Controls Scheme & User Interface Feedback

[Smurf 12]

Bad tuning, crap layout and oversized icons is their problem. For the outer ring you'd have Crysis-like efficiency, check the previous page.

___

Activation method is debatable, if you don't have your faith in BIS to conjure up Crysis 1-like precision in the CQB radial menu, you could go with Hold hotkey -> mouse over -> Left click.

You can point me when is it used in that video? Or you are talking about the Nanosuit changing thingie?

P.S. There are no sub-menues, sub-levels, sub-radials, or sub-roses in either CQB or ROE/Formations AI command menus - What You See Is What You Get.

Other thing that I feared. Too much information when you don't need it, that is why I like the sub-levels concept: You just expand what you want.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

You can point me when is it used in that video? Or you are talking about the Nanosuit changing thingie?

ROFL...

Of course I'm talking about the Nanosuit pentagonal 5-icon radial menu. It's a gesticulate one, meaning there's no cursor, minimal mouse movements are needed to highlight the adjacent icons. Activation is via Hold hotkey -> Mouse swipe -> Release hotkey.

Best implementation I've seen.

P.S. I started out with 8 partitions on an octagon with no inner "rings" - if you want to have the Crysis menu with 3 more icons - sure we could have that, but I think the players would be able to handle 16 icons between the inner & outer octagons.

---------- Post added at 01:22 ---------- Previous post was at 01:18 ----------

Other thing that I feared. Too much information when you don't need it, that is why I like the sub-levels concept: You just expand what you want.

There's nothing to expand on. You'd just complicate things redundantly, not to mention I've used all of the commands currently available, you could throw out things like: advance, flank left, flank right, scan horizon, copy my stance, which are broken anyway.

Edited September 25, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin

[Smurf 12]

Going to 5 well spaced big cells to a massive 16 2-layered not so big cells is a big jump isn't? There is no way to make that slick enough.

With less cells and 1 layer, yeah. But then the more convencional n+1 (central) rose design would be better anyway.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Going to 5 well spaced big cells to a massive 16 2-layered not so big cells is a big jump isn't? There is no way to make that slick enough.

Forget the number 16, you have 8 coherent directions: Up-Down-Left-Right & for diagonals SW-SE-NW-NE, which you could use in Crysis-like fashion for the outer ring - no concentration, or precision is required, i.e.: swipe all the way forward, even till you runout of mousepad area - you'll get your "MOVE TO" no matter what.

For the inner one, yeah, you'll take more time, but then again, orders there are not exactly "death-sensitive", or "must have" in combat.

Slick activation is guaranteed for the outer ring with: "Move to", "Stop", "Fall back", "Suppressive Fire", "Disengage", "Engage At Will", "Take Cover", "Get in".

http://i47.tinypic.com/of1v1d.jpg

Like I said half the crap is not even working in ArmA II, which I've put on the inner ring.

Edited September 25, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin

[dmarkwick 261]

Well IMO the Crysis gesture-swipe is fine for arcade nonsense, but pretty useless in the scheme of using a GUi to decide anything more complex than say 5 or 6 actions. And whether you like it or not Iriquois, comprehensive AI control is in ArmA to stay, and people like it. Therefore GUI has to really augment, not replace, and follow, not reinvent. At least for one switchover iteration.

I drew up this illustration, shows a reuseable GUI that covers all menus & submenus, numbers can be icons, texts are redefinable. There is a center button for backspace functionality, and two spares for other uses, maybe user-made, maybe new AI functionalities like inventory management etc. Gives players a way to swap items between units/vehicles/areas etc maybe.

Whatever, but it's an intuitive clock layout, not overcrowded, ignore design imperfections & proportions etc, that's just... design, can be improved. But the principle of GUI, yet mirroring existing command functionality, is there. And, I believe, people will use it more than the number-key system.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Cool story bro, so to order a unit to move you need to first open the 1 - Move subsection of the radial, then click on the Move To command.

What you've done is ported the 1-9 scroll list command interface to a radial, which defeats its purpose. FPDR

---------- Post added at 07:23 ---------- Previous post was at 07:20 ----------

Well IMO the Crysis gesture-swipe is fine for arcade nonsense, but pretty useless in the scheme of using a GUi to decide anything more complex than say 5 or 6 actions.

Previous page has a CQB GUI radial with no subsections or sublevels with 16 commands on a single plane.

But hey, hey, hey - don't let me stop you, I'll let the playerbase decide how they like your antiquated port, when their mouse will be loaded with AI command functions 80% of the time.

Real Time Strategy FTW.

Edited September 25, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin

[dmarkwick 261]

Cool story bro, so to order a unit to move you need to first open the 1 - Move subsection of the radial, then click on the Move To command.

Not necessarily, if you remember, once you've chosen Move from the command menu you can point at the real world. Same thing here, you choose Move, release the hotkey, contextual Move to command.

What you've done is ported the 1-9 scroll list command interface to a radial, which defeats its purpose.

No - it IS it's purpose. It augments, not replaces, I don't know how many times I need to say that. But it frees the player from the number-key system which forces you to look down at your keyboard.

Previous page has a CQB GUI radial with no subsections or sublevels with 16 commands on a single plane.

And which cuts out swathes of functionality, which you KNOW BIS are not going to ditch. Which is why a UI modding ability is your main hope for this :)

But hey, hey, hey - don't let me stop you, I'll let the playerbase decide how they like your antiquated port, when their mouse will be loaded with AI command functions 80% of the time.

Real Time Strategy FTW.

Nice try at dismissal, but it's only your opinion, and going by your simplification/horrorshow design ideas, you're welcome to them :)

Said out of love.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

And which cuts out swathes of functionality, which you KNOW BIS are not going to ditch.

Name a single thing, which has been left out, except for "Go Prone & cry for daddy", "Kneel" & "Stand up" commands.

Which is why a UI modding ability is your main hope for this :)

Your main hope - speak for yourself, since I'm not dealing with half-assed solutions by wannabe modders to fix a retail game.

[chortles 263]

How many times you used optins such as flank left\right, advance and so on? I've never used it. On the other hand, open\hold fire, stances ans such....

I'm piling up nothing, I'm working the already existing, and not-to-be-dropped, command structure into a workable GUI solution. You're throwing away functionality in the cause of making it easy for babies to play, and fantasising about your simplified GUI as though it means anything at all :)

I got what I came for - dedicated weapon keys, you can play with your bots to heart's content.

This is what's fundamentally wrong about trying to come up with a solution for ARMA 3 AI commanding, though also the real reason why "UI modding ability" would be relevant... because the possibilities of ARMA gameplay (supposed to be its strength) are instead already so divergent that we're really not going to get an interface optimized for any of them... especially when this wasn't Full Spectrum Warrior. Sounds like you and Iroquois would only be playing certain kinds of missions and thus limiting your possibilities intentionally anyway. :D

As for arguments over what's core DMarkwick, you said yourself something that could be said about so much about what people think of ARMA 3, that's how wide-scaled -- or rather, sprawling -- ARMA is:

Although I would like to see underground structures & negative terrain objects like trenches, I wouldn't count them as core. Trenches might be good for the type of mission where you're simulating a long-entrenched position but for general middle-range battlefield use, during the course of the vast majority of mission timescales, they're not essential.

That is, ARMA is sprawling because it combines so many "areas of combat" that could be (better) served by a single-area specialized game... ARMA, jack of all trades, master of none? :p Well, not master of one yet anyway... and yes, that was directed at the ARMA concept, not just at BI's implementation in the games to date...

Haven't done anything major to the game except for ACE 2 to patch multiplayer balance back in 2009, and won't start using any mods to fix basic game design.

This is a way bigger problem for ARMA than merely "the layout of an onscreen command menu"... but then again, ACE 2 seems at least in part because the hardcores didn't find ARMA 2 hardcore ENOUGH for them, so we're right back where I started with "people are only going to play certain narrow aspects of ARMA's possibilities anyway so there's no good all-in-one solution".

P.S. DMarkwick, your concept UI is cool but is the sort of thing that I'd end up remapping the number pad to... after all, I don't use the 'particular camera angle' commands that the number pad keys are bound to by default, and with both number row and number pad I'm stuck moving my hand off of the movement keys anyway. Then again, I'd rebind Spacebar to "step over" or "jump" instead of "select all", so you know where my priorities are. So long as you keep the keybinds for that onscreen menu "not the number row", I wouldn't mind seeing your concept UI in the community alpha. :p

Edited September 25, 2012 by Chortles

[dmarkwick 261]

Name a single thing, which has been left out, except for "Go Prone & cry for daddy", "Kneel" & "Stand up" commands.

"Except for", there's your clue.

Your main hope - speak for yourself, since I'm not dealing with half-assed solutions by wannabe modders to fix a retail game.

No, but you will be :)

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

"Except for", there's your clue.

Superb logic, so by leaving those 3 redundant for the most part commands, we should be subject to multilevel, unintuitive menus? Don't answer - rhetorical question.

I got what I came for - dedicated weapon keys, you can play with your bots to heart's content.

No, but you will be :)

Why would I? Haven't done anything major to the game except for ACE 2 to patch multiplayer balance back in 2009, and won't start using any mods to fix basic game design.

The overall meter of success of whatever user-friendliness is very simple - it involves the number of sales by the end of second month post release.

[chortles 263]

So long as you keep your precious dedicated weapon keys (I like the idea) will you please stop harping about controls and UI in other threads? It became "took up space that could have been filled by more deserving and less embedded YouTube video posts" annoying long ago.

Again, basically so long as the "CQB commands" get dedicated keys instead of AI taking up the number row (even using the F# system to toggle between weapon keys and AI command doesn't satisfy me) I can learn to adapt to the different onscreen-UI proposals I've seen here. :)

P.S. I'm not in disagreement re: dedicated weapon keys; my reply to you is on the previous page (I edited it into my initial reply to DMarwick).

[dmarkwick 261]

Superb logic, so by leaving those 3 redundant for the most part commands, we should be subject to multilevel, unintuitive menus? Don't answer - rhetorical question.

Well you say "redundant for the most part"... but I can tell you that I use them. You're paring away commands because YOU don't use them, which is why it cannot work - you have to design a GUI that is objective not subjective. This means not gearing it to your own personal idea of what commands are "in" or "out". And the multilevel, unintuitive... they mirror the already existing menu structure, which is all I've ever said I was interested in. It removes nothing, it adds a GUI, it makes it's use more fluid & approachable. It does NOT change gameplay away from ArmA gameplay, and so has a good chance of being implemented. Especially if UI modding is opened up ;) I'll do it myself in that case.

I'll play with my AI yes, and so will others. It's a core ArmA feature, in case you hadn't yet realised.

I got what I came for - dedicated weapon keys, you can play with your bots to heart's content.

What? You got what you came for, what was that? You already have weapon-specific keys? (Don't answer that, it's rhetorical ;)) this is a discussion only, if you feel you've "got" anything, well good for you I suppose :)

Edited September 25, 2012 by DMarkwick

[chrisb 196]

you could throw out things like: advance, flank left, flank right, scan horizon, copy my stance, which are broken anyway.

Why do you think these are broken ?

[Tonci87 163]

What is wrong with the current system? It can´t get any faster and more convenient than that if you have the brain to remember a few numbers.

Space-1-6 for all stop

Space-1-1 for return to formation and so on... It will get even faster if those numbers are moved to the numpad

[dmarkwick 261]

What is wrong with the current system? It can´t get any faster and more convenient than that if you have the brain to remember a few numbers.

Space-1-6 for all stop

Space-1-1 for return to formation and so on... It will get even faster if those numbers are moved to the numpad

Current system is good for some people, and in my suggestion would not change. My suggestion is an augmentation of the current system only. I don't have the numbers-memory that some players have, and I dislike having to break my view to look down to my keyboard, then back to see the subchoices, then back down..... In a radial-style GUI of the type I posted a while back, you get exactly the same functionality but onscreen, optional, and intuitively. Win-win for everyone :) at the cost of one, single hotkey.

IMO it's probably this disconnect that deters people using some of the nether regions of the command menu :)

Edited September 25, 2012 by DMarkwick

[NoRailgunner 0]

I guess BIS will try to make their new/old control scheme as open as possible. So most people will "like it" sooner or later. Default screen should be imo just how one can see the A3 world with his own ingame eye(s) + few switchable HUD signs/symbols in a decent color + style.

[Nicholas 5]

As far as the HUD interface, I want to be able to turn individual things on/off and move them around like you can in Take On Helicopters.

[lwlooz 0]

Hello there,

This is the most retarded thread I have ever seen. Sorry. Harsh Language , but fits the arrogance of the certain people here.

Usually I don't reply to trolls or engage in pointless intra-community discussion, but on the off-chance that some BIS dev gets a very wrong idea,

I thought I just post my dislike on breaking the AI-command in this manner.

I usually like Wargames , I would love to have a tactical warfare simulation with an FPS-viewpoint.

OFP/Arma so far is the closest thing to it and I played it since 2001.

For that reason I hope BIS does not remove the 1-0 Command System, because keyboard simply is faster for indirect command. For me anyways

I add my more keyboard centric idea to this thread for completion (One of many Possibilities)

But I don't propose to have the system that fits everyone. This is exactly why I don't like most of this thread at all.

What BIS should do is open up both the action menu and the command menu to extensive modding. There are already are to an extent. But having more direct control to the AI command API via script or special config values would be a great improvement. No hardcoded keys either.

So instead of trying to force you preferred method of input on everyone like the current one is forced on most people and talk for dozens of pages about specifics, get BIS to increase moddability.

Then everyone can design his/her own Input-Scheme in any way he/she likes.

Edited September 25, 2012 by lwlooz

[Nicholas 5]

So instead of trying to force you preferred method of input on everyone like the current one is forced on most people and talk for dozens of pages about specifics, get BIS to increase moddability.

Then everyone can design his/her own Input-Scheme in any way he/she likes.

Bingo. Thread winner right here.

[maddogx 13]

From where I stand, this thread is merely about making the default controls more "accessable" to newbs and increasing key customizability, not about forcing anything on anyone.

Peeps need to take a step back and chill.

[dmarkwick 261]

Hello there,

This is the most retarded thread I have ever seen. Sorry. Harsh Language , but fits the arrogance of the certain people here.

Usually I don't reply to trolls or engage in pointless intra-community discussion, but on the off-chance that some BIS dev gets a very wrong idea,

I thought I just post my dislike on breaking the AI-command in this manner.

I usually like Wargames , I would love to have a tactical warfare simulation with an FPS-viewpoint.

OFP/Arma so far is the closest thing to it and I played it since 2001.

For that reason I hope BIS does not remove the 1-0 Command System, because keyboard simply is faster for indirect command. For me anyways

I add my more keyboard centric idea to this thread for completion (One of many Possibilities)

But I don't propose to have the system that fits everyone. This is exactly why I don't like most of this thread at all.

What BIS should do is open up both the action menu and the command menu to extensive modding. There are already are to an extent. But having more direct control to the AI command API via script or special config values would be a great improvement. No hardcoded keys either.

So instead of trying to force you preferred method of input on everyone like the current one is forced on most people and talk for dozens of pages about specifics, get BIS to increase moddability.

Then everyone can design his/her own Input-Scheme in any way he/she likes.

I'm pretty sure the devs have stopped taking this thread seriously (if they ever did :)) but, it is a sounding board for various ideas. Fingers crossed for UI modding abilities.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

From where I stand, this thread is merely about making the default controls more "accessable" to newbs and increasing key customizability, not about forcing anything on anyone.

Peeps need to take a step back and chill.

Don't mind them MadDogX: they're locked away in an Ivory Tower of AI RTS command, playing ArmA one step at a time in a turn-by-turn manner, probably with time dilation at 0.5x. LOL

User-friendliness and logic? Fuck that, let's appease a ten year old broken system and not get the game into the 21st century. HURR DURR.

"You want dedicated weapon keys like the rest of 99% FPS games? U noe have dedicates wepn kees, u bet that's a ding-dong bannu!"

[-Snafu- 79]

Hello there,

This is the most retarded thread I have ever seen. Sorry. Harsh Language , but fits the arrogance of the certain people here.

Usually I don't reply to trolls or engage in pointless intra-community discussion, but on the off-chance that some BIS dev gets a very wrong idea,

I thought I just post my dislike on breaking the AI-command in this manner.

I usually like Wargames , I would love to have a tactical warfare simulation with an FPS-viewpoint.

OFP/Arma so far is the closest thing to it and I played it since 2001.

For that reason I hope BIS does not remove the 1-0 Command System, because keyboard simply is faster for indirect command. For me anyways

I add my more keyboard centric idea to this thread for completion (One of many Possibilities)

But I don't propose to have the system that fits everyone. This is exactly why I don't like most of this thread at all.

What BIS should do is open up both the action menu and the command menu to extensive modding. There are already are to an extent. But having more direct control to the AI command API via script or special config values would be a great improvement. No hardcoded keys either.

So instead of trying to force you preferred method of input on everyone like the current one is forced on most people and talk for dozens of pages about specifics, get BIS to increase moddability.

Then everyone can design his/her own Input-Scheme in any way he/she likes.

That is what keeps me playing these games. Being able to create my own scenarios, building forces based on real world TO&E, giving my chosen side a mission and playing through it or trying to execute a plan with me in command of the fire team, squad, platoon or company and the supporting fires and assets. Combined with the relative realism of the game along with the large maps which provides freedom of action, Arma II can give you a very awesome experience time and time again.

I am all for improving the controls of the game, the way the game handles and how you command AI, however, improving should just be that - improving - not screwing features for the sake of boosting others.

Now, will I regret posting in this confusing and messy thread? :p

[chortles 263]

What is wrong with the current system? It can´t get any faster and more convenient than that if you have the brain to remember a few numbers.

Space-1-6 for all stop

Space-1-1 for return to formation and so on... It will get even faster if those numbers are moved to the numpad

So the number row becomes dedicated weapons keys, the number pad becomes the AI command keypad and all we lose is the camera view keys that I never used anyway? If that's the case, I can work with whatever onscreen AI command HUD arrangement actually appears. :)

Don't mind them MadDogX: they're locked away in an Ivory Tower of AI RTS command, playing ArmA one step at a time in a turn-by-turn manner, probably with time dilation at 0.5x. LOL

At this point, that's what keeps them coming to ARMA... remember, YOU AND THEM PLAY ARMA FOR TOTALLY DIFFERENT REASONS AND THAT'S WHERE YOUR DISAGREEMENT STEMS FROM.

I usually like Wargames , I would love to have a tactical warfare simulation with an FPS-viewpoint.

OFP/Arma so far is the closest thing to it and I played it since 2001.

For that reason I hope BIS does not remove the 1-0 Command System, because keyboard simply is faster for indirect command.

That is what keeps me playing these games. Being able to create my own scenarios, building forces based on real world TO&E, giving my chosen side a mission and playing through it or trying to execute a plan with me in command of the fire team, squad, platoon or company and the supporting fires and assets. Combined with the relative realism of the game along with the large maps which provides freedom of action, Arma II can give you a very awesome experience time and time again.

I am all for improving the controls of the game, the way the game handles and how you command AI, however, improving should just be that - improving - not screwing features for the sake of boosting others.

So we have you guys to blame for the 1-0 system still being here? Ugh :mad:

We're at least in part arguing over the DEFAULTS and, if the UI were to be opened up to modding, arguing over the system UNDERLYING whatever modding would occur... and some of us believe that the command system can't actually be refined and that it would have to be redone from scratch... kind of like what I've thought about Real Virtuality iterations in the past. Though I've been thankfully wrong in the case of RV4 based on E3 2012 and Gamescom footage, but then again I don't think I've been ambiguous about what I want out of ARMA 3. ;)

Now, will I regret posting in this confusing and messy thread? :p

When you realize that posting here DOESN'T mean BI is listening, yes yes you will. :p Edited September 25, 2012 by Chortles
Thought better of what I should have said