Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Yes, but in that case, being able to define your own classes like in VBS2 would have been the better solution. A loadout editor in the mission editor would go a long way here too. Even if it isn't particularly problematic to add a new loadout, it's more hassle than it could be. Much more, in fact.

Agreed. I really like the gear (container) based loadout system. It's much more dynamic and helps to diversify units through different available options. You're correct in stating that the editor needs a loadout manager.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
since this time around you've got 100-round magazines and 150- and 200-round belts...

Huh? There had been 100- and 200-round magazines in Arma 2 already, 75 round mags for the RPK'S, 30 and 20 Stanag, 100 round Beta-C mags... what is your point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Sochor has some sort of issue where it can't target properly.

I can't get it to complete fire missions correctly. For example, if you select 9 rounds when you have a magazine of 32, then often it will only fire one round. Sometimes, it refuses to fire at all and just jerks the barrel slightly before doing nothing.

Also, if you place one on the map and then shoot it with your rifle (as BLUFOR or INDY), it jerks the main turret round slowly at you, while pointing the GL in the air (and doesn't fire either). Substitute it in for any other vehicle and the turret whirs round and kills you as it should.

This leads me to think it's an issue with the model/config and not the artillery system. I'm not sure though as I'm obv not a dev, so can only report what I see. Maybe it's something to do with the recent change to 'ghost barrels', IDK.

Plus, if you fire a rifle at the turret ring, dirt comes out of it instead of sparks, so the rvmat is most likely wrong. Unrelated, but annoying.

Has anyone else had issues with the artillery on dev branch recently?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Sochor has some sort of issue where it can't target properly.

I can't get it to complete fire missions correctly. For example, if you select 9 rounds when you have a magazine of 32, then often it will only fire one round. Sometimes, it refuses to fire at all and just jerks the barrel slightly before doing nothing.

Also, if you place one on the map and then shoot it with your rifle (as BLUFOR or INDY), it jerks the main turret round slowly at you, while pointing the GL in the air (and doesn't fire either). Substitute it in for any other vehicle and the turret whirs round and kills you as it should.

This leads me to think it's an issue with the model/config and not the artillery system. I'm not sure though as I'm obv not a dev, so can only report what I see. Maybe it's something to do with the recent change to 'ghost barrels', IDK.

Plus, if you fire a rifle at the turret ring, dirt comes out of it instead of sparks, so the rvmat is most likely wrong. Unrelated, but annoying.

Has anyone else had issues with the artillery on dev branch recently?

I had various issues with the artillery fire missions for a few versions, yes. Haven't mustered enough time to write it down as tickets.

What I've noticed is most issues appear at very long range (half of Altis size and beyond). Short-range shooting usually is quite stable in my experience.

Edited by DarkWanderer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, if you wasted 30 magazine to kill him at 300m, then that would be real life.

You didn't hit him 90 times, so this is just a comment on your accuracy. No human in this game ever survives more than 5 rounds to the body armor, and 2-3 is most common. In practice, you will score a lot of hits to arms, backpacks, guns, etc. And the survivability of such hits is actually quite realistic, if only there was a real effect on combat performance.

We are not playing the same game then.

On mine you can ...

- be shot no matter how or where and heal yourself instantly. And because that's not enough you can do that 2, 3, 100, n-times. This leads to ridiculous situations in where the enemy gets shot, heals, keep running, gets shot, heals, keep running and so on. Funny.

- be shot in the legs and keep running like nothing has happened. Again because that's not enought, why not more? 2, 3, 4 and 5! shots took the last test before the guy suddenly collapses. The previous 4 shots have to be a kind of filler because he was able to run and didn't fall to the ground, nothing happened. But hey, the 5th killed him instantly.

- be shot in the face (not the helmet) 2-3 times. Eye, nose, cheeks, everything is made of kevlar.

- be shot in the helmet with mathematical precission. Bullets do not deviate, angles don't exist, neither randomness, and never ever you can kill with 1 headshot.

- be shot in the hands or arms. Irrelevant. The enemy still can hold the weapon and hit you even being crouched or standing up. No matter if he has no fingers anymore.

- be shot in the chest and the same, always the same. There are no weak points, dead angles, exposed parts, all is made of kevlar.

- Randomness and caos doesn't exist apparently. 5 hits are always 5 hits.

And as everything is connected, lets continue ...

- Armor seems that is not taking into account the geometry. It is just a multiplier like "5x0.2". What's that? up to five hits of 0.8 * hitpoint damage? What a complex and realistic system, sorry autentic.

- Enemy doesn't know how to get cover when they're being shot and doesn't know from where, the few times he doesn't.

- Enemy is much better shooting in crouched or standing up positions. Plus they don't seem to be affected by sway.

- Enemy doesn't feel pain or fear. Even with armor, if you get hit you cannot act like if nothing has happened, turn around, locate instantly where the bullet comes from, and kill you at 300 m.

- Enemy is not affected by the physics of pain and suffering. A bullet has hit badly his leg, but there is no possibility that the bone breaks or a muscle gets destroyed. Never falls to the ground, almost never is forced to crawl or walk crouched, just run and run like Forest Gump.

- We have no way to counteract sway. This is related to weapon resting or bipods. Searching for good spots is useless, neither thinking in advance, entering a building to get cover and shot from a window is useless again as it is impossible to aim and mantain a consistent fire.

- Enemy has xrays. They go to prone and can see through the grass while you (cause the lack of weapon resting and others) are forced to shot in the same conditions, but this time without xrays and other magic properties of AI.

- Grenades? you have been blessed with a grenade dispenser in the hand. You don't need to be equipped to take one, pull and throw it. No. It appears in your hand and in a matter of a second is 20 meters away. The ability to control the force is also remarcable by its absence. The idea of mixing and using the same key for explosive items and the general ones is also brilliant.

Then I agree, seriously, that this is autentic and 5-6 shots are fine.

The problem here is that after a long beta period and the full game released 3 months ago, a lot of essential features still missing and without news or chances of getting solved. And I mean really essential features for gameplay, not tweaks, skins or cloned assets. The right word for this is inconsistent progression.

Edited by VanZant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, but in that case, being able to define your own classes like in VBS2 would have been the better solution.

Better? I don't think you can compare the "mission maker can define your own class so a soldier wears no body armor" and "soldiers are entities which can wear any or no body armor out there without additional config work".

I'll agree, it would be nice to be able to define your own classes for config specific options, like a soldier that has more or less base health, define a generic soldier template that you can reuse in spawning scripts or something like that, but not for the gear and loadouts themselves, which are in question here.

If you take only gear into consideration, you can already make your own "gear-classes" of soldiers via script.

A loadout editor in the mission editor would go a long way here too. Even if it isn't particularly problematic to add a new loadout, it's more hassle than it could be. Much more, in fact.

Most certainly, I fully agree, easier interface for the mission makers to define units gear would be an awesome option. But I don't see this as a counterargument to "template adjusting" they've done, more like an ease-of-life thing for mission makers. After all, imagine if you had to define gear for every soldier you put down even with such interface. :)

I was being sarcastic :) As I said earlier, making carbon copies is the easiest way to "balance" things.

Fair enough, and I'll agree that it's easiest from the "gameplay-balance" perspective (As you might have noticed, I despise duplicated turrets and units that litter the factions) I just don't consider these loadout changes "balancing" for the purposes of gameplay, but instead "templating" for the purposes of mission making. Of course, this only stands for infantry which are now miles ahead in customisation and the ability to mix and match as much you want to get whatever you need with provided assets.

Edited by Sniperwolf572

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah so game breaking and arcade.

I didn't even knew that they weren't unified before and what does it even matter? All three factions are using different weapons.

Yeah. Especially NATO and CSAT which both use rifles firing exactly the same caseless 6.5mm ammo. Oh but guns look different!

Just because you didn't know it doesn't mean I shouldn't care about BIS continuing to ruin the game with more arcade balancing while claiming/lying that there's no balancing.

Can you tell me where is the difference between NATO and CSAT infantry? Can you tell me what exactly is different between them now? Looks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah. Especially NATO and CSAT which both use rifles firing exactly the same caseless 6.5mm ammo. Oh but guns look different!

Just because you didn't know it doesn't mean I shouldn't care about BIS continuing to ruin the game with more arcade balancing while claiming/lying that there's no balancing.

Can you tell me where is the difference between NATO and CSAT infantry? Can you tell me what exactly is different between them now? Looks?

NATO / AAF have plate carriers. CSAT does not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"The Kuma takes less damage from shots into its belly (there's nothing to be destroyed there)

"

Um what? Why would there be less damage to the weakest, thinnest, and overall most vulnerable part of the tank? A sabot hit could burn up the crew if a good shot hits the belly. There's a reason that ied's destroyed/damaged more tanks in Iraq than rpq's and mortars- the belly is more vulnerable than the sides/front. In fact, in training videos from the 70's, AT riflemen and tank crews were taught to hit the belly of the soviet tanks if ever possible. As far as "nothing to be destroyed there", that's true however the hull damage could be much greater there, as well as crew damage.

It's because Arma doesn't simulate vehicle damage in that way. It uses something like a hitpoint system, and since there's no distinction between different parts of the hull, compromises like this have to be made. The entire tank takes less damage on its belly because there's nothing to destroy there. If the belly armor were actually its own piece of the tank's health, of course it would take a lot of damage on its own. But since it's part of the whole thing, they have to appropriately adjust the damage so that it's representative of the whole tank's damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blah blah Artillery

Please check out the following ticket and vote accordingly. I would appreciate it if you can download the attached mission and checks my findings.

If you create a mission and set WEST and EAST to be friends, then artillery pieces will not do their fire missions. Instead they will sit there and do nothing.

For me, this is a huge bug as it sods up the entire game-mode I've been working on. Hopefully they can sort it out so it doesn't bite anyone else on the arse in the future.

I'm pretty sure I'm not wrong on this, but I'd actually appreciate being wrong, so I can go and code my stuff better and not raise false alarms!

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=16423

Edited by Das Attorney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's because Arma doesn't simulate vehicle damage in that way. It uses something like a hitpoint system, and since there's no distinction between different parts of the hull, compromises like this have to be made. The entire tank takes less damage on its belly because there's nothing to destroy there. If the belly armor were actually its own piece of the tank's health, of course it would take a lot of damage on its own. But since it's part of the whole thing, they have to appropriately adjust the damage so that it's representative of the whole tank's damage.

Understandable. I guess the solution could be to break up the hull, each with their own hit points/ damage modifiers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah. Especially NATO and CSAT which both use rifles firing exactly the same caseless 6.5mm ammo. Oh but guns look different!

Just because you didn't know it doesn't mean I shouldn't care about BIS continuing to ruin the game with more arcade balancing while claiming/lying that there's no balancing.

Can you tell me where is the difference between NATO and CSAT infantry? Can you tell me what exactly is different between them now? Looks?

Not much with normal rifleman. Bit different sights and NATO loadout is bit lighter. Some sights remind too much each other like SOS and LRPS, ARCO and RCO and I'd like to see variation on those between NATO and CSAT.

MX GL can use 3GL and Katiba doesn't, autorifleman main gun is different, marksmans are different, rifleman (AT) launchers are different, different pilot guns and that kind of stuff got some variation.

But I've to say the game feels more like NATO/CSAT vs AAF. In the end mission designers always has the option to customize the gear, play with the balance and not give the other side nothing but iron sights and couple mags.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now recoil values are tied to difficulty in new dev patch? Does this mean all recoil. From rifles . Etc?

Sorry but that's a bad decision imho.

Moving the game into dumbing down authenticity to make it more accessible?

I hope I'm understanding this wrong as it goes against the core of what makes arma series and arma3 in particular great. The series has always in my eyes tried to feel authentic and just a little uncompromising. Unlike most of the other shooters it there. Even as it is arma3 is very click and hit with really simplified weapon handling. I kind of hoped you guys would explore making the weapon handling more authentic with things like weapon weight and size, cheek welds, momentum, few new animations to support these features including bipods and weapon resting,

etc but this is the opposite. By going down this route are you trying to compete with bf4 or cod?

I've been a long time arma fan, so this kind of thinking takes me by surprise..

Edited by twisted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So now recoil values are tied to difficulty in new dev patch? Does this mean all recoil. From rifles . Etc?

Oh, wow, I missed this. Just tried it, yes it is.

Recruit and Regular have very similar recoils and Veteran and Elite have similar recoils.

Difference between Recruit and Elite is approximately 100% more max recoil. FPDR

Edited by Sniperwolf572

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, wow, I missed this. Just tried it, yes it is.

Recruit and Regular have very similar recoils and Veteran and Elite have similar recoils.

Difference between Recruit and Elite is 100% more recoil. FPDR

Is Vet/Elite recoil on par with what we have right now? Also that change is worthy of a double facepalm FPDR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is Vet/Elite recoil on par with what we have right now? Also that change is worthy of a double facepalm FPDR

I'm not sure, I can't go back to stable right now, here are my quick tests with the MX over 60 shots on each lowest/highest difficulty. I observed max recoil as the rifle does not kick the same each time and you can get Recruit sized recoil on Elite for some shots, but you'll never seem to come close to the Elite sized recoil on Recruit. Reference aiming point is the lower end of the horizon gradient.

H8v9qlh.jpgrnuauHc.jpgQpnDS6n.jpg

My gut reaction:

Edited by Sniperwolf572

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that 2 x 30 rounds full auto with no mouse input other than holding down the Fire button? Can you give us any information on the conditions when you got 'Recruit sized' on Elite with some shots?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like just 1 shot as a full clip would have you staring towards the sky with no mouse input.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the question is: for which difficulty the recoil is the same as it is in stable branch? I'm not against that, it's an option, nobody is forcing anyone to use less or more recoil(although it would be nice to have it as an option in difficulty settings). Furthermore, if making some things optional will allow bis to go to extreme realism in some cases... hell, i'm all for that!

Edited by Byku

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So now recoil values are tied to difficulty in new dev patch? Does this mean all recoil. From rifles . Etc?

Sorry but that's a bad decision imho.

Moving the game into dumbing down authenticity to make it more accessible?

I hope I'm understanding this wrong as it goes against the core of what makes arma series and arma3 in particular great. The series has always in my eyes tried to feel authentic and just a little uncompromising. Unlike most of the other shooters it there. Even as it is arma3 is very click and hit with really simplified weapon handling. I kind of hoped you guys would explore making the weapon handling more authentic with things like weapon weight and size, cheek welds, momentum, few new animations to support these features including bipods and weapon resting,

etc but this is the opposite. By going down this route are you trying to compete with bf4 or cod?

I've been a long time arma fan, so this kind of thinking takes me by surprise..

This^ Seriously why? At least adding scripting commands for recoil would be ok, but this is just awful. Let's divide the community, surely nothing bad could happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is that 2 x 30 rounds full auto with no mouse input other than holding down the Fire button? Can you give us any information on the conditions when you got 'Recruit sized' on Elite with some shots?

It's the maximum crosshair climb for a single shot, tested 60 times for each difficulty. On recruit any one shot will never go above the point in the recruit screenshot for me, and on Elite any one shot will never go above the point in the elite screenshot for me.

Basically:

1. Place crosshair on the bottom of the horizon gradient

2. Click once

3. F12 to screenshot

4. Go to step 1 fifty-nine more times then change difficulty.

It's a pretty quick and a rudimentary test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah just went to test and please don't do this this way. Recoil needs to be same for all the difficulties.

Should we now try what recoil we prefer and give feedback and then BIS decides what's the best one of those 4 different recoils? Sometimes the recoil feels bit overdone so I don't mind if we reduce it little.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh come on guys... stop crying... it is optional! :| This whole panic is silly:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But the question is: for which difficulty the recoil is the same as it is in stable branch? I'm not against that, it's an option, nobody is forcing anyone to use less or more recoil.

You are being forced when you are locking certain settings out as you raise difficulty. Elite can only toggle on a few options.

If I like unlimited saves or permanent extended hud info, that means I can't go past Regular so I'm stuck with low-recoil option.

Toggle or a slider, fine (but still silly). Determined by difficulty presets? Bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh come on guys... stop crying... it is optional! :| This whole panic is silly:P

I look forward to every multiplayer server using the recruit recoil. Why divide Arma in realistic and not realistic purposefully? Recoil is so etching that should remain realistic and be difficulty based.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×