ArmA2 ACE = CoD ???

[dmarkwick 261]

People complained to stop kids from running around with M107 and Javelin in ArmA2... But instead BIS made pulling that off even easier in ArmA3.

I hate to be "that guy", but really you should consider the purpose of the product you currently own. Catching & testing this stuff is the purpose of it, with reports suggestions and observations Constantly saying the same thing about how BIS are apparently deliberately dumbing down the game to "other game" levels is unhelpful and rather ignorant. It doesn't take too much consideration to suppose that everything is WIP, I mean if Smookie's comment about soon-to-be-included new animations hasn't revealed this too you, I guess it's up to others to point this out. Inertia levels and even implementation need tweaking that's obvious.

Quite honestly, you constant assertions that BIS are deliberately eroding your expectations away are getting old, which is a shame because that only amounts to about half of what you have to say. The other half I usually find myself in full agreement with what you say.

[metalcraze 290]

@DMarkwick: I'm not saying it was dumbed down even though it may appear so. And I like a lot of improvements. I like new smooth movement and stances for one. I like combat pace too. Fatigue system. Breathing system.

However this is a thread called "ArmA2 ACE = CoD ???" of all things and people here seemed to think that these grumpy grognards seem to complain almost solely about speeds when in fact it's not them that are the issue.

[Fuse 1]

Did we really need two threads for this? OP simply missed the point of the objections, as most do.

Let's see if we can get two identical 13 page circle jerks going! Quickly, everyone post comparing Arma and CoD more! Throw in some knee-jerk reactions to the OP from the other thread without digging through the detritus to see how the topic evolved, too. Just for good measure.

Edited March 22, 2013 by Fuse

[deepfried 1]

Nice one DNK. But I doubt people will stop whining. I mean there are some that seriously think A2 controls were better. They think its more "realistic". :j:

BIS please don't ruin the current controls/movement in favor of the vocal minority that think realistic movement = whale on land.

Amen, fuck those guys. If they want to recreate the experience they can wear boxing gloves whilst they play, that should do it.

[chrisb 196]

I don’t think it’s a case of f*** those guys. There may lie an answer to the problem.;).

We have all, well most of us, got used to playing A2, so its natural that some, certainly not all, will take time to adjust. I think some of it is down to third person and first person, I always play in missions in first person, therefore don’t look much at the animations my character does. Now those that play in third person are forever watching their character, so notice the imperfections more.

I looked at the video OP, and thought, well it didn’t look bad in A2, in some respects I would maybe like some of the A2 movements back just smoothed out. But it’s a WIP so what we see now may not end up in the game anyway, could be better, could be worse. I didn’t find A2 controls that bad, so maybe there’s another reason some players prefer the new way more, maybe find the new controls better, I haven't even re-configed my controls yet.

Still, it’s a way off from proper release yet so anything can be put in or taken out or simply made better or worse.

The ai is my only concern, if thats not made better, then movement types are pointless..

We shall see..

[Mac 1]

If by sight picture you mean stable camera while running, it's not all unrealistic. The human brain uses some tricks to make out life easier (like you can see your own nose all the time, but the brain ignores this). In case of running, the eye accommodation (not sure if that's what it's called in English), allow you to focus your eyesight on a certain point and disregard the head bob.

The eye focus point can also be shifted in a matter of milliseconds, so technically we are able to run with our body all bouncing yet still retain a clear and (at least for the brain) stable picture of what we are looking at. This of course starts to degrade when we get tired and in that regard Arma 2 did a great job of blurring the view. What we have in Arma 3 is indeed easier in terms of faster paced combat, but at the same time realistic in my opinion. Anyway, the deadly nature of Arma combat still grants advantage to the stationary soldier, so I would not be worried too much about combat becoming like in other FPS.

Sight picture does not refer to your computer screen. It is military terminology that refers to the front and rear weapon sights being lined up in proper position.

[Zickefoose 1]

It's less clunky, but I would agree with the argument that you could never get a clear sight picture whilst in "tactical pace" speeds.

It's my belief that, without a dead zone, the gun should move off centre every time you move the mouse, and while turning the gun should lead or lag with the sights going out of alignment (lead is less frustrating, so I'd go with that).

Basically, the mouse should control where your chest is facing (I'd say head direction but the game has free head movement), every time the mouse moves the chest should move (no dead zone), but the gun sights/barrel shouldn't stay perfectly lined up with your eyes.

I would love a game with realistic gun aiming, where the sights aren't magically 100% aligned. It's my belief that Arma should be that game, it would take away the COD effect (people are far too accurate on the move currently), force people to play slower not through some artificial constraint but instead due to them wanting a more accurate shot. Sure, in tactical pace you could raise the weapon so your eye looked along the top of the weapon, but the motion of running would cause a holosight to flash in and out of visibility frequently.

So people still believe you cant accurately fire while on the move? Anyone seen the police shootout video from 1998? ( Vietnam Vet vs Cop ). The vet shows a perfect example of advancing and firing at the same time. In fact, that alone decided who was gonna live that battle. And please note, if anyone googles that video... you have been warned. The sounds of it still stick in my head. Bottom line is.. most people that dont handle weapons cant accurately do it.. the ones that are trained to ( IE Soldiers like we play as in ArmaIII ), can.

[Fuse 1]

But it’s a WIP so what we see now may not end up in the game anyway, could be better, could be worse. I didn’t find A2 controls that bad, so maybe there’s another reason some players prefer the new way more, maybe find the new controls better, I haven't even re-configed my controls yet.

Still, it’s a way off from proper release yet so anything can be put in or taken out or simply made better or worse.

Exactly. I think everyone has adequately expressed every side of this issue at least twice. :) At this point all that is left is to wait and see how BI adjusts the movement.

[SmallBlackSheep 0]

Arma 3 animations = much better

thx for the comparison

[Hillsbills 1]

I don't really think you can maintain a sight picture while running.

Iron sights somewhat, RCO's no, Holo sights easily .

If ACE was equal to COD there would be a lot more COD players passed out on the ground from stamina.

[max power 21]

I seriously thought that at least some of them were, and I am absolutely certain that one thread starter specifically preferred Arma 2 animations to Arma 3's animations... though they haven't been seen since after *ahem* publicly regretting buying a Supporter Edition and telling Smookie "I read that you guys did the motion capture yourself? I can only suggest paying actors next time" in response to Smookie defending-or-at-least-explaining the work that was done.

That seems to be a complaint about the animation, not about the clunky transitions.

A sight picture at all =/= a stable sight picture, and that difference I find to be clearly simulated, which is already enough of a concession to realism for me.

I believe I said 'maintain a sight picture'.

As a point of note, Smookie said that "recent design decisions" are the reason for being able to maintain combat pace while aiming through sights instead of being forced into walk like in other FPS games with aiming-through-sights. MW3 and BO2 both had mitigation of this movement speed reduction, but those mitigations take up a perk (Stalker, MW3) or primary weapon attachment slot (Adjustable Stock, BO2) respectively so at least in those games there's an opportunity cost, whereas "recent design decisions" (this was around the time of the alpha public release) mean that "combat pace while aiming through sights" is default in the alpha and its tradeoff is "more sway in sight picture".

I'm not really noticing much sway in the sight picture- certainly not enough for the speed of combat pace itself, in my opinion. I think they chose to enable the player to look through the sights when in combat pace to make the experience more consistent. I would argue that the consistency is false because there is not much consistent between walking and jogging... especially if you're jogging in a crouching stance. However, I think the way the character moves is superior to arma 2's sort of all over the place and quite arcane modes of movement. There was actually several walking speeds depending on what you were doing, etc.

Edited March 22, 2013 by Max Power

[adanteh 58]

You forgot to use the 'real' arma-vet reasoning: A smooth game is a bad game / CoD / BF trash.

Come on guys, movement speeds can be adjusted, but the way movement works in Arma3 is miles ahead of Arma2. It's not really faster, but it just feels a ton smoother. Isn't that a great thing? Having the idea that stuff actually goes fast, even though it's not actually faster.

[Masharra 10]

You know... I never used ace really for movement? It was sorta for just about everything else. From the almost passing out from bloodloss+ running, to the being ko'd from standing to close to a tank cannon.

That being said Isnt ace's only modification to movement based on stamina?

as per http://wiki.ace-mod.net/Features

Thus what really is the point trying to be made. Better yet wouldnt it be better to show similar weight ( iirc you cant accurately gauge weight currently in a3 other than that vague bar) also turn on sound and do a dash of shooting? * albeit with ace you can stabilize your weapon with bipods/ resting

With ace I usually approach with my march load, dismount - unload, final approach objective with combat/ fighting load.

Vanilla arma there is no need. messed up aim (iirc)

Ace while I can do that its typically heartbeatheartbeatheartbeatheartbeatheartbeatheartbeatheartbeatheartbeatheartbeatexhaleheartbeatheartbeatheartbeat + messed up aim + blacking out

[-=seany=- 5]

I agree with letting the devs continue with the changes they have made. I don't see why people think a smoother, more fluid, less clunky game means it is like COD or BF2, I'm really getting sick of that analogy on this forum too.

Soldiers movement up hills in A2 etc was too awkward and slow, mostly just frustrating. No, you should not be able to sprint for 10 minutes up a steep slope, but the way it is now in A3 is far better. It just need slight tweaking.

I really hope the devs are able to filter out the knee jerk "OMG you broke arma/arma is ruined!!" threads and posts.

The initial feed back from everyone in the first few days of the alpha was how much better and more fluid, and less clunky it felt. Lets not try to reverse that please.

[chortles 263]

I'm not really noticing much sway in the sight picture- certainly not enough for the speed of combat pace itself, in my opinion.

We're going to have to disagree there, because the current sway is certainly enough for me to differentiate combat pace from walk(ing); A2's "sight bobs in and out" merely meant "the hell with this, my eyes hurt and I'm moving no faster than walk?"

I agree with letting the devs continue with the changes they have made. I don't see why people think a smoother, more fluid, less clunky game means it is like COD or BF2, I'm really getting sick of that analogy on this forum too.

Soldiers movement up hills in A2 etc was too awkward and slow, mostly just frustrating. No, you should not be able to sprint for 10 minutes up a steep slope, but the way it is now in A3 is far better. It just need slight tweaking.

I'm going to agree with all of this.

[dnk 13]

And, yeah, I really love the changes to movement overall, though they could fine tune some things (like having the tacpace button switch into it for both walking and running instead of just running). They just need to add some restraint to the turning speed is all.

[max power 21]

We're going to have to disagree there, because the current sway is certainly enough for me to differentiate combat pace from walk(ing); A2's "sight bobs in and out" merely meant "the hell with this, my eyes hurt and I'm moving no faster than walk?"

A sight picture at all =/= a stable sight picture, and that difference I find to be clearly simulated, which is already enough of a concession to realism for me.

An indication that there is a difference between walking and running is no concession at all toward realism, so let's not fool ourselves into thinking that you are interested in realism in this regard in the slightest :)

[JackSpyder 10]

Love the animations and options overall, though the stamina needs to be cut right down particularly when in the tactical glide stance. Sure as a controlled burst of accurate aggression (Clearing a building) but currently its all just a tiny little bit too fast and FAR FAR too long lasting. Enemies look like ants they move so fast, and terrain is no problem. It really shrinks the map down when you move so quick on foot. Just a little bit more attention to what ACE2 brought, think about it a bit and work it in. ACE did a phenomenal job of striking the balance I believe. I'm not sure why BI are trying to reinvent the wheel?

overall though I'd rather have the animations as they are now, than what they were previously!

[SpinNaker 10]

It is sad to see that there are people that still compares ArmA to cod, bf etc... Tsk!

[ghostnineone 10]

This guy shoots with a handgun (which are actually harder to fire while moving) on the move rather well (later on, not in the intro)

http://www.military.com/video/guns/pistols/blackhawk-tips-shooting-on-the-move/659747226001/

here's a chinese guy

this one is pretty neat

[machineabuse 11]

I personally think that combat pace's stability of the point-of-aim should be contextually based on the kind of ground the player is walking across.

flat ground = just as it is right now

Tall grass = not having a good time

Rocky scree = ffffffffu~

Since the engine already detects the surface you are on to determine the kind of footstep sound to use it should be easy to do.

[Richey79 10]

I don't particularly like what I've seen of Arma 3 so far.

I'm pretty sure it's the fluidity of the movement that I find breaks the immersion for me, makes it feel less realistic and creates the kind of fire-fights I don't find satisfying.

I know I've not been very specific here, so my complaint lacks validity, but it's hard to address specific points when I'm just going on a general feeling that A3 doesn't feel anywhere near as satisfying and doesn't excite me like A2 did.

Good luck to Bis and I hope they're successful, but I'm pretty sure A2 is the game for me. I even love its failings.

[metalcraze 290]

I know what you mean. The more I play ArmA3 the more I feel that it plays like a generic FPS, missing inertia when you turn. You can turn around as fast and as precisely as you want and firefights seem to be shorter than in ArmA2 (even vanilla, let alone ACE) because of how easy it's to aim and hit an enemy.

There have to be at least some limitations. And I don't mean "negative mouse acceleration" but a limit on a turning speed and inertia if you turn too fast.

[PFC Magician 10]

I don't particularly like what I've seen of Arma 3 so far.

I'm pretty sure it's the fluidity of the movement that I find breaks the immersion for me, makes it feel less realistic and creates the kind of fire-fights I don't find satisfying.

I know I've not been very specific here, so my complaint lacks validity, but it's hard to address specific points when I'm just going on a general feeling that A3 doesn't feel anywhere near as satisfying and doesn't excite me like A2 did.

Good luck to Bis and I hope they're successful, but I'm pretty sure A2 is the game for me. I even love its failings.

there are always people who resist the new is something psychological "was better before"

I played a lot of pvp armA2, arma3 will be much better, animations are better, the controls should be more fluid maybe.

CoD gameplay is basically sprinting around and reflex firing. Forget tactical movement, forget single shot, forget working as a team - its one-man army rambos running around to get kills. As much as DayZ can be entertaining, it has however invited quite a lot of people with that sort of mentality.

compare with cod? even if we put the whole system of cod (soldier Movements + knife + weapon) in a scenario like arma3 would cease to behave like the same COD game. Does not make sense to compare a game mode with something something that does not exist.

Edited March 29, 2013 by PFC Magician

[ak1287 1]

there are always people who resist the new is something psychological "was better before"

I played a lot of pvp armA2, arma3 will be much better, animations are better, the controls should be more fluid maybe.

I agree with this.

Arma 3 might have it's problems, so far, but Arma 2's issues were 100 times worse. Arma 2 should never, and will never, be a shining paradigm of actual combat and infantry movement. Having an unintuitive and obstructive control system doesn't make them game a better simulator; to believe that is to discount how well a trained individual can perform, actually TRAINS to perform, in less-than-ideal circumstances.