Balancing?

[blu3sman 11]

watch this and tell me that the time you can empty the mag of that rifle has any real meaning in a combat situation.

How about situations when you use such rifle in a way it was designed for (hint: anti-material).

For example to disable moving vehicle or helicopter from medium distance, having only several seconds window.

Not that I am too anal about fire rate. Point is, in game we have two different rifles designed for different purposes. And somehow they are treated like identical "generic .50 cal".

[Alwarren 2767]

i realize that. the problem appears when you dismiss balancing overall and don't mention that the .50 cal rifles are far from realistic at their current stage. i assume that most people might realize that it's the case. i'm just trying to get the discussion to a constructive point where it's not "balancing vs realism" but rather "what exacty is wrong with the game, why do some weapons even feel unbalanced in the first place".

I can immediately come up with two points that I think need fixing:

1) Wind. As I said it my previous post, introduction of wind as a factor will make long-range combat a matter of skill. It will no longer be enough to just lie somewhere and wait for someone to run in front of your scope. Wind, especially changing wind, gusts of wind, and any such factor, make sniping difficult, and will reduce the number of sniper-campers since it no longer is just a matter of zeroring and squeezing the trigger.

2) Weapon size. In reality, why would someone pick, say, a P90 or a G36C over an M16 or any other full-length rifle? Because handling a short weapon is much easier than a long rifle. Handling of short weapons in close combat situation is much better than long weapons, and if that were reflected in game, it would place a sniper (especially one with a 50cal) at a considerate disadvantage. On longer ranges, obviously, the disadvantage disappears and the longer weapons, because of their better accuracy and range, will gain the upper hand.

These two aspects are poorly or not at all represented in most games I know.

[EDcase 87]

As has been said before, the easiest way to do that is introduce wind into Arma 3. If that guy still snipes you from 1.5 kilometers away, then he effing deserved the kill, because it becomes a matter of skill to engage at range.

Yes, I hope BiS adds wind and makes the whole sniper experience more realistic.

[ak1287 1]

I wish we had all gotten in on this game in the development stage.

Edit: This is a facetious comment, not meant to be taken seriously or interpreted in any way, shape or form. Except for Metalcraze, in which case it's telling you to buy everyone on these forums cookies.

[TSAndrey 1]

Just because it's a military simulator, doesn't mean it doesn't need balance. For example, the pistol in Arma 3 is pretty weak right now. It takes more than 5 shoots to kill someone even if he is close!

On the other hand, some things need to stay unfair, as that's how it works in real life. A jet will always be able to easily destroy an entire base, and there is almost nothing infantry can do. The point is to work as a team.

[byku 13]

2) Weapon size. In reality, why would someone pick, say, a P90 or a G36C over an M16 or any other full-length rifle? Because handling a short weapon is much easier than a long rifle. Handling of short weapons in close combat situation is much better than long weapons, and if that were reflected in game, it would place a sniper (especially one with a 50cal) at a considerate disadvantage. On longer ranges, obviously, the disadvantage disappears and the longer weapons, because of their better accuracy and range, will gain the upper hand.

With that I agree, if you agree also, please vote:

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=9181

[bad benson 1733]

How about situations when you use such rifle in a way it was designed for (hint: anti-material).

For example to disable moving vehicle or helicopter from medium distance, having only several seconds window.

Not that I am too anal about fire rate. Point is, in game we have two different rifles designed for different purposes. And somehow they are treated like identical "generic .50 cal".

you need to read my posts again.

i never said that reducing fire rate is a good thing. i also never treated .50 cal identical. i just talked about points that apply to each .50 cal rifle afaik. size, weight and recoil.

http://extreme.pcgameshardware.de/attachments/570010d1344355882-sammelthread-dayz-arma-ii-modifikation-arma2oa-2012-08-07-18-10-33-70.png

if you see nothing wrong with that picture combined with the fact that you can constantly hold the rifle like this and the general handling of it, then you are neither for realism nor balancing. because both aren't considered in this case.

these rifles should be very hard to aim, if not in prone position. and ideally they should not be in the ready up position all the time. they should be lowered automatically so you have to get them up to shoot.

just observe the scope in this video. the way he shoots might be effective for very close range but that's it. not to mention the exhaustion shooting the rifle like this causes. he's not showing it a lot but you can see the weight when he lowers it. he's not a small guy. watch the impact the recoil has on his body.

[nodunit 397]

And what is that design now?

People whined that they have to use different tactics as different sides? Make sides mirror each other

I'm not sure how that comes to dumbing down, Operation Flashpoint had for the most part equal footing between OPFOR and BLUFOR, Armed Assault had equal footing if we're talking platforms and not tech (since digital vs analogue means squat here) then Arma 2 had the US vs Russian Federation, and they were even more on par with one another.

Balance between blue and red only dropped in Operation Arrowhead, when the red force became a third world military with at best a T-72 and insurgents.

Edited June 6, 2013 by NodUnit

[chortles 263]

Funny that you posted that...

* [REMOVED] - M107 and AS50(Banned) from all loot tables and removed all damage from bullets so they do 0 damage even if spawned in.

Mind you, that's DayZ and not Arma, but... telling.

I'll agree re: weapon length, I'm actually wondering where the hell that went because I was almost expecting it to be in the alpha. The point Alwarren made by mentioning wind and weapon size is that "balance" does exist in real life... it's just that real-life balance occurs through certain factors (every weapon is situational) that right now Arma 3 doesn't simulate.

[metalcraze 290]

I'm not sure how that comes to dumbing down, Operation Flashpoint had for the most part equal footing between OPFOR and BLUFOR, Armed Assault had equal footing if we're talking platforms and not tech (since digital vs analogue means squat here) then Arma 2 had the US vs Russian Federation, and they were even more on par with one another.

Balance between blue and red only dropped in Operation Arrowhead, when the red force became a third world military with at best a T-72 and insurgents.

Those examples had equal footing but they weren't 1:1 copies

.

For example in ArmA2 russians didn't have as much NV tech available to them, let alone drones. Even loadouts and squad compositions were different. (13 vs. 10 with only commander having NVG for russians f.e. while at the same time russians had a lot more GL power than USMC squads) They also didn't have their clone of Javelin. At the same time russians had Mi24 which unlike Cobra could also transport troops apart from being a flying tank.

In ArmA3 every side seems to have exactly the same counterpart tech to the other side. Same squad composition. Same loadouts. Weapons seem to behave the same too.

Suddenly MX with an attached bipod and a bigger mag can only autofire for some reason. How's that not dumbing down for the sake of dull TDM balance?

BTW can anyone explain to me what's the point in MX carbine variant even existing in a game?

Edited June 6, 2013 by metalcraze

[liquidpinky 11]

Suddenly MX with an attached bipod and a bigger mag can only autofire for some reason. How's that not dumbing down for the sake of dull TDM balance?

Always been the case since day as far as I know and I use that weapon a lot. I do agree it is done for the sake of dumbassed dumbing down though.

Balance needs left for the kiddies games, which I partake in also BTW, kids aren't even allowed competitive sports days in case some little cherub learns the facts of life early and has a good QQ.

Arma needs to stay real, where life sometimes isn't fair, but persevering over it by tactics, team-play or just being better skilled than the OP weapon user reaps great satisfaction.

Or you can also sit and stew but know that you never really had a chance against the odds anyway.

Balance should only be through giving each side similar weapons, still with different characteristics as samey gear on both sides is boring as hell.

It is nice to learn each weapons ins and outs so you can play different styles to suit each instead of just picking up the opposite sides gun knowing it is the same as yours with just a different model and texture.

[OrLoK 20]

Hello there

as everyone else is having a say, here's my 2 pence.

Tweaking to fix weapons IMHO is fine and the correct approach. Balancing (as in BF3 terminology) is a foul and evil thing. The mod possibilities exist so that "balanced" PvP/TvT can me effected by the community at a later date.

We didnt need it in vanilla A2 so I dont see why its needed now TBH.

As to sniper rifles dominating. If they are dominating then they are being combated incorrectly or a lazy server is allowing EVERYONE to have them which is a bit daft.

Rgds

LoK

[chortles 263]

When I first saw the resistance with their own modern guns, and full uniforms I was immediatly worried :P

I'd think that they should be using either outdated, or scavenged equipment from the other armies.

My personal joke about what happened here was that the Greek government banged on BI's door about having a "Greek-FOR" and wouldn't take no for an answer. :lol:

**

And what is that design now?

With not the exactly best team for the job (PMC DLC) being in charge of ArmA3

This reminds me of what I remarked about when I asked you about the one-save-slot thing in the corresponding thread and you said that it gave you hope essentially in spite of the devs...

It's like the mentality of the new team is that ArmA3 should indeed be a slightly more complicated Battlefield 3 and not ArmA. Authenticity mantra of Jay Crowe is not convincing enough.

You know, if your seeming main complaint re: the devs is that you don't trust them to essentially remake OFP (especially since there won't be a CWR3) and you're outright discounting the creative director's credibility, then what the hell is he supposed to say? Especially considering that some of the changes that we're seeing were alluded to for over a year now and that the alpha has his fingerprints all over it to the point that they might as well have just renamed the Arma 3 controls preset "The Jay Crowe Special" (to say nothing of what he told Gamespot about hand grenades) and especially when the game is currently getting so much more positive feedback outside of these forums because it's not like Arma 2...

In ArmA3 every side seems to have exactly the same counterpart tech to the other side. Same squad composition. Same loadouts. Weapons seem to behave the same too.

I'm actually going to disagree here: discounting the anti-materiel rifles, OPFOR alone has both a 7.62 x 51 mm DMR (whether that's simulated realistically is another story, of course) and a 200-round belt-fed LMG while BLUFOR has an accurized service rifle and a 100-round, magazine-fed light support weapon, an arrangement which actually reminds me of the XM8 family, and this is actually more asymmetrical than the initial alpha release when both sides had 7.62 mm DMRs (when the MXM and EBR both used the same twenty-round 7.62 x 45 mm magazines).

**

Always been the case since day as far as I know and I use that weapon a lot. I do agree it is done for the sake of dumbassed dumbing down though.

I would point out though that no vanilla weapon in this game has a working bipod, it's just cosmetic. :p

Balance should only be through giving each side similar weapons,

Too bad that even similar weapons is too much "balance" for some people :rolleyes: not accusing you of that, but I tend to consider the legendary "balance" of Starcraft something that Blizzard basically lucked into and then rode the coattails of for years...

**

Tweaking to fix weapons IMHO is fine and the correct approach. Balancing (as in BF3 terminology) is a foul and evil thing.

You mean "as in COD terminology"... and yeah, weapon tweaks are happening, that's more or less how this whole thread got started.

Mind you, I'd actually prefer for Raedek to explain what's meant by "balancing issues", since "by design different than in real life" and "working as intended" to me implies "no, the dev that making the call here (whether me or another) is not amenable to hearing your concerns that this is unrealistic"... frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the devs are so seemingly-intentionally vague about what's a bug and what's "working as intended" specifically to forestall complaint threads like this...

Oh, and Alwarren, that "game balance designer" was in the context of this:

Indeed, Luca meant just what he said: getting 'shot at'. That means he's trying to create a set of standards (across different classes of weapons) for how accurate the AI can/should/will be. It's certainly not easy, nor will the results be perfect, but it's a long-overdue and worthwhile endeavour, evidenced by hiring developers dedicated to this role.

The point is not that one can 'absorb' any more fire to the cranium, but that the enemy - while trying to blow your head off - are perhaps a little less likely to do so in one or two shots (this goes back to what we've been talking about for a while: 'problems' with AI tied to un/under-configured base classes, rather than an innate in/over-ability).

Also, I think it would be inaccurate to suggest that anyone here is trying to attract a 'console' shooter crowd. Arma 3 might well appeal to those 'moving on' from that style of gameplay, but it surely doesn't seek to encroach upon it. :)

Best,

RiE

That one was overtly a PVE/SP/co-op thing, AI accuracy-based-on-weapon type.

[Masharra 10]

Concering RiE's post Chortles I am forced to wuote another forum member with this in regards to the Sniper Rifle

All this recent "balancing" talk starts to bother me.

Like here feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=8656

Why limit fire rate of semi-auto rifle to be the same as bolt action one? Why then bother to have different weapon models if they have identical specs? More logical would be to make realistic characteristics, which ARE balanced: GM-6 has low recoil, high fire rate, but worse accuracy and effective range.

On the issue with ballistics. Taking aside sci-fi projectiles, while it makes AI to hit targets, this also makes it SUPER EASY for humans to hit targets. Especially moving targets are easy, because bullet flight time is just ridiculous. All you did with this balancing is just shift both AI and human effectiveness to higher %.

I almost want to quote myself, but dont have to as another person also noted my same observations.

now if only I could find it xP

basically we are all carrying smg's/ light carbines

Edited June 6, 2013 by Masharra

[chortles 263]

That's one thing I'm definitely wondering about, hence why I said that I admittedly would like a dev to elaborate on what was meant by "balancing issues", especially because of "by design different than in real life" and "working as intended" meaning a conscious and intentional decision as opposed to an oversight or bug, and as Blu3sman said, there is balance in real life... just not along the same lines as arcadey-shooters.

[das attorney 858]

basically we are all carrying smg's/ light carbines

That's basically the problem with heavy rifles in the Arma series.

There's nothing to stop people running about with them like an SMG. Dexterity config value seems to make little difference to how a gun is wielded and the ability to shoulder and fire them willy nilly while standing is a huge problem.

Those guns (.50 rifles) seem to have all the benefits, but with none of the drawbacks.

[dmarkwick 261]

Those examples had equal footing but they weren't 1:1 copies

So it's pretty much like ArmA 3 then? Typical Metalcraze, everything you've contributed in this thread is a snapshot of your gripes in the middle of a development alpha, not that that ever stopped you from insisting that everything you see that's wrong is a deliberate design decision away from your OFP at the behest of new members. How many times now has something been fixed that you've previously complained is a poor design?

Well it looks like this thread is destined for the long-haul, to-ing & fro-ing like those other zombie threads :)

[chortles 263]

Das Attorney gets what "real-life balance" means, though this leaves me wondering what the hell the dexterity config value is supposed to be doing by devs' intent, because it's seemingly not doing what Das Attorney (and I guess us in general) would think it would do... and as I said in the movement speed tweaking thread, COD (at least until Black Ops II) actually did simulate encumbrance, as narrowly as it did, with (as long as you didn't have a Sniper Rifle, LMG or Riot Shield with the Speed proficiency) MW3 ironically the most realistic in the series there (movement speed is the lower between your two carried weapons)...

DMarkwick, thanks for getting what I meant; as I pointed out to metalcraze it's actually less 1:1 than the initial alpha was, and even then the two factions did have some asymmetricality in their respective automatic weapons. ;)

I would point out that if it's true that these devs aren't up to making OFP... well, frankly, the devs who made OFP have been gone, it wasn't going to be coming back anyway and these devs sure as hell never promised to try (other than what Moricky said about OFP: Resistance as an inspiration for the SP campaign... though nowadays, who the hell knows what the campaign is supposed to be).

Edited June 6, 2013 by Chortles

[metalcraze 290]

This reminds me of what I remarked about when I asked you about the one-save-slot thing in the corresponding thread and you said that it gave you hope essentially in spite of the devs...

Exactly. The case of I Want to Believe. But I'm not sure if that ever came to fruition since the blog post or will it ever.

you don't trust them to essentially remake OFP (especially since there won't be a CWR3) and you're outright discounting the creative director's credibility, then what the hell is he supposed to say?

The problem is that for Jay Crowe repeating 'authenticity' so often the game is lacking one.

and especially when the game is currently getting so much more positive feedback outside of these forums because it's not like Arma 2...

And that's a positive thing how? Because judging by those posts it's treated like an unpolished Battlefield 3 clone.

I'm actually going to disagree here: discounting the anti-materiel rifles, OPFOR alone has both a 7.62 x 51 mm DMR (whether that's simulated realistically is another story, of course) and a 200-round belt-fed LMG while BLUFOR has an accurized service rifle and a 100-round, magazine-fed light support weapon, an arrangement which actually reminds me of the XM8 family, and this is actually more asymmetrical than the initial alpha release when both sides had 7.62 mm DMRs (when the MXM and EBR both used the same twenty-round 7.62 x 45 mm magazines).

But the problem here is that MX was turned into LMG with firemode switch being broken on every single of those rifles. And yet you can't fit the same bipod+mag kit on other MXes. Because you gotta give BLUFOR their LMG even if the weapon choice for it makes no sense at all since you basically have exact same rifle models... being nerfed both ways for no reason - so much for 'authenticity'. As for the MXM - in doing so they've made it mostly no different from the usual MX. Not much of an improvement there. Still not as bad as an utterly pointless MX carbine vs. usual MX.

There's no reason not to use long MXM in CQB and there's no reason to use MX carbine in CQB. For an 'authentic' game that's the problem.

but I tend to consider the legendary "balance" of Starcraft something that Blizzard basically lucked into and then rode the coattails of for years...

That's actually a great example of sides being entirely different and yet nobody complains. People however do complain a lot when sides in RTS are mostly clones of each other (why Westwood RTS never entered competitive arena). But for some reason in shooters today it's a great thing when the only difference between enemies is their uniform color. This is something I can't understand.

Edited June 6, 2013 by metalcraze

[Wolfstriked 11]

you need to read my posts again.

i never said that reducing fire rate is a good thing. i also never treated .50 cal identical. i just talked about points that apply to each .50 cal rifle afaik. size, weight and recoil.

http://extreme.pcgameshardware.de/attachments/570010d1344355882-sammelthread-dayz-arma-ii-modifikation-arma2oa-2012-08-07-18-10-33-70.png

if you see nothing wrong with that picture combined with the fact that you can constantly hold the rifle like this and the general handling of it, then you are neither for realism nor balancing. because both aren't considered in this case.

these rifles should be very hard to aim, if not in prone position. and ideally they should not be in the ready up position all the time. they should be lowered automatically so you have to get them up to shoot.

just observe the scope in this video. the way he shoots might be effective for very close range but that's it. not to mention the exhaustion shooting the rifle like this causes. he's not showing it a lot but you can see the weight when he lowers it. he's not a small guy. watch the impact the recoil has on his body.

Thats why I say make the sniper get its own animation where its slower to move around(like how the AT when shouldered effects the player)coupled with the inability to tactical pace with the weapon ala Arma2-inability to fire while moving-unless at walking speeds.More sway for standing/crouched also adds drawbacks.To be honest here CQB with the .50's is a bitch I am finding and I usually get killed and then choose a more CQB style weapon gladly.Also,I am all for slowing down the ROF of the Sniper in question as it needs artificial drawbacks implemented.Also,aren't these weapons fictional.....so why can't they slow ROF on any weapon??I do see most sniper players running around with their pistols out which is a good thing IMO.

Suddenly MX with an attached bipod and a bigger mag can only autofire for some reason. How's that not dumbing down for the sake of dull TDM balance?

BTW can anyone explain to me what's the point in MX carbine variant even existing in a game?

Top be honest I am fine with artificial game balancing that trys to mimic somehow reality.Sway in real life is probably identical with a rifle/carbine combo in most cases as a few inches of metal tubes will not cause that much weight distribution difference.So add in something artificial that can add benefit to one while adding drawback to the other.With the current carbines being less accurate than its rifle counterpart its Rifle+1 with Carbine-1.Reduce sway while standing/crouching for carbines by a noticeable amount and its now Rifle-1 and Carbine+1.Now carbines can give a slight advantage when you try to get a few shots while in up positions.

Also,right now all weapons are ridiculous to fight with when not prone and any attack on the AI is suicide since they will turn with no fear and one shot you between the eyes.Why the AI don't have dispersion penalties when fired on I will never know.And dispersion should slightly decrease for them after first shot to "balance" out how we players have to first fire,watch bullet impact and then adjust.But if they fire a shot at a player then they should become the sharpshooters they are now since a hard to fight enemy is engaging.Played on a server that seemed to have AI set to dumb and got so bored that I realized I would not stick with the game.I need challenge but dammit I want the AI to have to fight for it also.;)

Edited June 6, 2013 by Wolfstriked

[das attorney 858]

imo, a new animation set purely for 'heavy' weapons would be ideal, so that they are carried around 'on the hip' and could only be sighted when prone or rested on something (like a wall). But I guess this sort of thing would be very labour intensive to do, so might not be a viable option (at least in the short term).

Just off the top of my head though, you could have solution with existing values in weapon config. Use the dexterity value to also determine how slow the weapon is to shoulder, (I don't think it does that at the mo) and also you could set a threshold so weapons over a certain weight can't even be shouldered while standing.

If I get time, maybe I will try and make a proof of concept mod (just as an experiment). I don't imagine too many people would download it (due to the nature of it) but it would be a good experiment to at least see if there are ways in the current state of the game to reduce the artificially easy handling these types of weapon enjoy.

I know L'Etranger has made a weapon balance mod (which I thought was an awesome bold move considering the evolving nature of the game :) ), and maybe heavy guns should have to make more of what that mod provides.

Who knows though? Maybe BIS will pleasantly surprise us all with changed handling for heavy weapons as part of the recoil review they are doing.

Edited June 6, 2013 by Das Attorney

[chortles 263]

Exactly. The case of I Want to Believe. But I'm not sure if that ever came to fruition since the blog post or will it ever.

"I Want To Believe" -- and there's your problem right there, your heart wants what your brain tells you isn't happening yet in that post you essentially had both of them talking at once, so you're essentially hoping against hope. :p Although I just checked SITREP #00012, and there was no ETA on the change, only that "We hope to expand upon this decision in a blog post at a later date", so it's essentially "we're doing it but we're not telling you when"... they didn't retract, they didn't promise much to begin with! :lol:

The problem is that for Jay Crowe repeating 'authenticity' so often the game is lacking one.

After last year's E3/Medal of Honor: Warfighter brouhaha, I've since realized that "authenticity" and "realism" are two very different things... then again, I wouldn't be surprised if the whole harping about 'authenticity' was just in response to all the complainers about the future setting.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that if you think so lowly of the current devs, why the hell would you actually think that these devs could succeed in going down the route you want, unless you're hoping that they somehow magically stumble into it by accident, enough to want them to in the first place?

And that's a positive thing how? Because judging by those posts it's treated like an unpolished Battlefield 3 clone.

Did I say anything about it as an absolute positive? No, you misinterpreted what I was saying...

But the problem here is that MX was turned into LMG with firemode switch being broken on every single of those rifles. And yet you can't fit the same bipod+mag kit on other MXes. Because you gotta give BLUFOR their LMG even if the weapon choice for it makes no sense at all since you basically have exact same rifle models... being nerfed both ways for no reason - so much for 'authenticity'. As for the MXM - in doing so they've made it mostly no different from the usual MX. Not much of an improvement there. Still not as bad as an utterly pointless MX carbine vs. usual MX.

There's no reason not to use long MXM in CQB and there's no reason to use MX carbine in CQB. For an 'authentic' game that's the problem.

It's kind of gameplay-irrelevant that you can't move the MX SW bipod over when that doesn't do anything in the first place. :p I'll agree that that lack of bipod functionality is unrealistic, but there you go: no bipods work in vanilla anyway, so it doesn't make the rest of the MX series worse in gameplay for lacking a modeled bipod. As far as "BLUFOR gotta have their LMG"... it's pretty much in the vein of the Colt Automatic Rifle (certainly moreso than the M27 IAR), while the MXM in its current 6.5 mm implementation is basically filling the SAM-R/SDM-R.

"Authenticity" vs. "realism" again... I'll also agree re: the lack of weapon length and collision, but then again I wouldn't be surprised if they're deliberately shying away from it because of all the complaints about indoors movement in Arma 2... combined with the possibility that they just don't know how to do realistic weapon collision -- or engine limitations prevent them from doing it -- without the same limitations as the Rifle Collision addon (namely the fact that that seems to simply trigger the double-tap-LCtrl lower/raise weapon action which isn't as smooth as would be possible in real life for the lighter, shorter weapons).

That's actually a great example of sides being entirely different and yet nobody complains.

... two words: "dumb luck". As far as RTS player complaints about lack of asymmetry... I call it "they're chasing StarCraft's legend, even though it was a fluke that Blizzard could never really replicate consistently."

imo, a new animation set purely for 'heavy' weapons would be ideal, so that they are carried around 'on the hip' and could only be sighted when prone or rested on something (like a wall). But I guess this sort of thing would be very labour intensive to do, so might not be a viable option (at least in the short term).

One thing I've sensed is that Arma 3 seems to be very much influenced by "very labour intensive to do, therefore won't do", from no non-Steamworks version to no weapon switch while on the move and so on...

Just off the top of my head though, you could have solution with existing values in weapon config. Use the dexterity value to also determine how slow the weapon is to shoulder, (I don't think it does that at the mo) and also you could set a threshold so weapons over a certain weight can't even be shouldered while standing.

Therein lies a problem: can Dexterity be made to directly determine these? Ironically enough, "how slow the weapon is to shoulder" is a stat that does factors into arcadey FPS balance sometimes, even if the weapon select screens' stats don't display it.

Food for thought: sometimes realism in the sense of "more simulated factors" is a buff/nerf, why fear the word? To paraphrase this game's creative director, "let's not be afraid of that word"... :lol:

Edited June 6, 2013 by Chortles

[das attorney 858]

can Dexterity be made to directly determine these?

I'm not sure as I've yet to have a good delve around in the game code, but as far as I remember in A2, you can specify which anim is played in the weapon config for recoil, so if it is possible to create some children of the "shoulder weapon" anim class and give them all a different speed, then you can assign them on a per weapon basis.

EIT: Actually, I don't think that's possible.

If not, maybe there is a hacky way to force it with looping scripts and config adjustments to the anims (which might look a bit funny but will be proof of concept - which is good enough ).

As I say though, I'm not sure if it's actually possible, but might be fun to play about with and see if anything workable happens. :)

Edited June 6, 2013 by Das Attorney

[metalcraze 290]

It's kind of gameplay-irrelevant that you can't move the MX SW bipod over when that doesn't do anything in the first place. I'll agree that that lack of bipod functionality is unrealistic, but there you go: no bipods work in vanilla anyway, so it doesn't make the rest of the MX series worse in gameplay for lacking a modeled bipod.

But when and if they add that bipod functionality (which will not happen at release) that's going to be an even more glaring issue. And the problem is - BIS seldom improves content until the next game/expansion. After all in A2 1.0 AI was walking through walls and BIS has fixed it only 2 years later when OA was already 1 year old. And it's not a lone example.

As far as "BLUFOR gotta have their LMG"... it's pretty much in the vein of the Colt Automatic Rifle (certainly moreso than the M27 IAR), while the MXM in its current 6.5 mm implementation is basically filling the SAM-R/SDM-R.

Except the point was that there is no reason for MX LMG version not to have a semi-auto mode and no reason for other MXs not to accept 100 bullet mags. This is the glaring example of balance that makes no sense and is actually worse than what we see in TDM shooters. They at least have different weapons for LMG and AR roles.

but then again I wouldn't be surprised if they're deliberately shying away from it because of all the complaints about indoors movement in Arma 2...

And that's the problem. Casual players complained that they couldn't run around in tight takistani houses with stuff like M16 and M240 and scoring frags so BIS "fixed" it instead of doing the right thing - like you know - not making carbines and pistols utterly pointless.

Before the "fix" people had to use weapons that are better in tight spaces be it a carbine, smg or even a pistol if it was a marksman or a machinegunner going in there. All weapons mattered, just like they do in real life.

So carbines, TRGs - they are there for gunporn basically. Shorter effective range for long range engagements while not a single advantage over any other weapon in CQB.

combined with the possibility that they just don't know how to do realistic weapon collision -- or engine limitations prevent them from doing it -- without the same limitations as the Rifle Collision addon (namely the fact that that seems to simply trigger the double-tap-LCtrl lower/raise weapon action which isn't as smooth as would be possible in real life for the lighter, shorter weapons).

More like it's a lot easier not to do something than do something and make sure it works right. After all ArmA3 already sells like hot pies because DayZ/Wasteland fans - why complicate things?

ArmA fans bought it too because it's not in Dragon Rising territory yet so everything is a OK.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that if you think so lowly of the current devs, why the hell would you actually think that these devs could succeed in going down the route you want, unless you're hoping that they somehow magically stumble into it by accident, enough to want them to in the first place?

One more voice is better than none. If me whining and hitting the alarm button has any chance of making ArmA stay a good game and not a forgettable mediocrity that will lose half its fanbase in November - why not?

Edited June 6, 2013 by metalcraze

[chortles 263]

But when and if they add that bipod functionality (which will not happen at release) that's going to be an even more glaring issue. And the problem is - BIS seldom improves content until the next game/expansion. After all in A2 1.0 AI was walking through walls and BIS has fixed it only 2 years later when OA was already 1 year old. And it's not a lone example.

Mind you, what I would expect to happen at that hypothetical point (adding bipod functionality in vanilla) would be for the bipod model to be removed from the MX SW and made into a separate object as befitting an attachment... but then again my expectation is that that would only happen when underbarrel as detachable finally happens, which there's no signs of. :/

Except the point was that there is no reason for MX LMG version not to have a semi-auto mode and no reason for other MXs not to accept 100 bullet mags. This is the glaring example of balance that makes no sense and is actually worse than what we see in TDM shooters. They at least have different weapons for LMG and AR roles.

Excuse me while I joke that the M27 IAR would like to have a word with you, except that conversation has already been had about the real-life counterparts... while I would sympathize, this is the sort of thing that (especially with the MX magazine capacity disparity) would seem to be easily enough changed in RV4 that it merits a feedback ticket.

And that's the problem. Casual players complained that they couldn't run around in tight takistani houses with stuff like M16 and M240 and scoring frags so BIS "fixed" it instead of doing the right thing - like you know - not making carbines and pistols utterly pointless.

I'm pretty sure the complaint was even when they weren't wielding primary weapons...

More like it's a lot easier not to do something than do something and make sure it works right.

As you'll see from my earlier post, I wouldn't be surprised if that is the answer.

After all ArmA3 already sells like hot pies because DayZ/Wasteland fans - why complicate things?

ArmA fans bought it too because it's not in Dragon Rising territory yet so everything is a OK.

I think the second half has more to do with it than the former... there is no, no way that the devs would have missed all the "this is not Arma 2, therefore buy it!" reviews... but when they also see all the people already on their forums, both new and those who have been here for quite some time, who like the direction and therefore speak up in support of the direction and encourage the devs to continue that direction?

I want to emphasize "direction" here, not the "state" -- since of course even some of the long-timers qualify the hell out of their support and request changes, and as we saw with grenades even the devs have intended tweaks.

One more voice is better than none. If me whining and hitting the alarm button has any chance of making ArmA stay a good game and not a forgettable mediocrity that will lose half its fanbase in November - why not?

... yeah, see, I see this as having the opposite effect. I mean, shit, when the creative director is saying "let's not be afraid of that word, streamlined," mocking the engine improvements as "welcome to the late 90s", the then-other creative director mocks CWC as "a shitty game", another dev refers to "old hardcores" as myopic, and the Steamworks decision was essentially carried out behind the forums members' backs and then presented as a fait accompli with the announcement outright saying that they knew that they were going to piss off members but were doing it anyway, dev statements re: the stuff you call for (such as TKOH flight model, windage, deployable bipods) are qualified as heck* as you yourself said, you do seem to basically feel that the creative director is lying to you, and the devs have found that they have a base which will speak up in support of the direction that you accuse the devs of?

* I'm left thinking of the dev response to the Steam Workshop brouhaha... "we'll ask Valve because you were so vocal, but we're not guaranteeing anything and we're not going to roll back Steam Workshop support even if the EULA remains the way that it is".

Edited June 6, 2013 by Chortles