Controls Scheme & User Interface Feedback

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Though I would prefer frags to be thrown by default LMB and rolled by RMB. Dropping works by short klicking in either roll or throw mode. Ain't that kind of standard in FPSes?

Sure, if they can get that standard to ArmA: select frag nade with number key 5, left-click - nade gets dropped, on the other hand, if you left-click and hold for a half a second, you'll get your regular throwing distance. :) Yeah, that's a much better solution, can't have roll tho, but perhaps the physics in ArmA III would allow to roll, if you aim at the ground and throw it with maximum force? Heh.

All those range adjstments should stay on one "dedicated" key combo (PgUp/PgDn) like in OA for weapon zeroing. Even timing of satchel. The "F" key should sta as a dedicated "Fire mode" key. Just saying ... :)

Yeah, thought about it: PgUp/Dn for under barrel GL range and satchel timer adjustments. Can it be done? Absolutely, mechanics the same as with F key, when switching to your attached grenade launcher with number key 3, "Zeroing" get replaced with "EGLM - 100 m", or "GP-25 - 100 m". Same for satchel.

F key would be more accessible, though it is a one-way cycle, i.e. can't bring satchel timer back from 120 seconds to 60, you have to go all the way to 180, 240 etc.

[HKFlash 9]

... dedicated weapons keys, dedicated weapons keys, dedicated weapons keys. :p

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

BIS have been awfully quiet on a lot of stuff lately - are they already internally testing major gameplay components, before they plan to release the open Alpha? I'd like to think that the community Alpha would include fully working PhysX, completed interface & controls and decent MP netcode.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?131519-Arma-3-Community-Alpha-Announcement!

Open testing usually has all its core features in place and only minor improvements can be made at that point. Gief dedicated keys, pls.

[chortles 263]

Having considered it, I would say that the AI command is as important as the action commands. Squad management and the dynamics of squad tactics is one of the most important things that separates ArmA from other games.

I disagree here, but I will qualify that disagreement by noting that I just tend not to play missions with unit command because I don't want to be dealing with unit command in the first place.

But almost everything else posted seems to be about you getting the last word in towards pushing a BF3 style game on an ArmA scale.

I'm somewhat saddened to see you to adopt an all-too-common view on these forums that this is a BAD thing. As Iroquois Pliskin put it:

You'll know it's THE game when you can kill somebody with a TOW missile 3 km away.

ArmA simply encompases too much to cater to everyones style of play.

I would say that it's more of "too much to somehow be adapted by default for everyone"... and herein lies one of the fundamental problems with deciding on anything for ARMA, which means that someone has to be disappointed... I'm just glad with what's been seen because it hints that what I want will be catered to. :D

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Easy implementation would equal lazy in this case. F + Shift/F is technically the same thing - a one-dimensional cycle train with items that should not be there: M203/GP-25, Satchels, Frag grenades.

Well, for me the possibility of backwards cycling would actually solve a lot of problems. Since I have this bad tendency to overcycle - more than once, or even twice, when I'm in a hurry or stressed out.

The sole reason we have the F cycle key and the Action scroll list is due to AI command 0-9 interface, I'd say further why it is so, but BIS had been a small studio with perhaps not a lot of Dev time/manpower to spend on developing proper iconography, instead a simple, easy, scroll list had been adopted that has been here ever since.

As I've said before, possibly the best option we could get was to have access to the low level commands driven by the number input, and possibility to remap the command keys. Some want them, for good reason: If you are accustomed to them and your commanding is sped up by it, why would they want to change it? Me on the other hand, I just can't use this efficient enough, and have to read the lists every time I use them (failure to memorize numbers, except for a very few ones).

Given the needed tools, I'd probably design my own compass system for commanding, where I setup a display listening service to check for number keys to drive my weapon selection (or whatever I fancy). What's bad about the current number commanding system, is that it is already full - there are quite a few commands I'd like to have in there, but it couldn't support it - this is something the fans of the command system doesn't seem to want to realize.

I've also like to point out that when I originally suggested a fairly well thought out compass system, I was laughed at by pretty much everyone in the discussion. For the simple reason of the viewers not being able to look beyond the graphical elements in it, which was highly questionable - didn't appear they read the (wall of) text at all.

This scroll system is a joke, I've seen and heard grown men stand around while under fire when they had been issued an order, turns out most of the time they were cycling, scrolling or otherwise navigating the interface to carry it out!

Not arguing here. My suggestion about improvement to the action list goes as follows:

1) All actions visible, as long as you are "in range" of object containing the action.

2) Actions you can't see, will now be shown, you can select it, but you can't activate it.

3) Action "hot-spots" shown with icons like in TAKOH preview.

Example:

"Get in as pilot" will be visible but greyed out (but you can still "select" it), as long as you are in the vicinity of the chopper. Only when you actually point at the door icon, will the list item not be greyed out and you're able to activate it.

Benefits:

1) You get to know the actions associated with an object. Newcomers to the game can spend "dead time" asking around about this, instead of hectically trying to learn the moment they have to use it.

2) Less chance of fatal misclicks. Since you can hover over the selection, you only have to wait until it can actually be activated. This is useful for those quickly changing ones today.

Stance indicator... Health bar... now this is below the belt for me - there's this game, called Battlefield 3 - I'm not sure whether it has those particular features, but from the screenshots I can tell it is overloaded on Graphical UIs. :icon_mrgreen:

Knowing your stance or if you're hurt (and by how much) is pretty valuable information to me in a tactical sim - we don't allow 3rd person so there is often no way to tell (in a vehicle or dense vegetation). This one would be easy for modders to come up with whatever solution fits whatever is preferenced, and I don't think anyone would call it cheating if someone had it enabled. So GUI elements already there would be easier to tweak to personal preference than adding it via addons that may not be allowed. In game tweaking would be preferable of course.

Another thing I miss is approximate landing distance for thrown or lobbed objects. We should have (optional) 3D cursor that draws an expanding and moving landing circle as you hold the "power key" when throwing a grenade. It's not that to throw a grenade in a window in real life when you're next to it - in the game it's pretty much impossible. GUI should reflect second nature, not tons of practice.

Great! Perhaps you could take a look at number row in-vehicle interaction maps, which I had presented a few posts back to alleviate the scroll Action list problem - we can even do away with it, since the number of Actions would rapidly exhaust itself, what would be left: open/close door, use ladder? There's no reason to duplicate it on GUI with selection of the comfortable passenger seat in a Bradley.

The problem only occurs for the "blind items" that occur during remote commanding, which there currently is no means to tell how it will end up anyway so it should probably just be removed. Instead they should use the line drawing method, like they use for house positions. With units selected, lines should be drawn from the unit to the "action object" in question as you hover over the various choices. Only drawback is that the commanding unit have to have visual on the "action object" in question, eliminating possibility for remote commanding (of which we had absolutely no feedback from in the first place).

I've never been in a situation, where I was not able to tell the state of my injuries, or the stance I'm in. Something is amiss.

Well, I have, plenty of times :) In a vehicle there is no way to tell anything. Outside we can tell that someone is hurt, but the complaining sound can be hard to pinpoint who exactly is hurt, especially after a sprint when everyone is fatigued.

[dmarkwick 261]

You know, I got no trouble with the notion of a health bar :) after all, ArmA's health system is very simply a linear value, from 0.0 to 1.0. As such, a health bar seems to be the best way to display this information :) but I would prefer a combined stance & health indicator. For those two sets of information, a single indicator would be very efficient in letting you know stuff you *should* know by simply feeling it. But, I understand there is a general *realism* movement that cannot fathom the idea of onscreen info replacing info you *should* know by other means. But this is why we have an options screen right?

[chortles 263]

I understand there is a general *realism* movement that cannot fathom the idea of onscreen info replacing info you *should* know by other means.

The worst people so far as ARMA 3 development goes. :( Oh, and VBS2 has a Health bar displayed onscreen.

For what it's worth, when it comes to unit command I end up usually just issuing "move there" commands, nothing much in the way of combat demeanors such as stealth or selecting individual soldiers unless I can hunker down, hence why I don't mind a simplified unit command system or at least the unit command interface being secondary to weapon/equipment selection with the number keys row.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

A "health bar" doesn't satisfy my needs. I'd much rather have the colored bodyparts and stance combo. That way, the 50% health left doesn't trick me into thinking I can stand up and run away when my feet are blown off. If feet shows up as red however, I would think twice about getting up and make a run for it :)

We already have "part damage indicators" for vehicles. Don't understand why own body should be more difficult to swallow for some.

[dmarkwick 261]

A "health bar" doesn't satisfy my needs. I'd much rather have the colored bodyparts and stance combo. That way, the 50% health left doesn't trick me into thinking I can stand up and run away when my feet are blown off. If feet shows up as red however, I would think twice about getting up and make a run for it :)

We already have "part damage indicators" for vehicles. Don't understand why own body should be more difficult to swallow for some.

No I agree.

[chortles 263]

According to the Gamescom build (I think it was the Field Manual), the character is reduced to crawling if wounded (enough?) in the legs, while arm wounds reduce small arms accuracy.

[4 IN 1 0]

The major problem being that people "think" something will work /is correct , and they "think" so strong that they cannot accept opinion from other prospective.

[dmarkwick 261]

The major problem being that people "think" something will work /is correct , and they "think" so strong that they cannot accept opinion from other prospective.

Indeed, this is why I made the comment about opening the UI to modders and the best addon solutions floating to the top. Only in actual use can a UI be regarded as effective.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Indeed, this is why I made the comment about opening the UI to modders and the best addon solutions floating to the top. Only in actual use can a UI be regarded as effective.

Cool story bro. You mean a contest during the Alpha testing, right, right?! Because otherwise, it will flop and all that hard work on physics and revamped animations goes to waste and then cue ArmA IV Wishlist.

[dmarkwick 261]

Cool story bro. You mean a contest during the Alpha testing, right, right?! Because otherwise, it will flop and all that hard work on physics and revamped animations goes to waste and then cue ArmA IV Wishlist.

Well I know that's your assertion (because you spam the entire board with it) but, some of us don't think it will fail just because your exact model for UI isn't implemented :)

To be clear: you're going to announce complete faith in ArmA3's guaranteed success just as long as you can select weapons with number keys, yes? Will probably happen, I just don't think it would be the reason for failure if it did not happen. It's just your personal bugbear, but hey, we all got one :)

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

To be clear: you're going to announce complete faith in ArmA3's guaranteed success just as long as you can select weapons with number keys, yes? Will probably happen, I just don't think it would be the reason for failure if it did not happen. It's just your personal bugbear, but hey, we all got one :)

Hey, hey, hey - not me, but people who vote with their money and their time. Regardless of outcome, I have already cast a vote, or a pledge even. ;)

[-Coulum- 35]

The major problem being that people "think" something will work /is correct , and they "think" so strong that they cannot accept opinion from other prospective.

Yes indeed. But at the same time everyone must keep an open mind.

Concerning the whole switching weapons and firemodes, I personally don't see it as that important to "fix" as I honestly can't remember the last time I had to "redo" the cycle - if you just keep your cool while doing it it is very easy. But that being said, obviously other people do have trouble with this schematic and it is hard for new players to get used to (if they ever do). So I would be open to using the number keys to switch weapons.

Now of course that means that AI command menu would have to be changed. Although I have gotten accustomed to the whole number scheme system, I would also be open to this being limited strictly to a radial menu - its easier/more familiar for new players to use and, although it isn't quite as fast as memorized number system for vets, it is quick enough (based on other games). So if I had to vote on either numbers for weapons or AI I would say weapons.

BUT, What I don't understand is why both the weapons and ai can be controlled by numbers. Basically if you have an ai member selected, the number keys would be for commands but as soon as you deselect him numbers would be for weapons. That way people not commanding ai (majority I believe) will have their nifty number system for weapon swapping, and those in control of ai will be able to use their numbers to command. The only downside is that ai commanders wouldn't be able to change weapons firemodes while giving ai orders... but honestly who actually changes weapons while giving orders. commanding the ai alone is hard enough by itself let alone juggling it with other stuff. Has this been suggested before? am I missing a flaw in this idea?

So to me the ideal system would be

tap number to change weapon when no ai selected

tap the number again to change firemode when no ai selected

when ai selected use a radial command menu or the number system to issue commands

use the f key for a "interact with environment" key (get in car, use ladder, open door etc.)

So what would the negatives be of such a system?

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

tap number to change weapon when no ai selected

That's the whole premise of this thread.

tap the number again to change firemode when no ai selected

when ai selected use a radial command menu or the number system to issue commands

use the f key for a "interact with environment" key (get in car, use ladder, open door etc.)

So what would the negatives be of such a system?

Weapon fire rate cycle on dedicated number keys along with weapon selection doesn't exactly sort the problem of the cycle train, if the game has a lot of primary weapon attachments, like flashlights, IR lasers, unless of course we'd want to leave the operation of such items to the L key.

If radial menu is employed for AI command, then there's no need to mix and duplicate it on the number keys, but that is somewhat preferential, and needs objective testing feedback from hours of gameplay.

---------- Post added at 18:25 ---------- Previous post was at 18:20 ----------

BUT, What I don't understand is why both the weapons and ai can be controlled by numbers. Basically if you have an ai member selected, the number keys would be for commands but as soon as you deselect him numbers would be for weapons. That way people not commanding ai (majority I believe) will have their nifty number system for weapon swapping, and those in control of ai will be able to use their numbers to command. The only downside is that ai commanders wouldn't be able to change weapons firemodes while giving ai orders... but honestly who actually changes weapons while giving orders. commanding the ai alone is hard enough by itself let alone juggling it with other stuff. Has this been suggested before? am I missing a flaw in this idea?

You missed the whole thread, read the first page. Quite ironic situation, I might add. :)

Edited September 10, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin

[-Coulum- 35]

That's the whole premise of this thread.

Hmm, well then I don't know what all the fuss is about. I don't see number keys to change weapons as the end all be all that will save the arma series, but I do see it as an improvement, especaially when concerning accessibility for new players. Therefore I see it as an obvious thing that can be done to improve the game.

Weapon fire rate cycle on dedicated number keys along with weapon selection doesn't exactly sort the problem of the cycle train, if the game has a lot of primary weapon attachments, like flashlights, IR lasers, unless of course we'd want to leave the operation of such items to the L key.

Yeah for accesories that are not a weapon I would say L should be used to toggle them off or on. I doubt there would be more than one accesory on a weapon that is actually a weapon Ie GL so these accesories could have an extra number key. So it may look something like

1-primary weapon - tap again to change fire mode

2-secondary weapon - tap to change fire mode

3-grenade - tap to change throw style

4-accessory of the gun currently in use (GL's, underbarrel shotgunsetc.)

Now things might get complicated however, when more than 2 are being carried by a single person (which may be possible with the new inventory system). My thought process would be to allow the player to assigne their primary and seoncdry weapons in the gear menu (it would be automatically assigned if they didn't want to take the time to do so). Then if they want to change to another one of the guns they have not assigend to primary or secondary, they will have to go into their gear and reassign their primary and secondary weapon. This wouldn't exactly be fluid but would not be all that unrealistic, and would discourage players from taking an uber arsenal with them, as it would be slow to sift through all your weaponry.

You missed the whole thread, read the first page. Quite ironic situation, I might add.

Yes I did miss the thread catching up now.

Edited September 10, 2012 by -Coulum-

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Hmm, well then I don't know what all the fuss is about. ... I do see it as an improvement, especaially when concerning accessibility for new players. Therefore I see it as an obvious thing that can be done to improve the game.

Yet, people are arguing against such a simple, yet functional & realistic system, which had been the standard for over 15 years.

Yeah for accesories that are not a weapon I would say L should be used to toggle them off or on. I doubt there would be more than one accesory on a weapon that is actually a weapon Ie GL so these accesories could have an extra number key. So it may look something like

1-primary weapon - tap again to change fire mode

2-secondary weapon - tap to change fire mode

3-grenade - tap to change throw style

4-accessory of the gun currently in use (GL's, underbarrel shotgunsetc.)

Good map, one of my first layouts had under barrel GL on number key 3 and Grenades on 5, with key 4 in between being for AT launchers, which presents a bit of a safety hazard. Keeping the main weapons group tight is a good idea, whether attached grenade launcher would be 3 and Grenades 4 is a question of taste of course.

Tap to change Grenade "throw style" doesn't work, because pressing dedicated Grenades key, you cycle between: Frag, Smoke (red), Smoke (green) etc. If you want various throwing styles, then that could only be achieved by the F key - just like a fire selector, but for grenades.

On the question of changing Primary weapon fire rates with the same number key: I'd rather it stayed dedicated on F, this way "Safety" can be introduced and you would have a total of 4 modes: Safe, Single, Burst, Full, weapon dependent of course - M249 SAW MG has only safe & full AFAIK.

The other reason for leaving the primary weapon selection key only for selection is: secondary weapon sights. Currently, this action is somewhere on the Numpad in Operation Arrowhead, I think it's the / key, but by having it on the same key as the Primary weapon, which would be number key 1, you could quickly switch between CQB sights and your ACOG.

Now things might get complicated however, when more than 2 are being carried by a single person (which may be possible with the new inventory system). My thought process would be to allow the player to assigne their primary and seoncdry weapons in the gear menu (it would be automatically assigned if they didn't want to take the time to do so). Then if they want to change to another one of the guns they have not assigend to primary or secondary, they will have to go into their gear and reassign their primary and secondary weapon. This wouldn't exactly be fluid but would not be all that unrealistic, and would discourage players from taking an uber arsenal with them, as it would be slow to sift through all your weaponry.

Two primary weapons, i.e. assault rifles and AT/RPG launcher? If that's the case:

1) then stick to current mechanics of Primary/AT launcher and keep the second assault rifle in the backpack like in DayZ, ACE 2 etc. See Night Infantry demo below.

2) If you won't be able to carry two assault rifles in the game along with AT, then the second assault rifle could be placed in the other primary slot and be selectable via dedicated AT launcher key, which is number key 5.

I prefer option 1, but then there's the issue of backpacks, as they currently replace AT in ArmA - that's a lot of shit to carry, I'd rather stick with Primary + AT launcher + backpack, or Primary + Primary + backpack.

---------- Post added at 19:34 ---------- Previous post was at 18:58 ----------

On topic of multiple primaries with AT launcher,

lwXw0g2fweA

Highly detailed view of the inventory at 1:00. Backpack appears to be a separate entity from the rest and is tied to the Character, as is the helmet - very good setup. There's one empty slot below Primary weapon, no idea whether you could stick another Primary there, but it looks like it could hold it, same number of Attachment slots - 4 of them.

Primary + Primary + backpack is acceptable, but if you can stick AT in that other slot and stick another primary in your backpack, then that's a bit imbalanced in my view. I wouldn't want to see DMR/semi-auto sniper rifle + SMAW + M4/or even a machinegun rambos railgunning everything.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin

[onlyrazor 11]

Primary + Primary + backpack is acceptable, but if you can stick AT in that other slot and stick another primary in your backpack, then that's a bit imbalanced in my view. I wouldn't want to see DMR/semi-auto sniper rifle + SMAW + M4/or even a machinegun rambos railgunning everything.

If it's feasible in real life, it should be feasible in the game. Just penalize them for walking/running/tacpacing around with an excess of 45kg of equipment.

[iratus 71]

Primary + Primary + backpack is acceptable, but if you can stick AT in that other slot and stick another primary in your backpack, then that's a bit imbalanced in my view. I wouldn't want to see DMR/semi-auto sniper rifle + SMAW + M4/or even a machinegun rambos railgunning everything.

Fatigue system and loading capacity may balance things out a bit. Sniper Rifle + LMG + SMAW (+ ammunition for all those) equals heavy load, maybe even too heavy to carry at all. If one would like to be ... "verry versatile", one would probably choose to take something along the lines of (light) Sniper Rifle + Submachinegun + One-Way Rocketlauncher (RPG-18 style) + limited Ammo - protective gear.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Alright, alright. :) Decent weight values for weapons could balance it out, in ACE2 you could haul a backapck full of goodies, M249, AT4 and be quite mobile; an M107, backpack with satchels/smoke/nades and an M4 AIMPOINT, on the other hand, slowed you down considerably due to fatigue effects, which forced you to drop prone.

Sticking everything into backpack is a simple, yet versatile solution, if they bother setting the optimum weight values for all equipment for the sake of balance. But your example, Iratus kinda doesn't work,

f one would like to be ... "verry versatile", one would probably choose to take something along the lines of (light) Sniper Rifle + Submachinegun + One-Way Rocketlauncher (RPG-18 style) + limited Ammo - protective gear.

Submachineguns could be secondary slot (handgun) items, or perhaps you meant a full caliber shortened assault rifle, in that case, yeah. :)

[iratus 71]

I was thinking about something along the lines of the MP5, that is traditionally a primary weapon slot. Maybe Submachinegun is the wrong word and it should read machinepistol? I always confuse them! Anyways you've got the idea :)

I like the new inventory system, because it now can make sense in (vanilla) Arma to take a lighter weapon even if weapons with better penetration/accuracy are aviable. And we no longer have to have 6 slot rocket ammunition :D

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

I was thinking about something along the lines of the MP5, that is traditionally a primary weapon slot. Maybe Submachinegun is the wrong word and it should read machinepistol? I always confuse them! Anyways you've got the idea :)

Doh! Something like that could fit perfectly into a backpack, small weight would also reflect the caliber size and the overall tech specs of the submachinegun.

[chortles 263]

I... would leave weapon safeties out altogether, semi-burst-auto-only. ;)