General Discussion (dev branch)

[CaptainObvious 95]

@GShock

Ah yes, now I see you point, I should've read your earlier posts better, sorry about that.

Agreed the weapon should collide properly.

[gliptal 25]

What about forcing a "lowered weapon" state whenever a unit with a certain weapon type goes through a door (or maybe climbs some stairs)? This way one would need to press the keybinding to "raise weapon" whenever he enters a room. This could then be applied only to certain weapon classes (like LMGs and Sniper Rifles).

Maybe even introduce a "forced lowered" time to the function (you can't raise the weapon before this time has passed), so for example if I enter a room with a Sniper Rifle the weapon will be forced down for 2 secs, an LMG 1.5 sec, an AR 1 sec, an SMG 0.5 secs, a pistol 0 secs. Or the forced time could be tied to the weapon's model length instead of the weapon's type.

You could also make the reraise automatic in this last case.

Or maybe force weapon lowering as the unit passes through a door, and then slow down the automatic raising animation by a factor dependant on weight and/or length and/or weapon type. I'm not sure animations can be slowed down though.

I guess this would also look decent from an animation point of view, seeing units lowering weapons as they enter a room and then rising them back up when they are in.

Yay!

Edited October 23, 2013 by Gliptal

[CaptainObvious 95]

What about forcing a "lowered weapon" state whenever a unit with a certain weapon type goes through a door (or maybe climbs some stairs)? This way one would need to press the keybinding to "raise weapon" whenever he enters a room. This could then be applied only to certain weapon classes (like LMGs and Sniper Rifles).

Maybe even introduce a "forced lowered" time to the function (you can't raise the weapon before this time has passed), so for example if I enter a room with a Sniper Rifle the weapon will be forced down for 2 secs, an LMG 1.5 sec, an AR 1 sec, an SMG 0.5 secs, a pistol 0 secs. Or the forced time could be tied to the weapon's model length instead of the weapon's type.

You could also make the reraise automatic in this last case.

Or maybe force weapon lowering as the unit passes through a door, and then slow down the automatic raising animation by a factor dependant on weight and/or length and/or weapon type. I'm not sure animations can be slowed down though.

I guess this would also look decent from an animation point of view, seeing units lowering weapons as they enter a room and then rising them back up when they are in.

Yay!

No, just no, it's my weapon and I should be in control of it, and only me.

[dezkit 28]

Auto-rudder was removed from airplanes. So now when you roll, you don't turn. Even if the rudder would kick in automatically in roll it wouldn't rotate plane just horizontally but also pitch downward in real life. So current state doesn't make sense, rolling should always turn plane, even more than in dezkit's stable branch example video.

Or is this something completely different than the lack of auto-rudder? Plane's missing some turn values or too much some stabilizers? Or the flight modelling just doesn't agree with laws of physics?

Please vote here http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=15583

[gliptal 25]

No, just no, it's my weapon and I should be in control of it, and only me.

Then force weapon lowering before going through doors with LMGS and Sniper Rifles? :D

I still think the forced lowering is a good idea, at least for AI.

Yay!

[Greenfist 1863]

There was this one game in which they had guns colliding with objects and different dexterity for different weapon sizes... what was that? Oh, right; Arma 2.

But then there was some vocal opposition for those feature so they removed them. Some people thought if was unnecessarily cumbersome to storm houses with 1.5m long and 13kg weighting rifle. And I don't think these features will ever make a comeback.

[GShock 10]

The results of the inability to shoot from cover brings the game to a forced choice: to override the absolute need for player and ai to get to cover FIRST and to shoot back NEXT because there's no way without the "adjusted posture" to fight from cover without... hitting that cover.

The second and by no mean less important effect is that since shooting from the open is mandatory, the AI has got to be given an uber and unrealistic aim (it is as accurate at any distance and even on long range with unzoomed scopes).

My point in taking this problem to the forums is that this is a critical game feature missing with critical consequences to gameplay and immersion/realism factor.

My goal here is to open everyone's mind on this feature allowing the game to tackle the 2 main consequences I stated above... It's not just about the clipping problem, it's those 2 consequences that really bug me.

The forced auto lowered weapon state is the most realistic (hence the one I'd vote for) solution because it's by the rules. In the US Army, the weapon has got to be lowered when pointing at a friend. To do so automatically is part of their training.

I would make the lowered state automatic according to clipping needs (hiding in cover / cq battles / friend entering LOS at a close distance) <--

But from that stance (in cover, auto-lowered) we could use a function to give the shooting stance from cover so that the soldier may switch between hiding (in autolower) and then hit a button to stretch above the rock, through the window, around the corner.

[barakokula31 10]

friend entering LOS at a close distance

I couldn't disagree more.

[CaptainObvious 95]

Then force weapon lowering before going through doors with LMGS and Sniper Rifles? :D

I still think the forced lowering is a good idea, at least for AI.

Yay!

I fail to see how forcing someone to lower his weapon in the middle of battle is good, just leave it up to the player to act accordingly.

[gliptal 25]

I fail to see how forcing someone to lower his weapon in the middle of battle is good, just leave it up to the player to act accordingly.

The point is to find a way to implement some sort of negative element when entering CQB situations with non-CQB weapons. As it is now, an LMG is much better than SMGs in CQB for example.

By forcing the player to lower the weapon when going through a door, those that have CQB equipment will find themselves at an advantage over those using bigger weapons. Now one can just take an heavy, long and bulky LMG and use it like it is a lightweight and short Vector.

I'm not an expert, but I think that IRL, if you have an LMG you do not enter a room with the barrel up and then swing it to the side to cover the corner: you'd point the barrel down to move through the door faster, turn to face the corner, and then point the barrel back up. If you need to shoot inside the room, you just stay slightly away from the frame.

Yay!

Edited October 23, 2013 by Gliptal

[CaptainObvious 95]

The point is to find a way to implement some sort of negative element when entering CQB situations with non-CQB made weapons. As it is now, an LMG is much better than SMGs in CQB for example.

By forcing the player to lower the weapon when going through a door, those that have CQB equipment will find themselves at an advantage over those using bigger weapons. Now one can just take an heavy, long and bulky LMG and use it like it is a lightweight and short Vector.

Yay!

Yay!

Proper fix is to have the weapons collide with geometry and having an actual mass that affects acceletarion and deceleration.

I can imagine the rage it would induce if I would be forced to aim at the floor just because I'm in a doorway.

[danil-ch 165]

Tanks are too vulnerable to 35mm rounds. It took 150 rounds to completely destroy the tank.

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=15588

[barakokula31 10]

Tanks are too vulnerable to 35mm rounds. It took 150 rounds to completely destroy the tank.

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=15588

Impossible to solve until we get a proper penetration system.

[gliptal 25]

Proper fix is to have the weapons collide with geometry and having an actual mass that affects acceletarion and deceleration.

I can imagine the rage it would induce if I would be forced to aim at the floor just because I'm in a doorway.

I seee your point, although I would probably live with the limitation for the sake of some balancing. :D

Yay!

EDIT: Ok, what about this: using the method described in my first post, instead of forcing weapon lowering we introduce a very large weapon spread (simulating some sort of swoppy weapon control due to heaviness and/or longness of LMGs and the like).

Edited October 23, 2013 by Gliptal

[GShock 10]

I couldn't disagree more.

Send an E_mail to the Pentagon. :)

[barakokula31 10]

Send an E_mail to the Pentagon. :)

I was talking about forcing it in the game. That's for CoD/BF, not for Arma.

[danil-ch 165]

Impossible to solve until we get a proper penetration system.

Not true http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_Tanks_Config_Guidelines.

Plus 40mm and 30mm don't do any significant damage to tanks.

[OMAC 254]

Then force weapon lowering before going through doors with LMGS and Sniper Rifles? :D

I still think the forced lowering is a good idea, at least for AI.

Yay!

Something must be done about CQB, and Gliptal's suggestions are interesting (keep them coming, man! :)). But CptObvious is also correct that people would rage if your weapon is forced to point at floor (and thus be out of your control) in doorways.

There was this one game in which they had guns colliding with objects and different dexterity for different weapon sizes... what was that? Oh, right; Arma 2.

But then there was some vocal opposition for those feature so they removed them. Some people thought if was unnecessarily cumbersome to storm houses with 1.5m long and 13kg weighting rifle. And I don't think these features will ever make a comeback.

Jeesh. Please shoot me now. :rolleyes: Who the *&^*^$$@#(* argued to remove these features? I'm glad I missed that discussion, as I may have blown a gasket and been banned.

But from that stance (in cover, auto-lowered) we could use a function to give the shooting stance from cover so that the soldier may switch between hiding (in autolower) and then hit a button to stretch above the rock, through the window, around the corner.

Crysis 2 had this, a key that would "auto lean or rise and aim" around and above objects from cover. It was a temporary shooting stance while the key was held. Release the key, and you would snap back to being behind cover. Very fluid and cool. But that doesn't address the clipping and dexterity vs. weapon weight issues.

It seems obvious to me that there must be some disadvantage to using long and heavy weapons in CQB.

[gliptal 25]

I would make the lowered state automatic according to clipping needs (hiding in cover / cq battles / friend entering LOS at a close distance) <--

But from that stance (in cover, auto-lowered) we could use a function to give the shooting stance from cover so that the soldier may switch between hiding (in autolower) and then hit a button to stretch above the rock, through the window, around the corner.

This would also add a lot to immersion IMHO.

Yay!

[Smurf 12]

I fail to see how forcing someone to lower his weapon in the middle of battle is good, just leave it up to the player to act accordingly.

So, you haven't played America's Army, R6 Raven Shield, SWAT4, RO2 and all other that made this with great success spawned raging users? Don't think so.

[CaptainObvious 95]

I seee your point, although I would probably live with the limitation for the sake of some balancing. :D

Yay!

EDIT: Ok, what about this: using the method described in my first post, instead of forcing weapon lowering we introduce a very large weapon spread (simulating some sort of swoppy weapon control due to heaviness and/or longness of LMGs and the like).

Something needs to be done, that's for sure, but I don't know if some kind of an artificial disadvantage for big guns is the right way to go.

Does the game know when the player is in a doorway? If not, it would probably be a lot easier to make the weapons collide with geometry instead of implementing this, especially considering this would only be a temporary "hot-fix".

[gliptal 25]

Something needs to be done, that's for sure, but I don't know if some kind of an artificial disadvantage for big guns is the right way to go.

Does the game know when the player is in a doorway? If not, it would probably be a lot easier to make the weapons collide with geometry instead of implementing this, especially considering this would only be a temporary "hot-fix".

I myself have no idea if the engine can understand if a player is within a doorframe. I guess we need a Dev to answer this doubt. :)

Yay!

[CaptainObvious 95]

So, you haven't played America's Army, R6 Raven Shield, SWAT4, RO2 and all other that made this with great success spawned raging users? Don't think so.

No I haven't, please do tell why it's good to take the player off of controlling his own weapon?

[maturin 12]

Jeesh. Please shoot me now. Who the *&^*^$$@#(* argued to remove these features? I'm glad I missed that discussion, as I may have blown a gasket and been banned.

Weapons colliding with doorframes made CQB a clunky, infuriating mess.

What we need is weapons that lower automatically when they collide with objects, allowing soldiers to move freely and fluidly while retaining the importance of muzzle length. This is so stupidly easy to accomplish, but of course BIS bounced from one shitty status another.

[dmarkwick 261]

Weapons colliding with doorframes made CQB a clunky, infuriating mess.

What we need is weapons that lower automatically when they collide with objects, allowing soldiers to move freely and fluidly while retaining the importance of muzzle length. This is so stupidly easy to accomplish, but of course BIS bounced from one shitty status another.

Well there's arguments for & against. Personally, I'm against auto-weapon lowering. I'm fine with the current way it's done, but I would add one fix - bullet is fired not from the barrel end, but from the breech. That way, it doesn't matter about barrels clipping though, you'll hit the wall. And, player's agility through buildings is unaffected.