Will Bohemia finally improve ARMA's PVP to attract New Players?

[metalcraze 290]

BF3 has no bulletdrop. The only "bulletdrop" is in sniper rifles but even then it's just a hitscan with the point of hitscanning drifting down from the crosshair over time.

Instead of ArmA's "bullet appears inside the barrel, bullet travels through a barrel, bullet travels through a parabolic trajectory and hits whatever it hits, depending on a material properties it either gets "stuck" or ricochets and keeps on flying"

[tremanarch 6]

i dont know why it is called bulletdrop? its just plain physics or earths gravity. If you drop something it falls to ground. full stop. Nothing fancy here. Calling it bulletdrop seems so dumb somehow because its not like only Bullets are behaving this way you know?

nevertheless I think BF3 has Bullet-Falling-to-Earth Physics for every Bullet. It is just that you fight often in a range of 100 m..

When a bullet has a speed of 800 m/s it flew 1/8 s in this 100m.. G is 9,81 m/s^2

With s = 1/2 * g * t^2 its about 0.08 m if I remember correctly.. thats not so much... maybe 1 pixel, depends on your Fov and Zoom. But when you fire a bullet in BF3 over 1000 m you can see it fall to the ground really quickly.

Trajectory on the other hand is not implemented..

and of course it (the falling height) is not a linear ratio, g is an accelerated force (this graph shows the velocity which is increasing linear over time):

This means you see a bullet dropping faster and faster to the end..

Edited May 9, 2012 by tremanarch

[metalcraze 290]

If there were bullet ballistics in BF3 bullets wouldn't be shooting out of a center of a crosshair and instantly hitting whatever is there. Even at 200m there is a slight but noticeable delay - but there's none in BF3.

It's easy to test. Try pointing your gun barrel at a wall but with crosshair staying above it, preferably pointed at an object far away. What do bullets hit when you fire?

[tremanarch 6]

I just recorded a little example. I have not much time, so I couldnt find out which range it was, but i guess something about 150 m - 200 m..

As you can see the bullet drops:

this is the chart, as you see not like in the real world:

It is linear.. but anyway something _is_ there ;)

source for BF3 behaviour: http://symthic.com/charts.php

Edited May 9, 2012 by tremanarch

[metalcraze 290]

Are you sure you are not mistaking it with the random spread which always goes hand in hand with a hitscan? Because it looks like it "drops" randomly considering that you always shoot the top of the red line.

Also that's ~75m-100m. Pretty weak gun for such distance to cause a drop.

Edited May 9, 2012 by metalcraze

[tremanarch 6]

not the gun causes a drop but the earth gravity. The faster a bullet flies, the less time it has to drop in a fixed range.

A bullet that flies 1 m/s will drop soon (measured in range)..

But a bullet that flies at lightspeed wont drop the next hundreds of kilometres...

Both bullets drop the same amount per second, but the slow bullet is in one second not far away (only 1 metre), while the lightspeed bullet has 300000km of way behind - and both bullets dropped the same amount ca. 5 metre in this easy exaggerated example. So the faster the better!

All objects in this world on this earth drop at the same amount of speed, and would it not be for air even a feather would drop as fast as a stone.. It is not affected by weight or velocity perpendicular to the falling direction (okay the earth is not flat and again there is a bit more to it, but it wont affect as much. The easy model will again do just fine).

In this easy model, the gun only affects the bullet speed. In real life there is a bit more to it, but that easy model will do fine for now.

I make another record with a bipod and then some shots into the open from what you can see that it drops.

ALso the chart i posted is from symthic. They look into all these files and find out those things. I would bet that it is right.

The m27 has in BF3 a muzzle veloc. of 650 m/s

--

In this new sample I chose 3 different ranges and tried always to shoot in the middle of some objects upper bodyelement. (a Silo)

You can see that it is not the bulletspread. The last few shots I made were into the open. From that you can see the bullets linear dropping algorithm by the BF3 game. It is not like in the real world, because in the game you can see the bullet dropping is only linear and not accelerated, but it has bullet drop... on short ranges it doesnt matter that much.

Edited May 9, 2012 by tremanarch

[Dragonshot 1]

All objects in this world on this earth drop at the same amount of speed

Different shaped projectiles traveling at precisely the same velocity will accelerate downwards at different speeds.

[metalcraze 290]

Bro don't lecture me on physics. Video clearly shows that one bullet hits dead on and another lands below the crosshair and another lands in between of them even though you shoot the line at the same height most of the time. That with the hit being instant is strange to say the least (IRL that would mean that bullets travel at the different speed which is still fast and have a different weight - and a heavy one at that)

Or not if you remember that it's a hitscan+spread.

[tremanarch 6]

Video clearly shows that one bullet hits dead on and another lands below the crosshair and another lands in between of them even though you shoot the line at the same height most of the time.

no

aggressive idiot or harmless troll?

either way its senseless. I hope some time in the future you feel that being lectured is a good thing not a bad.

..................

Different shaped projectiles traveling at precisely the same velocity will accelerate downwards at different speeds.

right, and I said that an easy model will do.. right? right.

Edited May 9, 2012 by tremanarch

[Dragonshot 1]

right, and I said that an easy model will do.. right? right.

You also said this

i dont know why it is called bulletdrop?

and this

If you drop something it falls to ground. full stop. Nothing fancy here. Calling it bulletdrop seems so dumb somehow because its not like only Bullets are behaving this way you know?

It's painfully clear that you have no understanding of ballistic science.

[batto 17]

So the conclusion is that BF3 players will get used to it quickly and CoD players will experience new challenge. Stop barking already...

But once I've seen a BF3 video where player killed other player on crane cca 500 meters away with full auto 5.56 fire and he aimed directly at him :/. Maybe they improved it in some patch...

[maddogx 13]

So the conclusion is that BF3 players will get used to it quickly and CoD players will experience new challenge. Stop barking already...

But once I've seen a BF3 video where player killed other player on crane cca 500 meters away with full auto 5.56 fire and he aimed directly at him :/. Maybe they improved it in some patch...

Remember that rifles are generally zeroed at a certain range, so it is entirely possible to hit something centered in your sights even though it is hundreds of meters away.

Not sure if BF3 simulates this though.

[Demazi99 1]

Remember that rifles are generally zeroed at a certain range, so it is entirely possible to hit something centered in your sights even though it is hundreds of meters away.

Not sure if BF3 simulates this though.

It doesn't as far as I know, and I've played it a bit.

Drop is linear, weapons aren't zeroed, the bullet weight doesn't influence on the drop, just the bullet speed, which makes different weapons have different drops (but all of them still linear).

What might have happened is the called random deviation, although your weapon is aiming at one point, the bullet goes away from that point in a specified radius, in a way to badly simulate recoil without making it bad to see, and adding a luck factor to the gunplay. Usually this goes up, not down, making it easier to hit at long ranges without aiming above target.

Also, in BF3, as bullets have travel time, they are NOT insta-hit from when you shoot, if you have good reflexes and eyes, you can even see a sniper bullet coming to you at about 600m distance and move sideways to get away from the shot.

Anyway, BF3 just has realistic features that are not used in a realistic way, and are there mostly for balance purposes. This realistic features, however, will make BF players get used to ARMA more quickly.

Also, let's not forget about BF2 PR, that's one hell of a mod, most players from there are going to be playing arma3 from the start, and are willing to bring as much people as they can with them, and some communities have an incredible past on teaching newcomers about these games.

[msy 22]

It doesn't as far as I know, and I've played it a bit.

Drop is linear, weapons aren't zeroed, the bullet weight doesn't influence on the drop, just the bullet speed, which makes different weapons have different drops (but all of them still linear).

What might have happened is the called random deviation, although your weapon is aiming at one point, the bullet goes away from that point in a specified radius, in a way to badly simulate recoil without making it bad to see, and adding a luck factor to the gunplay. Usually this goes up, not down, making it easier to hit at long ranges without aiming above target.

Also, in BF3, as bullets have travel time, they are NOT insta-hit from when you shoot, if you have good reflexes and eyes, you can even see a sniper bullet coming to you at about 600m distance and move sideways to get away from the shot.

Anyway, BF3 just has realistic features that are not used in a realistic way, and are there mostly for balance purposes. This realistic features, however, will make BF players get used to ARMA more quickly.

Also, let's not forget about BF2 PR, that's one hell of a mod, most players from there are going to be playing arma3 from the start, and are willing to bring as much people as they can with them, and some communities have an incredible past on teaching newcomers about these games.

Bullets in BF3 are not bad, but RPGs and AT missles are too slow to catch up with a normal car in high way. Is it really in BF3 it takes 6 seconds for a TOW missle to travel 300 meters? I believe it!

[Demazi99 1]

Bullets in BF3 are not bad, but RPGs and AT missles are too slow to catch up with a normal car in high way. Is it really in BF3 it takes 6 seconds for a TOW missle to travel 300 meters? I believe it!

TOW used to be really really slow, but again, it is an infinite weapon, laser guided, and anyone can use. It is just there for a small defense on unaware vehicles, and is not meant for getting cars, but tanks primarily.

Also, normal cars and generally other vehicles are exposed to anything in the battlefield (cars even more) so they balanced it so that it is really, really hard to hit cars, even close to you, or moving tanks on medium distances.

It's again, about balancing the game.

[Horner 13]

Could either you gentlemen please explain how a multiplayer mission could turn the whole game into a Battlefield clone favored by preteens? Is it the mechanic of gradually seizing certain areas around the map that does it?

Celery makes a great point. And the different kind of missions that we've seen kind of proves it. (i.e. "Life" Missions, Domination, Warfare, etc. etc.) My point was that ArmA isn't just your generic run around and shoot other people type of game that is for some reason appealing to other people. I've longed for a game like ArmA for a long time and when I found it I was utterly amazed.

[Reuben5150 2]

Will they FINALLY make on online mulitplayer that will compete with those titles? As of now their game is far above those two. However I don't understand the business decision to not even try and compete in the lucrative online PvP multiplayer? They leave it up to random individuals with low populated servers. PLEASE try. You have the game, just build it!!!

Battlefield was a great game once, now both these franchises are total junk.

Bf3 tried to compete with cod and look how that turned out.

[PuFu 4600]

It's again, about balancing the game.

And that is something I for one don't want. I want proper portray of weapons behaviour. Things can be balanced out by the mission designer, and NOT by mirroring A with B

[Demazi99 1]

And that is something I for one don't want. I want proper portray of weapons behaviour. Things can be balanced out by the mission designer, and NOT by mirroring A with B

And I didn't say the game was balanced or that I like the way it is. BF3 certainly has a lot of problems, more than it should have, give it's budget. And as said above, it changed from it's original base, getting more on the cod side, reducing the little complexity it had.

Again, that's why a lot of people here may not want to compete with these games: Devs changing the way of doing things to attract a new player base is not something really rare to see. Core players get forgoten more often than not.

[PuFu 4600]

you haven't made yourself clear how would BIS be able to compete with a couple of products that were designed for a completely different target/audience?

Both those games are designed around fast shooting/fast playing close quarters MP game rounds (that includes getting points for kills, awards unlocks and other sort of shit, that BIS players don't care about...at all).

Again, i am all for PvP. I enjoy it a lot more when it comes together than COOPs. But then again, best PvP games i played were NOT small sized CTF, not Team Deathmatches. And i can put my hand on it, best PvP experience i had in my entire 20 years old gaming "carrer" (i am 26, been playing games from around 6 years old) was in ArmA. why? because it was different than any other generic AAA shooter out there. I had to think about my steps, fearing for my virtual life. No other quick respawn game, based on rounds or not, does that...

[EDcase 87]

After reading pages and pages it boils down to:

1: Improve animation system for smoother CQB. [Which is being done]

2: Enhance controls. ie. separate fire mode selector button and grenade throw (with better control)

3: PvP missions with carefully chosen weapons to even the teams. (There are so many available that the balancing is only down to choice)

Limnos and the smaller Stratis will have pleny of locations for close CQB PvP type games up to full island warfare. It has been stated that most buildings will be enterable.

BiS have said that they will concentrate on making training missions (possibly in the campaign) to help people learn controls and get into the ARMA style of play.

Edited May 10, 2012 by EDcase

[NielsS 10]

Will they FINALLY make on online mulitplayer that will compete with those titles? As of now their game is far above those two. However I don't understand the business decision to not even try and compete in the lucrative online PvP multiplayer? They leave it up to random individuals with low populated servers. PLEASE try. You have the game, just build it!!!

I don't see the point. BF3 and COD's player base are largely playing on consoles. Trying to atract those players towards a PC exclusive game is pointless.

You are probably focusing on the PC community's. Unfortunately they're not that big, if they even still exist, so please explain why BIS should use valuable time and resources, that can be spent on important features, to create a gameMODE that competes with 2 full GAMES so they can get maybe a couple of 100 more sales?

Not really. Also i don't think anyone has bought a game, and perhaps upgraded their PC, just to play a certain MP gamemode.:confused:

[katipo66 94]

Not really. Also i don't think anyone has bought a game, and perhaps upgraded their PC, just to play a certain MP gamemode.:confused:

Perhaps its happening with the DayZ mod? and possibly to a small degree with the PR mod? just guessing...

[metalcraze 290]

either way its senseless. I hope some time in the future you feel that being lectured is a good thing not a bad.

Being lectured by people who know what they are talking about? Sure.

And what do those screenshots prove? That there's hitscan spread? Since for some reason bullets flew left and right from the crosshair?

No way.

[max power 21]

Isnt it as simple as looking at Dayz as an example?

If someone had said 3 months ago that a zombie mission would light a fire under bohemia's online ass everyone would have given the usual "noooo/cant be done/its not realistic/we are above and beyond" speeches.

I'm not sure. Does DayZ compete with CoD?

Maybe part of the issue is the various definitions of the word 'compete'. I'm taking it like direct competition in the genre of online FPSs. The part of that genre that taps into the kill/eat/repeat gratification loop that's been exploited in ever more refined ways since quake deathmatches or Counter Strike. I think perhaps comparing DayZ to CoD is more like the way jet engines compete with piston engines, or wheels compete with skids or what have you. If we're simply talking about indirectly influencing the market share, or online bandwidth usage of certain other games, simply out of application or popularity, that is more possible. I don't think that it's possible to really get the same thing out of both games, taking BI's previous games as an example.