes about.

[kuokenken 1]

Why is everyone quoting BF2 and BF3 etc?

Nothing to do with these games, Arma 3 with a official or semi unofficial MP setup would be incredible. I refer to the thoughts of the OP and other under him. epic.

Because he just told us that the experience learn from BF3 and wanna bring to ARMA,and beside ARMA,the most famous game with large map and vehicle is BF

And the unofficial play mode like ur said has existed,the ARMA:PR

To be honest,I don't really want ARMA lost any of it's reality it got right now,or I wont type so much word to explain my feeling(If u got terrible feeling at understand my essay,I have same feeling when I was typing)

But I still wanna keep my favorite game to stay on what I want,It's totally comprehend

ARMA has it's own guest group and its own way,and it is been set with a war sim,or at least serious game

If anything will ruin it,that not the guest group want,see what old BF player feeling now,and watch how OFP:DR and OFP:RR has done

Edited December 21, 2011 by kuokenken

[james2464 176]

Because he just told us that the experience learn from BF3 and wanna bring to ARMA,and beside ARMA,the most famous game with large map and vehicle is BF

And the unofficial play mode like ur said has existed,the ARMA:PR

Yes Arma:PR has huge potential, had 4 full servers when it was released. Also lets remember BIS support them with BAF content etc so there is scope for official cooperation with MP on arma 3 in the future which is great.

It will be interesting to see how PR and A3 develops.

[wipman 1]

Hi, i think that the MP gonna be more of the same, few and most likely boring coops without realistic mechanics as CAS, MED-EVAC, ARTI, Engineers etc... to begin with; there wont be recovery vehicles to "repair" the disabled vehicles with some basic procedures as "plug your goose in this hole, sailor".

It gonna rely on few basic so called games modes as the C&H or the über boring CTI, i don't see any will by BIS to change the things from the ArmA2 to the ArmA3 in therms of improve and enforce the coop missions making 'em more realistic; not a simply 'go there and kill every thing and then move to the other place and do the same'.

I think that the MP gonna be basically the same as in the ArmA2; basic, repetitive, few interesting and not reflecting war like combat missions, with support and effectives. I also think that the island will be dead or empty, if you want. I don't spect changes. Let's C ya

[BobcatBob 10]

A simple "Take the village mission" where two teams spawn on opposite sides of a particular village, and the objective is simply fight until all the lives of one team are used up... and/or if the village (and surrounding terrain of say..1km) is absent of enemy personell (but not friendly) for a certain amount of time when a meter will fill after some time as the town will then be "taken", this discourages rolling firefights that chase across the whole damn map and may turn into "hide and seek".

Seperatly, engagement sizes should be displayed next to the mission as "small" (Objective(s) accumulative AO around size of cod/bf, up to 25km2) "medium" a largish chunk of map, no more than 50km2 or "large" (like 100km2+...)

This way If someone wishes to get inventive they may take the time to flank way outside the village and snipe, or do whatever armariffic tactical stuff. They'll just get a brief radio message letting them know "Your getting too far outside the AO, try not to stray much further from the objective!" This will let an individual know if he is outside of the town "capture zone" likewize saying something like "Okay your at the objective area" will let an individual know he his in the clear. That way w/o having autodeath300/invisiblewallstech800 the players can be reasonably corralled, as they will be discouraged from wondering

[crazyjake56 10]

I can only hope Arma 3 will include this stuff.

[antoineflemming 14]

Problem is that "Eye" memory point in each of BIS Characters - it is placed in the middle between the eyes ,but it should be on right eye due of weapons view

Original left/middle side eye pos VS Modified Right side eye pos

Atm i using my small mod which makes alot better FOV like almost like VBS2 has

It is alot better ,because with original A2 FOV the M16 , it doesn't look that you holding a long weapon , which M16 is - with modified FOV the M16 looks how it should be and with minimal "Fish eye" effect

That seriously looks a lot better. So this small mod is for A2. You have any screens of it?

@PuFu Peripheral vision and simulating peripheral vision aren't the same. Green dots showing whether something is to the left or right of you is NOT peripheral vision. There's the part of your vision that is focused and clear, and then there's the rest that is blurry and not clear, where the eye can distinguish shape and color and that's about it. THAT is PERIPHERAL VISION.

Oh, and nice pics: you see, if BIS would include peripheral vision (actual peripheral vision), it wouldn't be as drastic, but the top pic would be the focused vision, the part that is CLEAR. Everything in the lower pic that isn't in the top pic would be PERIPHERAL vision and therefore blurry. Oh, and BIS can do that. It's called DEPTH OF FIELD. And on the note of LODs and stuff like that. Who cares if the eyewear isn't in the character P3D. It's called using the same LOD for third and first person. I can see the gear in third person view. That camera is in a different LID. So theoretically if the first person camera were a modified third person camera, everything would show up, including glasses and headgear. But, maybe you can answer this question without other bullcrap, and JUST answer this question with a simple, honest answer: If you were to move the third person camera to just in front of the eyes (as in using whatever LOD is used for the third person camera), would that look completely horrible? Or would that work, using depth of field settings to blur the "peripheral vision"?

Here is what I'm saying a potential view (one that includes peripheral vision) could look like. This is my idea of it:

Without glasses:

With glasses:

This is just my IDEA of what a more realistic first person view COULD look like. It'd be a larger FOV with Depth of Field used to blur out the peripheral vision. In the end, the view in focus would be the same as with ArmA2's regular FOV (that is probably why BIS has the zoomed in view, and, yes PuFu, it IS zoomed in). I guess BIS only wanted to show what your eyes could actually focus on. It's smart, but peripheral vision would make for an interesting dynamic in-game, not to mention it's more realistic.

Edited December 22, 2011 by antoineflemming

[the_antipop 10]

There needs to be two distinct variations in ArmA MP.

Obviously the well known Co-op gameplay we all know and love. Leave that as it is, obviously with improvements, network fixes, JIP fixes etc etc.

But there also needs to be a more robust PvP mode. Similar to what Project Reality was looking into, but maybe, make Limos smaller on these maps, like BF, when you stray too far you are killed. Keeps people closer and in a more confined area, which means more kills and more fun. Obviously, in this mode, specific missions can earn you ranks, unlock new weapons, new attachments etc. Could bring a whole new range of players to ArmA, and allow those who turn to COD/BF3 etc when ArmA is giving us a headache, we can just join a PvP server and hook in.

I believe this needs to be looked into. It doesn't need to be crazy complex, just certain missions which have a limited size, distinct objectives, etc.

[Timmoboy 10]

There needs to be two distinct variations in ArmA MP.

Obviously the well known Co-op gameplay we all know and love. Leave that as it is, obviously with improvements, network fixes, JIP fixes etc etc.

But there also needs to be a more robust PvP mode. Similar to what Project Reality was looking into, but maybe, make Limos smaller on these maps, like BF, when you stray too far you are killed. Keeps people closer and in a more confined area, which means more kills and more fun. Obviously, in this mode, specific missions can earn you ranks, unlock new weapons, new attachments etc. Could bring a whole new range of players to ArmA, and allow those who turn to COD/BF3 etc when ArmA is giving us a headache, we can just join a PvP server and hook in.

I believe this needs to be looked into. It doesn't need to be crazy complex, just certain missions which have a limited size, distinct objectives, etc.

I totelly agree with you. And if people think it would destroy the game or make it more arcadish they are wrong. It would only mean that the people that just want to play a quick match without mods etc just have to start the game and play.

Arma will still be as open as it always have been, but imo will make more players stay with the game.

[antoineflemming 14]

I totelly agree with you. And if people think it would destroy the game or make it more arcadish they are wrong. It would only mean that the people that just want to play a quick match without mods etc just have to start the game and play.

Arma will still be as open as it always have been, but imo will make more players stay with the game.

How would a BF Conquest like mode sound? Then there's still plenty enough space (certainly not the whole island though), there's still vehicles to use, and at the same time it's still not focused solely on kills. The unlocking thing is something I don't agree with though. Neither is the ranking thing. That's too much like the other FPSs in my opinion.