How to improve the Close Quarter Combat experience in Arma 3?

[rye1 21]

I would love for jumping to be in the game, as it makes you feel more attached to the environment (when done right), though my greatest wish would be for stumbles if you jump and land wrong, adding an element of risk to it and discouraging jumping in combat. A more fluid player control system is my number 1 desire for Arma3.

Indoors and outdoors usability, I agree. If there is furniture in your path you have an option OTHER THAN going around it. If it's a high obstacle, duck it. If it's a low obstacle, jump it. Although I hate thinking about its exploit; bunny hopping must be prevented.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Well how easy and high can one jump with just sports wear and how is it with all the gear and equipment of a soldier on? Imo the type and size of weapons should also have an impact of how the player feels and moves around eg AT/AA launchers, long range sniper rifles, heavy machinegun/grenade launcher.... Clipping bodyparts or weapons (barrel) through solid objects should be a no-go.

[almanzo 144]

Do people even realize how hard it is to move indoors with alot of clothing? If you have an airsoft rifle or something like that, try dressing up in as much clothes as possible, then wear a backpack for good measure.

Try running through your house and see how easy it is. If you don't have an airsoft rifle, use a broomstick, adjust the lenght and add some weight to it. Try to note how often you are able to properly aim your weapon...

After that, ask yourself, is animations like in Battlefield fit for ARMA, and is ARMAs clunkyness indoors really that unrealistic? Some of the videos posted here from real life illustrate this rather well. Moving around with a large rifle isn't easy, and you are not able to just crouch and aim everywhere. It requires quite alot of space. Agility is extremely limited indoors. Ah, and while your at it, go outside with your gear and try to jump. Make sure you have at least 10 - 15 kg of gear and clothing.

When you have tried that, we can talk about animations and how games like battlefield have "done it right"...

[EuroSlave 1]

ARMAs clunkyness indoors really that unrealistic?

Yes. Plus, this is not VBS2. Carrying a load of gear in real life can be clunky, sure, but this is a game. Some affordances have to be made to enable fun gameplay. Remember why Dslyecxi said they still use the reticule? Because in real life you can naturally feel and predict where your gun is aiming. It's a necessary abstraction.

Movement in real life has fluidity whereas ARMA does not. This holds back CQB as players are unable to traverse areas quickly and efficiently. The game needs to make movement feel smooth and tight as you move through areas.

[chortles 263]

Look at some of these guys, assuming that I would make a "CQB oriented" mission and then make the characters wear body armor, helmets or backpacks that could weigh them down... ;)

I'll agree with EuroSlave, but I seriously have to wonder why you guys are still talking about this considering the development path that BI has already shown off at E3 and Gamescom which seems to emphasize "make CQB feel/look more fluid like a conventional FPS, haters gonna hate", especially when "more fluid" is a stated feature by the creative directors.

Funny thing is, in retrospect it seems like the infantry sections at the 2012 conventions were specifically to show off "hey, it looks/feels different from Arma 2, we'll even have both a Shooting Range AND a Firing Drills range specifically to show this off!" whereas the helicopters and ground vehicles showcases weren't nearly as emphasized.

[Smurf 12]

They had some obstacles laying around with static targets. No room clearing and stuff, so Im still holding my breath.

[chortles 263]

Define "room clearing and stuff"?

[Smurf 12]

Define "room clearing and stuff"?

Force entry and engage enemies in confined spaces. Extra points if the room in question have objects, multi levels and a bonus for use of grenades. :cool:

[rye1 21]

Do people even realize

Though I agree with parts of what you have put I have to say...

1. It is easier the lighter you go, can this be equated into game? Can you be MORE agile with less weight in game?

This begs the question, does weight have a double purpose? Do the animations react to? Probably not.

2. There are techniques to help you move through a house with a weapon, that's exactly why they were developed - this will not be included in game nor I believe will the difficulty of maneuvering within the internal environment. Your difficulty does not equate to everyone elses. You play airsoft? Look up teams like GMR. But yes, the maneuverability of your character will be limited in ARMA therefore the speed of which you can move and the animations stated are of the biggest value there.

3. 10-15 kilograms is fairly light and yes, it will limit your jump. We know this.

4. The topic in my opinion here is about obstacle negotiation and does not need to include jumping. It can include automatic or manual actions on specific objects, for example vaulting or stepping over. If there is a small object on the ground in the room, I can step over it or onto and off it. Shit, if the animations and speed are that good then you'd just go around the object.

I'd personally also like to see a video of "room clearing" as stated by Smurf.

[froggyluv 2135]

Maybe slightly OffT but has there been any word on room clutter and possible PhysX reactions to being toppled, exploding debris etc...?

[-Coulum- 35]

Do people even realize how hard it is to move indoors with alot of clothing? If you have an airsoft rifle or something like that, try dressing up in as much clothes as possible, then wear a backpack for good measure........When you have tried that, we can talk about animations and how games like battlefield have "done it right"...

To a degree you are right, moving around doesn't exactly feel like it does in BF3, which in my opinion is far to fast while still remaining precise and "fluid". But at the same, real life doesn't even feel close to arma because:

1. When I move around I can easily lower my weapon when needed to - I rarely bang the barrel off walls unless in a panic.
   
2. I am able to swing my weapon quickly and precisely - no wonky acceleration. The lighter/smaller it is, the easier I can do this.
   
3. I can easily make small steps and precise movements - I never accidently overstep and expose myself unless of course I am running.
   
4. I can perform actions while moving - no need to stop before I through a grenade or lower my weapon.
   
5. I always know where I am aiming in relation to close objects. I never accidently shoot the wall or window sill I am shooting from because my sights have cleared them, but my barrel has not. like wise i never accidently chuck a grenade off the top of the door and have it land at my feet.
   
6. I am much more aware of my surrounding, even when looking down the sights - partly due to a higher FOV and partly due to the fact that I have both eyes open allowing me to see around my sights as well as down them.
   
7. Even though its not really, my brain copensates for my bodies movements and makes it seem as if my sights and I are smoothely "floating" rather than bumping up and down with each step - this is only when wlaking howe.
   

So to fix these things, in order of priority, make it so in arma...

1. You automatically lower your weapon to avoid collisions,
   
2. get rid of mouse acceleration, or at least make it dependant on weapon weight
   
3. Are able to make precise movements while walking,
   
4. Allow player to perform actions and move (ie. grenade throwing),
   
5. Decrease "camera" bob and weapon "jerk"when walking,
   
6. Somehow notify the player when his barrel is pointing at something dirrectly infront of him
   
7. Make it so you slide off objects rather than get stuck on them,
   
8. Make sights slightly transparent to simulate the fact that you have binocular vision
   

That would dramatically improve CQB. Of these we know that #2 and #5 are fixed, and supposedly #3 is fixed/being worked on. I really hope #1 and #4 get fixed as well.

[chortles 263]

Re: #6: I don't know if we're talking about the same thing, but the "crosshairs jumping?" topic touched on 'notify when your barrel is pointing at something', though Jay admitted that what was implemented wasn't a perfect solution.

[-Coulum- 35]

yeah that solves the problem when you aren't using the sights, but it wouldn't help in situations like this which end up with me hitting that ledge right infront of me. I am not complaining about the fact that the bullet hits the ledge, but rather the fact that I was unaware that it would do so. Best I can think of is a little icon that appears in the top corner when something is within a metre and your barrel is pointing at it, to let you know that your shot is possibly being obstructed...

[rye1 21]

Maybe slightly OffT but has there been any word on room clutter and possible PhysX reactions to being toppled, exploding debris etc...?

Well some of the destroyed buildings in the map look like this could be credible. If not, I'm sure there will be some amount of furniture which could be toppled. That's not a bad question actually.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

^^ room clutter would be cool, but the only real need I can see is re-enacting my early high school days with all the mock WWF battles.

30 boys and all the desks and chairs in the middle of the room NOW!

On a slightly more serious note the current map building and object system doesn't lend it self well to toppling but there may be something in the idea of destroying furniture. Unfortunately the most credible route of placing objects on a per mission basis is still hampered by the lack of a good 3d editor.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Pathetic_Berserker

[galzohar 31]

yeah that solves the problem when you aren't using the sights, but it wouldn't help in situations like this which end up with me hitting that ledge right infront of me. I am not complaining about the fact that the bullet hits the ledge, but rather the fact that I was unaware that it would do so. Best I can think of is a little icon that appears in the top corner when something is within a metre and your barrel is pointing at it, to let you know that your shot is possibly being obstructed...

This is a problem caused by discrepancy between 1st and 3rd person. Nothing more, nothing less. Make 1st and 3rd person look the same and you have no problems. See www.groundbranch.com...

In 2nd thought, in your specific example it was pretty obvious you were gonna hit the ledge, as any trained infantryman seeing the same such sight picture would have known. But yeah, in general there are situations in Arma where it looks completely fine yet you still hit the ledge due to differences between 1st and 3rd person.

[blackmamb 2]

This is a problem caused by discrepancy between 1st and 3rd person. Nothing more, nothing less. Make 1st and 3rd person look the same and you have no problems.

Is that relevant? I don't use third person, the group I play with don't use it either. Afaik, you don't need to get out of your body to see if you're about to shoot that wall or not. 3rd person would change, that it wouldn't change anything. I'd still look down my sights, line up that dude, and see pieces of bricks all over the place.

Although in my opinion, there's also the geometry of those walls and windows and stuff. I mean, most of the time, the muzzle's clear, yet some invisible part of the wall/tree/barrel/insert your object will block the shot.

Note that I use st_movement, which as far as I know messes with the geometry of the weapon, so that sometimes, even if the muzzle is clear, my weapon is clipping through a bit of wall between the chamber and the muzzle.

And finishing this, I might have just understood what you said previously. Actually, first person needs to change.

[galzohar 31]

BlackMamb, you missed the point. My point is that what you see in 1st person is different than what the game actually takes into account. This has nothing to do with whether you look at yourself from 1st or 3rd person, but rather that the game looks at you "in 3rd person". If 1st person didn't have discrepancy from 3rd person, than what you see would be what the game and other people (and yes, also people who use 3rd person view, but that's beside the point) see.

Another problem I didn't mention is that the size of the collider (invisible geometry that decides what hits what) and the size of the mesh (the visible 3d object) simply don't match in many cases. One one hand this is required, as perfectly matchign the colliders with all meshes will kill the game's performance completely. On the other hand, there is a long way to go in improving this as well. Especially in some places where an object with a straight line edge has mismatching mesh and collider...

[chortles 263]

I wonder if the ability to visually adjust iron sights across more weapons could be implemented as far as a solution for first-person? I mean, assuming that zeroing works like it does in real life and not "bullet trajectory is bent at the muzzle depending on your zero distance" like I've heard about OA...

[blackmamb 2]

BlackMamb, you missed the point. My point is that what you see in 1st person is different than what the game actually takes into account. This has nothing to do with whether you look at yourself from 1st or 3rd person, but rather that the game looks at you "in 3rd person". If 1st person didn't have discrepancy from 3rd person, than what you see would be what the game and other people (and yes, also people who use 3rd person view, but that's beside the point) see.

Yup, as my last sentence indicated, I actually understood what you meant when I finished writing the above message. So I agree with you, actually.

[galzohar 31]

I wonder if the ability to visually adjust iron sights across more weapons could be implemented as far as a solution for first-person? I mean, assuming that zeroing works like it does in real life and not "bullet trajectory is bent at the muzzle depending on your zero distance" like I've heard about OA...

While it's true that the current zeroing system is a dirty workaround, in practice it has pretty much nothing to do with hitting ledges by mistake, and thus obviously also has nothing to do with CQB.

[rye1 21]

While it's true that the current zeroing system is a dirty workaround, in practice it has pretty much nothing to do with hitting ledges by mistake, and thus obviously also has nothing to do with CQB.

I think he was talking about the lean-muzzle issue in one of the Dyslexci videos and as far as the curvature of the bullet.

[wipman 1]

there's also the geometry of those walls and windows and stuff. I mean, most of the time, the muzzle's clear, yet some invisible part of the wall/tree/barrel/insert your object will block the shot.

I think that you're right there, the "invisible" LODs are not of the same size than the visual LODs, they're less detailed and more brute; the buildings and objects should be of the same size on all the LODs. Is the same than with the "shield weapons...", that when you're far, the weapons LOD is just a huge solid triangle where there's only a picture of the weapon with transparent sides and then the weapons act as BP shields; i'd seen this when i did my M4's pack back on the ArmA and it was there too when i did another M4's pack for the ArmA2. The problem with this (on the objects) is that the AI is aware of this while you're not.

[DeclaredEvol 10]

IDK guys, the CQB in ArmA 3 looks GREAT :D

http://dslyecxi.com/an-arma3-video-surprise-on-monday/

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

IDK guys, the CQB in ArmA 3 looks GREAT :D

http://dslyecxi.com/an-arma3-video-surprise-on-monday/

Courtesy of Smookie's anims. :)