In the future apparently human beings are not subject to inertia or weight.

[metalcraze 290]

So basically what people are saying is that walking onto a prone guy who instantly turns to face you returning fire is not a gamebreaking exploit

I guess CoD and BF devs are just stupid. Somebody should tell them that prone turn-speed limit is redundant.

I agree with the above post, so what if its unrealistic, its a good way to represent my avatar in game, and I have absolutely no complaints. lets move on with our arma 3 lives.

Why not go full-circle and add bunny-hopping then? If ArmA3 is already a twitch shooter, why stop at absolutely idiotic animations and movement?

"Everything in ArmA3 is great" posts are the primary reason why the game ended up being so terrible that you need a dozen of mods to make it barely enjoyable. You just legitimize the goal of BIS to dumb down ArmA series for CoD crowd.

Edited November 5, 2013 by metalcraze

[Varanon 892]

I keep reading how this is a big problem, with no real evidence that it IS a real problem. it seems to be more of a vague, imaginary theoretical problem.

I'm not claiming it is a "BIG" problem. But the example with the sniper shows that it is in some ways gamebreaking. And you can deny the presence of this problem as much as you want by calling my video "vague", the problem is there.

Also, you claim you didn't see it in game ? Well, open your eyes then, because I heard a lot of complaints about Wasteland being infested with CQB snipers and machinegunners. THIS is the problem in game.

Well, I might say likewise ;)

Do you ? I fail to see the vagueness in this video. It's just showing what is possible. Yeah, it does not show any real-life applicability, but it shows the technical side. It's much more concrete than the usual "Arma 3 movement is better" without any clarification as to what IS better.

[Alwarren 2765]

damn straight, take the sniper rifle, put an AI facing away from you behind you, about 100-300 meters away, and try 180 shoot him. its difficult to say the least. (thats the optimal engagement range anyway. )

Try 50 centimeters.

[Varanon 892]

damn straight, take the sniper rifle, put an AI facing away from you behind you, about 100-300 meters away, and try 180 shoot him. its difficult to say the least. (thats the optimal engagement range anyway. )

Uhm...

What was so hard to understand about the flanking thing ? Or is it difficult to hit someone standing one meter in front of you with a sniper rifle ? That kills you no matter where you are hit ?

Don't dismiss the problem because you can find an example where it doesn't apply. You need to see the problem in the cases where it does.

[steele6 0]

So basically what people are saying is that walking onto a prone guy who instantly turns to face you returning fire is not a gamebreaking exploit

you can't give effective, accurate fire anyway. in real life, if someone was behind me, it would be the same. go try out paintball, (or go to afghanistan and ask some angry fella's there to help you out :)* ) its pretty close to how arma 3 does it anyway.

[St. Jimmy 272]

If servers can force negative mouse acceleration would people be happy then?

[metalcraze 290]

you can't give effective, accurate fire anyway.

Have you even played ArmA3? There's no bullet dispersion, point and shoot. And if it's CQB just spray - you are going to hit that guy behind you. In fact even faster than he would hit you since you are prone and is thus less visible.

in real life, if someone was behind me, it would be the same.

Cool. Can you tell me how do you do insta turns while prone IRL?

If servers can force negative mouse acceleration would people be happy then?

Nobody wants negative mouse acceleration.

I personally want realism at least on par with Battlefield 3/4. Sounds funny but this is ArmA3 for you.

[Deadfast 43]

Have you even played ArmA3? There's no bullet dispersion, point and shoot.

What's the last time you played Arma 2? It's much harder to hit things in A3 and it actually takes effort.

[das attorney 857]

Nobody wants negative mouse acceleration.

I personally want realism at least on par with Battlefield 3/4.

So how do BF series introduce inertia into their games if they don't use neg mouse acceleration? (Honest question).

I can't boot up my BF3 anymore to check (Russian installation).

[metalcraze 290]

In BF3 if you sprint and do an instant 180 degree turn you will slow down to a crawl first before picking up momentum again. This obviously prevents you from running into an enemy view and then immediately going full speed in the opposite direction - making you get killed as a result.

Negative mouse acceleration is not inertia. It's what makes your mouse feel like jelly which has nothing to do with movement itself.

What's the last time you played Arma 2? It's much harder to hit things in A3 and it actually takes effort.

How is that relevant to the "if you will walk into a prone enemy laying on his side from behind he will be able to instantly face you and spray you in the face" argument?

Obviously it's a lot harder to hit stuff from afar in ArmA3 due to breathing (unless you have those awesome weightless zero recoil .50 cal sniper rifles that everybody uses whenever possible) but insta prone turn doesn't matter there either right? Yet this argument isn't about long range combat.

[xendance 3]

Regarding negative mouse acceleration: I wouldn't mind it if it was only for when you're prone. Kinda like in Call of Duty, you had certain sector where you could freely aim without any negative mouse acceleration, but if you had to move your body you would get the negative acceleration. That prevented people from doing crazy fast 180 degree turns while prone.

[das attorney 857]

Regarding negative mouse acceleration: I wouldn't mind it if it was only for when you're prone. Kinda like in Call of Duty, you had certain sector where you could freely aim without any negative mouse acceleration, but if you had to move your body you would get the negative acceleration. That prevented people from doing crazy fast 180 degree turns while prone.

Yes that seems sensible to me.

[Varanon 892]

Regarding negative mouse acceleration: I wouldn't mind it if it was only for when you're prone. Kinda like in Call of Duty, you had certain sector where you could freely aim without any negative mouse acceleration, but if you had to move your body you would get the negative acceleration. That prevented people from doing crazy fast 180 degree turns while prone.

It's not necessary to use negative mouse acceleration for that purpose. Turning on the floor should simply replay appropriate animations. Right now, you see that when turning on the floor, it does play animations, but the body simply moves on it's own without the animation having an actual effect. Same goes, by the way, for turning around in any pose: There is an animation playing, but the body turns around on it's own, making the animation seems weird and out of place.

This is the place the problem could be attacked. When turning around, the actual turn should not be based on simply rotating the player, but it should play an animation that results in the player being turned. That way, there's no need for negative mouse acceleration or anything like that.

Of course, the way I present it is simplified. This method would not account for minute changes in heading, but those can still be done by simply rotating the body.

[Deadfast 43]

How is that relevant to the "if you will walk into a prone enemy laying on his side from behind he will be able to instantly face you and spray you in the face" argument?

It isn't. It is, however, very relevant to the claim I quoted.

[maddogx 13]

It's not necessary to use negative mouse acceleration for that purpose.

Negative mouse acceleration (I loathe that phrase by the way) always happens if character rotation speed is limited in some way, no matter if it's done by animations or some other means. With limited turn speed, there will always be a point where you start moving the mouse faster than the character can turn - that's when negative mouse acceleration kicks in. (Though it really has nothing to do with "acceleration", but I'm not going to get into that...)

When prone, I think limiting turn speed is definitely necessary because split-second 180° belly-spins just aren't realistic at all. By all means they can do it with a nice animation, but a simple turn rate limit would suffice for me. It's pretty standard in games nowadays, so I doubt many people would complain.

When standing or kneeling, I think they would need to penalize fast turns depending on the weight of the weapon, though not by limiting turn speed.

[xendance 3]

It's not necessary to use negative mouse acceleration for that purpose. Turning on the floor should simply replay appropriate animations. Right now, you see that when turning on the floor, it does play animations, but the body simply moves on it's own without the animation having an actual effect. Same goes, by the way, for turning around in any pose: There is an animation playing, but the body turns around on it's own, making the animation seems weird and out of place.

This is the place the problem could be attacked. When turning around, the actual turn should not be based on simply rotating the player, but it should play an animation that results in the player being turned. That way, there's no need for negative mouse acceleration or anything like that.

Of course, the way I present it is simplified. This method would not account for minute changes in heading, but those can still be done by simply rotating the body.

So, how do you restrict the player from doing a 180 degree turn in 0.2 seconds without somehow restricting the mouse look speed?

[dmarkwick 261]

So basically what people are saying is that walking onto a prone guy who instantly turns to face you returning fire is not a gamebreaking exploit

Pragmatically, that's not a problem in ArmA. Why would a guy you've walked onto suddenly spin around to shoot you? Does he have magic vision? There is still the issue of situational awareness and practical considerations, which people seem to conveniently overlook. It's all about what might happen if someone else decides to do something.

I guess CoD and BF devs are just stupid. Somebody should tell them that prone turn-speed limit is redundant.

I would be OK with a turn rate limit for prone. It sounds like something that would be sensible, but, as I say, I've never seen a practical example where it was actually a problem.

Why not go full-circle and add bunny-hopping then? If ArmA3 is already a twitch shooter, why stop at absolutely idiotic animations and movement?

"Everything in ArmA3 is great" posts are the primary reason why the game ended up being so terrible that you need a dozen of mods to make it barely enjoyable. You just legitimize the goal of BIS to dumb down ArmA series for CoD crowd.

The usual sign-off, an appeal to the absurd.

[Smurf 12]

In what respect ?

I love this "It's better" without any comment on WHAT is better.

What is better? Easier to tell what is worst now, would be way shorter but anyway:

You can actually use buildings now;

You can pistols;

You can move around without getting stuck in everything;

Rocks are less problematic;

The whole stance system and better use of cover;

The tactical pace;

You finally feel like more like a human beign and not a fucking refrigerator in the battlefield!

But nope, let's focus in the same old thing that is not better: turning and clipping.

If you get close enough to someone laying down who can spin on spot and kill you, YOU FUCKING DESERVED IT! There is no melee anyway, so what you was trying to do? Shoot the bastard ASAP.

Clipping, well, that is in fact a huge problem discussed to death here and in other thousand topics, not going to jump into the loop AGAIN!

Saying that A3 lost those "features" over A2 iss bullshit. A2 didn't had inertia in movement; you could go from full speed to halt instantaneous because that IS how the animation system works. But now your movement speed IS affected by your fatigue and weight... Humm should add this to that list.

And the mighty turn speed limit was a problem that was fixed in A3, that NEVER was a feature.

Until this happens, there isn't much to ask for, no point in going into this over and over again!

Current state is a result of many trade-offs for sake for increased fluidity of control over the character. Being huge fan of inertia in animations and having prototyped some of moves like sprint-stopping/starting etc. - well it takes away from control-ability, i must admit it was correct choice, taking into account the assets that we had. The animation system is, however, a candidate for further development so we might as well see some improvements in this field.

IMO, greater problems should be tackled first (if they were mutually exclusive, which isn't the case), on top of my list are: MP, AI, sounds and fatigue\sway\weight. Those ARE gamebreaking and not a minor annoyance that occur in VERY specific situations.

Happy now?

[metalcraze 290]

Pragmatically, that's not a problem in ArmA. Why would a guy you've walked onto suddenly spin around to shoot you? Does he have magic vision? There is still the issue of situational awareness and practical considerations, which people seem to conveniently overlook. It's all about what might happen if someone else decides to do something.

You forgot hearing.

Also just because it won't happen every step of the way doesn't mean it's any less of an issue.

Plus as a bonus it looks really bad when a sitting dude just spins around on his arse.

It's not like anyone wants jelly-mouse controls, just movement that is not superhuman.

The usual sign-off, an appeal to the absurd.

Not any less absurd than the opposite camp's defenses for completely unrealistic things in a game advertised as realistic.

[Varanon 892]

Negative mouse acceleration (I loathe that phrase by the way) always happens if character rotation speed is limited in some way, no matter if it's done by animations or some other means.

I was referring to the mechanics: Negative mouse acceleration sounds like it is just dampening your mouse input before feeding it to the actual input of the engine. Something that will have, IIRC, a dampening on the mouse move would behave differently and feel much worse.

---------- Post added at 02:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:06 PM ----------

So, how do you restrict the player from doing a 180 degree turn in 0.2 seconds without somehow restricting the mouse look speed?

As I described. Lie down in A3 and turn slowly. You will notice that it plays an animation, but the body turns without actually heeding the animation. I.e., the body axis turns as much as you turn the mouse, with no regards to any constraints given by your pose or body physique. The animation would need to determine the way you turn, not just simply turning the body axis disregarding the animation.

[Alwarren 2765]

When prone, I think limiting turn speed is definitely necessary because split-second 180° belly-spins just aren't realistic at all.

Could always do it like in Modern Warfare 3 (there I said it), when prone, allow fast movement in a 90 degree angle in front of you and start to dampen movement once you start to "turn". Seems to work just fine there, and is a hundred times more realistic than Arma 3 (which pains me to say)

---------- Post added at 14:18 ---------- Previous post was at 14:14 ----------

... YOU FUCKING DESERVED IT!...

...bullshit...

Nice to see how people are able to argue n a mature and non-offensive way, without yelling or insulting. Heartwarming.

[Varanon 892]

What is better? Easier to tell what is worst now, would be way shorter but anyway:

You can actually use buildings now;

You can pistols;

You can move around without getting stuck in everything;

Rocks are less problematic;

The whole stance system and better use of cover;

The tactical pace;

You finally feel like more like a human beign and not a fucking refrigerator in the battlefield!

As i suspected: All of the above is no in any way related to the discussion at hand.

- Entering buildings has nothing to do with inertia

- What about pistols ? "You can [use ?] pistols" ? What does that have to do with inertia ?

- Can move around without getting stuck ? That's great, yeah, and a big improvement over Arma 2, but has nothing to do with inertia.

- Stance system ? Pardon me, where does inertia come in here ?

- Tactical pace ? Likewise

In other words, you have not in the least talked about the problem that was discussed. You basically said "movement is better" and quote a lot of stuff that you perceive as better (and in some things I even agree), but has nothing to do with inertia.

Thanks for making my point.

But nope, let's focus in the same old thing that is not better: turning and clipping.

Yes, because the good parts are, well, good, and don't need improvement.

By your logic, we would not discuss any downside just because there are good sides ? Are you kidding ?

If you get close enough to someone laying down who can spin on spot and kill you, YOU FUCKING DESERVED IT! There is no melee anyway, so what you was trying to do? Shoot the bastard ASAP.

Sigh... never mind, you obviously did not understand a single thing about the problem.

Saying that A3 lost those "features" over A2 iss bullshit.

That's why I didn't say it. So where am I talking bullshit or is that just stuff that you want to read into my post ?

IMO, greater problems should be tackled first (if they were mutually exclusive, which isn't the case), on top of my list are: MP, AI, sounds and fatigue\sway\weight. Those ARE gamebreaking and not a minor annoyance that occur in VERY specific situations.

Ah, here we go again: Please address my pet peeves first.

Listen, no one asks for things to be fixed at once, or being prioritized. But it should be allowed to actually DISCUSS things (and some people can do that without using swear words).

You are interpreting things because you want to interpret things like that.

Happy now?

Yes, very happy, because you made my point by disqualifying your previous statements. And using a lot of bad words to do so.

[wok 1]

In the end Arma is still a video game, I don't think adding realism on everything imaginable would necessarily make a better game.

[maddogx 13]

In the end Arma is still a video game, I don't think adding realism on everything imaginable would necessarily make a better game.

True, but adding inertia can directly affect gameplay in a positive way, including the improvement of balance (*gasp*) between different weapons. We're not just talking about adding realism for the sake of moar realism.

[Varanon 892]

In the end Arma is still a video game, I don't think adding realism on everything imaginable would necessarily make a better game.

Agreed. However, see my previous sniper example. Or the whole CQB sniper problems on Wasteland servers. This IS a game-breaking problem, or at least one that makes the game imbalanced.