Controls Scheme & User Interface Feedback

[chrisb 196]

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.

+1, great..:)

If only I could make mods:(

[Smurf 12]

Mods shouldn't be the answer for everything in the series.

[chortles 263]

That's why this thread was here... but then again, I suspect that "mods shouldn't be the answer for everything in the series" is part of why the community mod is happening. On the other hand, as Rye previously suggested, mods in ARMA 2 could be used to proof-of-concept a bunch of the ideas in this thread such as the different on-screen HUD arrangements.

[dmarkwick 261]

Mods shouldn't be the answer for everything in the series.

Perhaps, but mods should be an option. Given a few baseline improvements the UI could be both more functional and adaptable.

[chortles 263]

Pretty much -- mods need a good foundation on which to improve upon. By the way, from the press thread, citing Karel/Gaia as of some unstated time that I guess to be around Gamescom or later, here's the controls/UI part of Myshaak's admittedly imperfect recollection:

• it will be possible to have different key-binding presets (Arma 2 style / Arma 3 style etc)
  
• different methods of giving commands are being checked (tried commo-rose, didn't like it because it would lock player's movement)
  
• the goal is to make commanding units a little more personal, not just shouting at people by numbers

Myshaak was asked in the "Arma 3: Confirmed features | info & discussion" thread to elaborate:

How exactly is player movement locked? does that mean that commo-rose definitely won't be in?

Here is Myshaak's post in response to that:

Well, I cannot confirm "definitely" because the UI is not finalized, but if I recall correctly, they didn't like the idea of your mouse/keyboard locking when selecting commo-rose options. Like, you cannot start issuing orders whith the commo-rose and be turning around with your mouse. What Karel said is that he will experiment with limiting the command numbers from 1-0 to just 1-4, so the players wouldn't have to look away from the screen to the keyboard when issuing more complex commands.

This is the closest that we have now to insight on what's going on with BI's own ideas of "controls scheme & user interface". :)

Myshaak's mini report includes other aspects of ARMA 3 but I left them out because they don't directly pertain to controls & UI; click the quote links if you wish to see them.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Chortles
Posted relevant material from Myshaak's "Indie Games CZ" mini report in the press coverage thread AND another thread

[Smurf 12]

Perhaps, but mods should be an option. Given a few baseline improvements the UI could be both more functional and adaptable.

Yeah, but that wasn't limited to UI. Mods to expand or enhance the game? GREAT! To fix it? Not again....

_________

Great report by Myshaak. Concerning the lack of player input while using the commo-rose: it should be limited to the most used and basic commands while the complete one (as we have now) stays but isn't the primary choice.

Like many here I can issue orders really fast using the default system, but that came with a 10 years experience in the series. So yes, this is all about making it easier to other\new people get in the game using something that they are used to see in other games.

Anyway, is good to see that BIS is well aware of the options.

[dmarkwick 261]

Yeah, but that wasn't limited to UI. Mods to expand or enhance the game? GREAT! To fix it? Not again....

Well IMO the word "fix" is often used instead of what is actually meant, which is "more to my liking". More realism, more functionality, isn't necessarily fixing it. ArmA comes as a baseline game engine, suitable for it's included single-player campaign.

[Smurf 12]

You are right. But there are somethings that shouldn't need "fixing" when we are talking about a game that is well known to be a military simulation and... this. But that is subject to personal taste and another topic, right?

[Nicholas 5]

Well IMO the word "fix" is often used instead of what is actually meant, which is "more to my liking". More realism, more functionality, isn't necessarily fixing it. ArmA comes as a baseline game engine, suitable for it's included single-player campaign.

Indeed. I hate to see people say "ACE fixes ArmA." No, ACE only adds more realism and function.

[NeMeSiS 11]

To be honest i think that most suggestions are too complicated or to eager to move all of the buttons around*. What i would suggest is just adding a radial menu under a certain button (Lets say.. Hold CTRL) which gives you a customizable radial menu where you can put down the commands you want via the options menu.

For example, 'return to formation' is a high priority command so it needs to be quickly accessible, however since i already know it is on 1-1 i dont need it to be in a radial menu which is slower anyway, and i may prefer to put something else in its place.

*Command menu on numpad and weapons on the normal numbers? Really? How often do you change weapons anyway? All we need is a dedicated 'switch between grenades and weapon' button.

[JCDBionicman 1]

I saw that idea about regulating movement through the mouse wheel from awhile back, and I came up with an idea based around it. It's in my sig. It's overall a series of macros used in conjunction with the mousewheel, and these same macros have functions for if you press them briefly as well as if they are held down.

Edited January 19, 2013 by JCDBionicman

[chortles 263]

I saw that idea about regulating movement through the mouse wheel from awhile back, and I came up with an idea based around it. It's in my sig. It's overall a series of macros used in conjunction with the mousewheel, and these same macros have functions for if you press them briefly as well as if they are held down.

Took a look, some interesting ideas, but I'd probably shift it around some... and I can't help but think that Battlefield in general had something to do with the choice of "Q" as your unit command key. ;) Moreover, why the emphasis on holds, as opposed to dedicated keys? Although people found the sensitivity of the 'aim at stuff for context-sensitive action' crosshair finicky in Arma 2: CO (as filtered through DayZ) I was fine with Enter being the "use" key, at least if F was going to remain the fire mode key. Also, have you seen any of my posts on the idea of "number row" weapons/equipment quick-select?

I would add that if Caps Lock became a lean-modifier key, where would you move PTT to?

[rye1 22]

I would add that if Caps Lock became a lean-modifier key, where would you move PTT to?

I use control but you can always have voice activation (especially on external programs like teamspeak).

[chortles 263]

According to Evan Lahti and InstaGoat's respective reports on the E3 and Gamescom builds, LCtrl already serves as the stance modifier key.

[MulleDK19 21]

According to Evan Lahti and InstaGoat's respective reports on the E3 and Gamescom builds, LCtrl already serves as the stance modifier key.

It does. Z, X, C controls the main stances. Ctrl+W and Ctrl+S makes you pop up and down.

[JCDBionicman 1]

It does. Z, X, C controls the main stances. Ctrl+W and Ctrl+S makes you pop up and down.

Yeah, I think I prefer my own suggestion from that method. Using one key like X for stance modification is simply the more intuitive method. I don't see how z x c is superior. If I'm wrong then tell me why.

Edited January 20, 2013 by JCDBionicman

[slatts 1978]

Of course you would.

[JCDBionicman 1]

Of course you would.

There's no need to act like that, it benefits nobody. Instead you could either not comment at all, or as I plainly requested you could correct me where I'm wrong.

[HKFlash 9]

Yeah, I think I prefer my own suggestion from that method. Using one key like X for stance modification is simply the more intuitive method. I don't see how z x c is superior. If I'm wrong then tell me why.

I have to agree with you on this.

[rye1 22]

Yeah, I think I prefer my own suggestion from that method. Using one key like X for stance modification is simply the more intuitive method. I don't see how z x c is superior. If I'm wrong then tell me why.

Does that mean if you're crouched X would go to prone? Then another X to stood up?

[Smurf 12]

And when you are running and come under fire, needing to hit the deck, double tap or what?

[-Coulum- 35]

Yeah, I think I prefer my own suggestion from that method. Using one key like X for stance modification is simply the more intuitive method. I don't see how z x c is superior. If I'm wrong then tell me why.

Although I don't agree with all his ideas, this one ain't all that bad and might be worth giving a shot IMO, if controls are ever "tested" in the alpha. I would prefer a double tap rather than holding down x to go prone however. Then to go back to standing you just repeat what you did to get to your current stance (double tap if prone and single tap is crouched). But honestly, the best thing that BIS can do is make the whole controls and interface as customizable as possible via in game options. Providing the ability to customize it further through modification would also be great. Because this thread clearly shows, everyone is very different and has very different priorities.

[JCDBionicman 1]

Although I don't agree with all his ideas, this one ain't all that bad and might be worth giving a shot IMO, if controls are ever "tested" in the alpha. I would prefer a double tap rather than holding down x to go prone however. Then to go back to standing you just repeat what you did to get to your current stance (double tap if prone and single tap is crouched). But honestly, the best thing that BIS can do is make the whole controls and interface as customizable as possible via in game options. Providing the ability to customize it further through modification would also be great. Because this thread clearly shows, everyone is very different and has very different priorities.

Not a double tap, but X held down to go prone. Much like on a console game. When I used to play battlefield 3 on PS3, I found I could react just fine in situations I needed to move and get down quickly to avoid fire.

I'm interested in which things you disagree with in particular. I've edited my idea a couple of times already, once even overhauling everything when I've found something wrong. One thing I found wrong with my idea is that it actually doesn't utilize enough keys. Space, ctrl, z and c, I didn't bother coming up with functions for them. I considered splitting the command button into two different buttons, one for miscellaneous functions and behaviors, the other for commonly used commands for example.

Space might be used for jumping, and no not vaulting. I know your thinking Quake and COD, but you likely wouldn't be able to aim your weapon and it would fatigue you greatly.

Edited January 21, 2013 by JCDBionicman

[Smurf 12]

But honestly, the best thing that BIS can do is make the whole controls and interface as customizable as possible via in game options.

About this: We'll see the "GUI size" option that f*ck up texts, GUI positions and images when using a "not recommended" size?

[EDcase 87]

I don't see how z x c is superior...

Because direct keys give you faster control than cycling though options.

It may seem harder for you if you are new to ARMA and more familiar with other game controls.

I do like the individual keys z,x,c to go directly to a stance but I suppose a single key could cycle between stand and crouch (Held down to go prone)

Then we need other keys to control looking over/around obstacles when prone/crouched...

But it also needs some automation. eg. If you are prone then pressing forward with shift (run) would make you get up and start running in a smooth motion. (Not get up then start running)

Edited January 21, 2013 by EDcase