Take Downs.

[RedSmoke 1]

My opinion on the subject is that executing a takedown (unarmed or not) would take a lot of time,but would be more silent than firing your unsuppressed firearm. Its not 100% silent,but its better than having the enemy combatants within a 2 kilometer radius hearing a gunshot. The knife could also be used for other things,such as setting traps for the soldiers of the opposite side and all sorts of small tasks you might need to perform during lenghtier missions. I also think that the outcome of struggle between the sentry and the soldier executing the takedown (from now on referred to as "attacker" and "defender") could be decided by things such as;

the type of the units the defender and the attacker are (for example it would be more likely for the struggle to end up in the favour of a special forces operator if he surpises a pilot from the behind and vice versa)

the equipment the attacker has (for example it would be more likely for the attacker to succeed if he has a combat knife equipped and if he doesnt have one equipped,then the attacker would have less of a chance to come out of the struggle victorious).

[upredictable 10]

[Fuse 1]

Well IF you manage to not bounce the blade off a piece of the skeleton and make contact with a vital organ then you still have to wait for the blood to take some effect, be it bleeding out or going somewhere it shouldn't go IE suffocating because the lungs fill with blood. There is also the adrenaline rush to worry about, chances are the brain is going to go full on survival mode and the person may not simple fall down or die as expected, they will want to get you off of them and likely not be too happy if they get their hands on you.

Slitting the throat is also not the simple one slash and kill either, they still have to bleed out or suffocate. You'd be surprised as to what you can live through, with the right technique you can survive something even as fatal as having your throat slit.

There is also the "FUUUU!" factor to consider, when people get hurt they aren't quiet, they aren't just going to sit there and silently let you gut them, even with a covered mouth they are going to make some noise..one of the things that cracked me up in far cry 3 was how easy it was to ambush a patrol from behind and take them out without being detected because the first guy didn't cry out in pain or anything like that.

Bingo. Silly, unrealistic, unnecessary. The risks of a melee kill far outweigh the reward, not to mention the (IMHO negative) change it will bring to multiplayer.

It'd be nice to have some Krav Maga type stuff. This might sound silly, but if two players from opposite factions turned a corner and ended up face-to-face, a small quicktime rock-paper-scissors competition (perhaps with a front kick (long range that would stagger the opponent and send them backwards a short distance),

(close range that would incapacitate an opponent) or a bayonet-type stab with a rifle nozzle (medium range that would interrupt an opponent and stagger them, but for a shorter duration than the front kick). The player (or NPC) that did the 'correct' attack for the distance (with considerations, eg a kick would take longer than a stab) would then be in a position to shoot their opponent. This retains a competitive aspect while providing a more realistic situation for very close quarter CQB but I'm not sure if it could fit into the engine.

As for physical attacks from a player behind an opponent, a simple animation and keybind would be fine - the specific technique used would be context-dependent (rifle strangle, pistol to the head and choke or whatever).

Of course, a knife is also a perfectly reasonable addition that would work for the latter.

If they add QTE melee I quit.

[kilroy the nerd 14]

I'd like melee at least, hand to hand combat and blocking enemy punches/dodging bayonets at best.

[NeuroFunker 11]

If they add QTE melee I quit.

one of 1000 wouldn't change much.

[Millor 1]

Something simple like a rifle butt is all they need. Come up behind a guy? Press your default action key and you rifle butt him in the neck or something in like a second and half animation, if they move, the animation cancels. If they turn around or you do it infront of them and they don't move or shoot you, you'll just do light damage and knock their aim up like nearby explosions do.

No QTE's, no quick knifing, no flashy animations, no addition of a bunch of other uneeded features to go along with it. Hell, I would be fine if it just didn't have any animation, I don't care, but I think if you manage to sneak up behind some one and get that close to them without being spotted, you should be able to harvest the fruits of your labor and kill them relatively silently compared to shooting them.

[rye1 21]

Something simple like a rifle butt is all they need. Come up behind a guy? Press your default action key and you rifle butt him in the neck or something in like a second and half animation, if they move, the animation cancels. If they turn around or you do it infront of them and they don't move or shoot you, you'll just do light damage and knock their aim up like nearby explosions do.

No QTE's, no quick knifing, no flashy animations, no addition of a bunch of other uneeded features to go along with it.

This is BY FAR the best request yet. Not only do we see it in live proof in America's Army 3 but I can see this one physically working in ARMA 3 more often and with less cons or exploits attached. I wouldn't allow the animation to be cancelled based off if the opposing player moves though, that would mean you could operate your weapon without the drawbacks of making and living with that failed decision.

You mean like when the dude who is getting stabbed screams because of pain, his whole body twitching and pulling the trigger of his weapon due to reflex? That's really silent I agree, not like suppressed pistol headshot.]

You're right without an animation or weapon collisions with player body it would be impossible to utilize that feature from front-on, and at the same time the draw-backs of an animation aren't good either. The speed therefore of the "melee" animation would have to be fast, dynamic and fluid. Therefore it must be a base animation you can use whilst moving, without a sequence but no where near like COD/BF/MOH. BIS would not encompass anything less into ACTUAL gameplay because they'd compromise the integrity of their game if it was like those modern shooters.

We've just transferred MSO CQB to ARMA 3 and I think you should try it metalcraze. You're constantly at distances less than 30 meters, and within rooms you can be a meter away in contact.

There's nothing minigamish about ACE medic. You don't Tap (A)wesome button to heal. You apply what's necessary.

Well in vanilla you do. AWESOME BUTTON.

Dude you and other people all say "durr don't make it 1 hit kill like in BF3 but still do it" but you never suggest how it can be done.

And you always say "lol realism" without having a clue. If you take it back to gameplay points I can agree with some of them.

I don't think you read because I started off brainstorming and getting away from the instant kill, single animation approach because I don't agree with it. You obviously aren't interested in understanding that though. Take-downs on the other hand are possible, and I've talked about that above in AA3. I think melee should be multiple hits, slashes, whatever and made to be of limited use and application so it's not exploited. As you see in AA3 - it's rather limited even for constant PVP in Close Quarters.

Getting killed is part of the game. Tough luck there. Adapt/survive/win if we are going to spill ArmA3 marketspeak here.

A big encompassing factor of ARMA is modality and it would be nice for modders to have a base melee animation even if not seen in the physical game we play. Have optionality to keep your players alive is a way of gaining support from a player. For instance the new combat stances allow us to take more control over our fate than allow ARMA 2 to get us killed through bad animations. Get it? The better, smoother animations allow us more self-responsibility.

After breaching the room IRL the infantry for some reason rushes in there armed with their carbines, not with knives. Can you tell me why?

Read closely. Some units are taught anti-grab drills whilst moving through the fatal funnel such as punching out the weapon, muzzle striking anyone within a one meter radius of the doorway. LINES teaches acceptable transition decision making involving the use of such blade weaponry, including what's known as the combatives draw. Because you're moving through a funneled piece of architectural terrain, the doorway is a keen point of ambush known as a door ambush. Therefore all units are taught the use of projectile weaponry first but some units are taught back-up approaches. Other units are taught buttstrike and even punching instead of muzzle strike. Some are taught to use the legs and kick. Only self-education will help you, if you have a low understanding of the reality of content taught or the subject matter and sprout off on it about realism then you're not helping anything.

[metalcraze 290]

You are missing a little point there - almost any realistic melee interaction would have to involve input from both soldiers. In a serious game it won't look good. There will have to be some unbreakable animation with some QTEs and it's just bad because melee is not as straightforward as putting ironsights over some dude and pulling the trigger - which is easier to simulate in a game. That's why arcade shootbox devs apply the latter one to melee in their games - aim at a dude, press knife button, he's dead. It's not complicated. Kids love it. It's 74k3D0wN!

A big encompassing factor of ARMA is modality and it would be nice for modders to have a base melee animation even if not seen in the physical game we play. Have optionality to keep your players alive is a way of gaining support from a player. For instance the new combat stances allow us to take more control over our fate than allow ARMA 2 to get us killed through bad animations. Get it? The better, smoother animations allow us more self-responsibility.

There's improving and then there's taking it too far. Some situations you can't just survive through - people need to start dealing with it.

And generally those new people we are getting should start dealing with a fact that ArmA3 is not "BF3 on a big map with cutout awesome features".

[pathetic_berserker 4]

You are missing a little point there - almost any realistic melee interaction would have to involve input from both soldiers. .

Agreed to a point. True the majority of real melee conficts will involve a face off or struggle and could involve such a range of possible attacks as to make any attempt scream yep its video game. But I do like the Butt stroke idea as suggested above. Requiring multiple hits to incapacitate a target does reflect the to and fro nature of many melee attacks, the target is given some chance to get away and/or defend themselves, while a suprise attack from behind may still be quite effective. Its also a common military move and similar to bayoneting I would like to see them implemented on a modular basis so that mission and mod makers can decide. As a mil sim there is simply no room for awsome stabby buttons but as a sandbox there is scope for these as functions to help simulate other military periods and battles.

Edited March 9, 2013 by Pathetic_Berserker

[rye1 21]

Repeats same points. Brings up exactly what previously stated was disagreed upon. What do you mean input from both soldiers? And what do you mean "won't look good"? Why can't it be straight-forward? You cannot and will not have a realistic melee system, the same way as you'll never have a realistic "CQB system". It's just reality of the fact. Even pure fighting games cannot do this. Therefore there's some lean-way. No one here says they want BF3 on a big map, they said they request a melee system or some kind of melee implementation.

The action of a buttstrike is no different is what you're saying yet America's Army 3 tends to differ in application, going against what you've stated. It looks good. It is straight-forward, you encounter an enemy close and have that decision. That would also be like saying "CQB, can't survive in that due to X so deal with it", instead of creating features around it and new gameplay aspects. There's a continuum where things are possible, to be made in the ARMA fashion without being unwelcome. This would mean the feature had to be: 1. Realistic, 2. Applicable, 3. Well implemented. This normally encroaches on sub-concepts of limiting availability, restricting exploitation and such.

Have you ever played AA3?

Have you ever played I44?

The melee was incredibly awesome! And imagine that with ARMA 3 animations.

P.S. On the three points of feature implementation, grenade throwing goes again two of them!!! Definitely needs improved. I could see that turning into an AA3 pull the pin and aim affair.

Edited March 9, 2013 by Rye

[metalcraze 290]

Agreed to a point. True the majority of real melee conficts will involve a face off or struggle and could involve such a range of possible attacks as to make any attempt scream yep its video game. But I do like the Butt stroke idea as suggested above.

I like the idea of butting myself but it can be abused too (see ACE2 where it sends the soldier to the ground for like 10 secs every time). I guess it can work if there will be only some % chance of knocking down the target - otherwise making it stumble. No magical 1-hit knockout riflebutt. The needed swing to butt should add to fatigue too otherwise you will see people just spamming the butt-button knocking down everyone as they run around rooms.

Requiring multiple hits to incapacitate a target does reflect the to and fro nature of many melee attacks, the target is given some chance to get away and/or defend themselves, while a suprise attack from behind may still be quite effective. Its also a common military move and similar to bayoneting I would like to see them implemented on a modular basis so that mission and mod makers can decide. As a mil sim there is simply no room for awsome stabby buttons but as a sandbox there is scope for these as functions to help simuate other military periods and battles.

Note that my issue is not with melee itself but with "silent knives" , "1 hit takedowns" etc

What do you mean input from both soldiers?

See the post right above you.

And what do you mean "won't look good"?

How will you take an input from both players in a struggle without it looking like Tap (X) to win and locking them into a struggle animation?

No one here says they want BF3 on a big map, they said they request a melee system or some kind of melee implementation.

You should read this thread again then.

Takedown is a really self-explanatory word.

And see above what melee I consider to be good.

Edited March 9, 2013 by metalcraze

[Laqueesha 474]

Personally, I wouldn't mind knives being in the game, but I think rifle-butting would be much better, as said by some previous members. If you think about it, the average infantryman is more likely to use a rifle-butt attack in a CQB situation, rather than a knife slash. An infantryman would already have a rifle in-hand, thus a rifle-butt would be quicker (and deadlier, in some cases), and if a knife were available, it would probably be sheathed away, causing valuable time to be wasted to switch from a rifle to ready it.

As for knives causing ArmA 3 to become BF3/COD, that's just ludicrous, as the games are too fundamentally different when it comes down to it. Adding a knife won't magically change it from a milsim to an arcade shooter.

That being said, a melee of some sort would be a welcome edition; I've been in a few situations in-game where melee would've been called for, namely after running out of ammunition, or rounding a corner and finding a bad guy right in front of you. However, I wouldn't be too upset if it were glassed over. The game is decent enough even without melee.

Edited March 9, 2013 by Laqueesha

[rye1 21]

Note that my issue is not with melee itself but with "silent knives" , "1 hit takedowns" etc.

I don't agree with tapping, one hit kills or a hundred percent silent anything. If anyone here does, they're agreeing with something unfavorable for the ARMA series. What I do agree with is that butt or muzzle striking is a more favorable melee feature than take-downs AND can be used to take-down the person. Therefore I'd vote yes for rifle-butting over take-downs as a feature any day of the week.

[aseliot 2]

Would be really cool to see some krav maga inspired melee combat moves.

[NeuroFunker 11]

Would be really cool to see some krav maga inspired melee combat moves.

to complicated and not needed imo.

[Mac 1]

Take downs have no part in a simulator like arma, a knife for melee is fine but people need to understand that nobody gets stabbed and dies instantly and quietly. Its loud, gruesome, and painfull for both the guy doing the stabbing and the guy getting stabbed. So in short you could implement some sort of melee system but a "takedown instant death" is beyond dumb and doesn't belong in a simulator

[Pulverizer 1]

You forget there is instant death from gun shot wounds to non-vital areas but that's still in the game. Why the double standard?