Striking The Right Balance

[infiltrator_2k 29]

OK, it might be me, but since receiving yesterday's big update I'm feeling the recoil has been toned down on sniper rifles. I've quickly browsed through the change log but can't see anything obvious. Unless "Fixed: Minor redistribution of Guerrilla weapons" is an ambiguous term for reducing recoil. More to the point, I've just been viewing a few actual videos of the .408 calibre rifle and studied the recoil and body displacement of the shooter. I think it's fair to say the recoil and body displacement is way off at the moment to what it's like in real life. Recoil would have naturally been discussed numerous times before due to grievances by both for and against, but there can be only be one correct parameter for a specific rifle's amount of recoil, and that's what's is in today's weapon textbooks for the calibre and geometry of the actual weapon.

The weapons in Arma may indeed very well be fictional and appear what weapons are meant to look and act like in 20+ years, but no amount of time can advance a weapon's design that can defy the laws of physics. If recoil could be reduced further than it already is, rest assured the US, German, Israel etc., and the billion upon billions that is invested in the arms industry each year, it would have undoubtedly been discovered by now and implemented it into their weapon designs.

I feel empathetic towards BIS and understand that they must feel that they're between a rock and a hard place when it comes to 'striking the right balance' and keeping their customers happy. But as long as they keep everything as 'real' as it is to life as possible they simply can do 'no' wrong. If people don't like the recoil on a weapon or whatever because they can't get that magic kill streak which they're so use to getting on first person shooters, then they need to jog on back to the arcade games. It's imperative that Arma keeps it's military simulator genre, as it's what makes it unique and sets it apart from the likes of Battlefield and Call of Duty.

Every time I play Arma I stand in awe at all the hard work the BIS team have painstakingly put into the game. The attention to detail is simple stunning, and although Arma has had and continues to have its fair share of teething problems, the overall product is undeniably outstanding. Those who are fortunate to have powerful gaming rigs will be able to fully appreciate what I'm saying. The more I analyse the attention to detail put into the game the more admiration and respect I have for those guys at BIS, as the dedication and time they put into Arma shows.

I can't help feeling that the DayZ MOD was both a blessing and a curse for the Arma series. As where as it's brought the needed financial funds to develop Arma 3, it's also brought with it its fair share of caffeine fuelled snotty nosed D-pad junkies who initially seemed to putting in mod requests to custom make the game to their individual liking... and when they feel they heat from the community? They troll the forums like the sad little sad sacks they are The fact some DayZ players have had their keys compromised by trying to use hacks just gives you an idea of the mentality of some of the people the DayZ MOD has attracted to Arma. Now, I'm not saying that everyone who has migrated to Arma because of the DayZ MOD is that of the above, just that it's brought some of the wrong people along with it. A good friend of mine migrated to Arma from Battlefield, and it was all the hype surrounding the DayZ MOD that made him jump ship, and where DayZ has brought with it some trash, its also naturally brought along with it people who have embraced Arma and contribute towards its development.

Not to waffle on anymore, but if I can give the guys at BIS any advice to how to strike that right balance, it will be to as I've already mentioned: keep it as real as possible and then you can simply do no wrong. However, try to keep both camps happy then it will be the beginning of the end for Arma. But just to put things into perspective, soldiers in the real world will often go days or weeks without a hitting or killing an enemy whilst in battle, so for anyone to moan about missing their target through something they perceive to be as excessive scope drift or recoil is laughable. Keep it real guys ;)

[semiconductor 309]

I must agree, new recoil feels unrealistic and unimmersive. It's feels almost like M107 from NATO SF and Russian Spetsnaz Weapons Mod (awesome mod btw) which has, probably due to configuration mistake, machinegun fire rate and pistol recoil.

Edited November 23, 2013 by Semiconductor

[7mary3 10]

While I think Infiltrator's views on the DayZ crowd are a little elitist, I agree that we should keep everything as real as possible. Otherwise, this game just becomes COD in a vast desert. The worst of both sides.

My suggestion to bring in the BattleField crowd, while keeping everything Arma, is to make some smaller CQB maps like in Battlefield 4, etc. I think one of the best examples of good small tactical maps are from the UT mod Infiltration. They had Arma like reality, but on small maps ( mostly urban ). Very interesting game. Would love to see some of those maps in Arma 3. Small towns. Small sections of a city block. And, as i said, even COD and Battlefield have some interesting maps. Just hate the COD no-recoil killing spree crap.

[progamer 14]

There is no need to "strike a balance" between this unrealistic recoil and real recoil. We need the real recoil and not this COD or BF like recoil. Arma games have always leaned over towards realism over balance and there's no need to change that.

There is really no need to create a thread as 500+ people have already voted on and discussed it here: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=2425

[7mary3 10]

Agreed. "Striking a balance is the worst possible thing you can do in game. Your either one or the other. So far, it looks like their trying to go for the worst of both sides.

[progamer 14]

While Arma 3 may seem less realistic than Arma 2, it's still heavily WIP and has a 3-5 year lifespan ahead of it. Arma 3 incorporates many features from ACE 2 like penetration and weight as well.

Edited November 23, 2013 by ProGamer

[infiltrator_2k 29]

There is no need to "strike a balance" between this unrealistic recoil and real recoil. We need the real recoil and not this COD or BF like recoil. Arma games have always leaned over towards realism over balance and there's no need to change that.

There is really no need to create a thread as 500+ people have already voted on and discussed it here: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=2425

ProGamer, please reread the post. I was not implying that there should be a compromise. I think you'll find that I agree 100% to what you're saying and was putting that exact view across.

[progamer 14]

ProGamer, please reread the post. I was not implying that there should be a compromise. I think you'll find that I agree 100% to what you're saying and was putting that exact view across.

My bad. It was early and I hadn't had my coffee yet.

[-Coulum- 35]

Regarding recoil, there is no one "realistic recoil" for each gun. This is because people expect their avatar to do some of the work for them and in real life everybody has a varying ability to control recoil. To further this problem many are expecting their ingame avatar to be some kind of special forces "best of the best", and are very unwilling to accept the fact that while there are some very skilled infantrymen out there there are also so many that are not so skilled or motivated. We all can't be supermen.

The current recoil has been toned down alot compared to what it was in alpha. Overall I am not to unhappy with the assault rifles but I do have a major problem with the sniper rifles. They are ridiculously easy to fire. I am of the opinion that sniper rifles should have kick to throw off sight picture enough that a sniper actually needs a spotter to tell him how to adjust his aim after misses (while using powerful optics especially). More team work more realism and less lone wolf overpowered snipers (if you are playing on public servers).

There is no need to "strike a balance" between this unrealistic recoil and real recoil. We need the real recoil and not this COD or BF like recoil. Arma games have always leaned over towards realism over balance and there's no need to change that.

There is really no need to create a thread as 500+ people have already voted on and discussed it here: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=2425

I don't know if people would actually be happy with the suggested system. I only say this because I am participating in another game's beta, "insurgency" and their community had the same complaints as ours:

"

There's no gravity! why am I pointing at the sky after unleashing a 100 rounds, going full auto!

" (of course while not even attempting to control the recoil - in reality I don't expect I would be to accurate if I fired without trying to control the recoil either...)

So the devs gave them what they wanted and the gun now comes back down after being shot but not perfectly where it had started from (makes sense right).

And people still aren't happy. They are complaining they want the old system back because this one feels weird, like their avatar is moving the rifle independently of what the players want. People are saying that now they don't only have to fight the recoil but also the avatars reaction to recoil. It feels unintuitive, like you have less control over your avatars body.

Anyhow moral of the story is from my point of view, recoil is never really going to feel like when you go out to the range and shoot. Not saying that recoil couldn't be improved (would love to see dynamic recoil affected by fatigue and movement, more side to side recoil etc.) But I really don't think that there is a "one and only, realistic solution".

And same goes for all features. I don't think there is such a thing as 100% realistic features. In my eyes it might be 100% realistic, but to someone else it might not be. I have seen members, supposedly that have both served, arguing about whether a feature is realistic or not on this and other forums. Everyone seems to interpret realism in a different ways because in reality everyone has vary degrees of competency.

[L3TUC3 32]

Regarding recoil, there is no one "realistic recoil" for each gun. This is because people expect their avatar to do some of the work for them and in real life everybody has a varying ability to control recoil. To further this problem many are expecting their ingame avatar to be some kind of special forces "best of the best", and are very unwilling to accept the fact that while there are some very skilled infantrymen out there there are also so many that are not so skilled or motivated. We all can't be supermen.

The current recoil has been toned down alot compared to what it was in alpha. Overall I am not to unhappy with the assault rifles but I do have a major problem with the sniper rifles. They are ridiculously easy to fire. I am of the opinion that sniper rifles should have kick to throw off sight picture enough that a sniper actually needs a spotter to tell him how to adjust his aim after misses (while using powerful optics especially). More team work more realism and less lone wolf overpowered snipers (if you are playing on public servers).

I don't know if people would actually be happy with the suggested system. I only say this because I am participating in another game's beta, "insurgency" and their community had the same complaints as ours:

"

There's no gravity! why am I pointing at the sky after unleashing a 100 rounds, going full auto!

" (of course while not even attempting to control the recoil - in reality I don't expect I would be to accurate if I fired without trying to control the recoil either...)

So the devs gave them what they wanted and the gun now comes back down after being shot but not perfectly where it had started from (makes sense right).

And people still aren't happy. They are complaining they want the old system back because this one feels weird, like their avatar is moving the rifle independently of what the players want. People are saying that now they don't only have to fight the recoil but also the avatars reaction to recoil. It feels unintuitive, like you have less control over your avatars body.

Anyhow moral of the story is from my point of view, recoil is never really going to feel like when you go out to the range and shoot. Not saying that recoil couldn't be improved (would love to see dynamic recoil affected by fatigue and movement, more side to side recoil etc.) But I really don't think that there is a "one and only, realistic solution".

And same goes for all features. I don't think there is such a thing as 100% realistic features. In my eyes it might be 100% realistic, but to someone else it might not be. I have seen members, supposedly that have both served, arguing about whether a feature is realistic or not on this and other forums. Everyone seems to interpret realism in a different ways because in reality everyone has vary degrees of competency.

+1

You put very eloquently how user design expectations in one area can mess up game mechanics in another while not really improving anything. It's a constant trial and error until you can get a feel that's well accepted.

[Maslofski 10]

I dont like the idea of balance in this kind of PvE coop games, just make things what they are, ive they are dificult or just powerfull, then its just how it is :/

[progamer 14]

Arguing about the lynx's recoil and what you think it should be... Please research the weapons before saying how you think the recoil should be!

---------- Post added at 21:51 ---------- Previous post was at 21:49 ----------

I dont like the idea of balance in this kind of PvE coop games, just make things what they are, ive they are dificult or just powerfull, then its just how it is :/

The thing about realism is that you can apply real world knowledge to the game. And with realism comes that fact that not all snipers follow the traits of a sniper, ect... It heavily depends on the weapon itself, who made it and it's intended use.

---------- Post added at 21:55 ---------- Previous post was at 21:51 ----------

Agreed. "Striking a balance is the worst possible thing you can do in game. Your either one or the other. So far, it looks like their trying to go for the worst of both sides.

Agreed, continuing on the path that Arma has/had been going on is better than attempting to make the game more mainstream.

Just look at how they bent to the complaints that having realistic inertia was "clunky", and making it into a twitch shoot was better. Though from what one of the developers said they could be working on proper realistic inertia. But what about all the new players used to arcade games that have now bought Arma thinking that inertia is bad? It's only thought of as clunky because people are not used to it, but once you adjust there is no clunky aspect of inertia.

Edited November 23, 2013 by ProGamer

[infiltrator_2k 29]

While Arma 3 may seem less realistic than Arma 2, it's still heavily WIP and has a 3-5 year lifespan ahead of it. Arma 3 incorporates many features from ACE 2 like penetration and weight as well.

Regarding recoil, there is no one "realistic recoil" for each gun. This is because people expect their avatar to do some of the work for them and in real life everybody has a varying ability to control recoil. To further this problem many are expecting their ingame avatar to be some kind of special forces "best of the best", and are very unwilling to accept the fact that while there are some very skilled infantrymen out there there are also so many that are not so skilled or motivated. We all can't be supermen.

The current recoil has been toned down alot compared to what it was in alpha. Overall I am not to unhappy with the assault rifles but I do have a major problem with the sniper rifles. They are ridiculously easy to fire. I am of the opinion that sniper rifles should have kick to throw off sight picture enough that a sniper actually needs a spotter to tell him how to adjust his aim after misses (while using powerful optics especially). More team work more realism and less lone wolf overpowered snipers (if you are playing on public servers).

I don't know if people would actually be happy with the suggested system. I only say this because I am participating in another game's beta, "insurgency" and their community had the same complaints as ours:

"

There's no gravity! why am I pointing at the sky after unleashing a 100 rounds, going full auto!

" (of course while not even attempting to control the recoil - in reality I don't expect I would be to accurate if I fired without trying to control the recoil either...)

So the devs gave them what they wanted and the gun now comes back down after being shot but not perfectly where it had started from (makes sense right).

And people still aren't happy. They are complaining they want the old system back because this one feels weird, like their avatar is moving the rifle independently of what the players want. People are saying that now they don't only have to fight the recoil but also the avatars reaction to recoil. It feels unintuitive, like you have less control over your avatars body.

Anyhow moral of the story is from my point of view, recoil is never really going to feel like when you go out to the range and shoot. Not saying that recoil couldn't be improved (would love to see dynamic recoil affected by fatigue and movement, more side to side recoil etc.) But I really don't think that there is a "one and only, realistic solution".

And same goes for all features. I don't think there is such a thing as 100% realistic features. In my eyes it might be 100% realistic, but to someone else it might not be. I have seen members, supposedly that have both served, arguing about whether a feature is realistic or not on this and other forums. Everyone seems to interpret realism in a different ways because in reality everyone has vary degrees of competency.

I'm an ex-infantry soldier who's spent endless hours on the ranges. From experience I know that when you place your body in a natural position that doesn't impede the rifle's action, the rifle (albeit in repetition) will naturally recoil to its calibre, weight and balance regardless who's firing it. In short, the amount of recoil produced by a given rifle in normal circumstances should as mentioned by text book to the rifle attributes. That way there's no arguing or if or buts.

[-Coulum- 35]

I'm an ex-infantry soldier who's spent endless hours on the ranges. From experience I know that when you place your body in a natural position that doesn't impede the rifle's action, the rifle (albeit in repetition) will naturally recoil to its calibre, weight and balance regardless who's firing it. In short, the amount of recoil produced by a given rifle in normal circumstances should as mentioned by text book to the rifle attributes. That way there's no arguing or if or buts.

Yep I know that and believe you me, based on the other suggestions you've made I think I would very much like whatever ideas you had to change recoil.

Basically I just disagree that there is a single recoil that is going to feel realistic for everyone who plays the game. Some 300 pound o muscle guy will say that the recoil is way to high compared to what he can do in real life. Then devs lower it and people start questioning whether everyone firing in full auto at enemies 300m away is realistic. Even if we went at it from a purely physics perspective and calculated the amount of force exerted on the shooter from the gun and converted that into muzzle rise, side to side motion of the gun and backward acceleration into the shooter (sounds like what you are suggesting I believe), numbers that are indisputable, the gameplay created by those numbers is not necessarily realistic because you simply can't handle that recoil with a mouse and keyboard as you would be able to in reality. No matter what its going to end up being harder or easier depending on the person. So yes 100% realistic values are possible but that doesn't mean 100% realistic results will be produced if you know what I mean.

Really it doesn't matter if I am right or wrong or whether you agree or disagree its just my take on it. I am however very interested in how you find the current recoil system and how exactly you would change it.

[7mary3 10]

I doubt if there are many 300 pound muscle guys around. Recoil should fit the average human. We had an ex-navy seal playing in Infiltration. That game has some decent recoil, and he never complained. He just killed all of us! :p

[-Coulum- 35]

I doubt if there are many 300 pound muscle guys around. Recoil should fit the average human. We had an ex-navy seal playing in Infiltration. That game has some decent recoil, and he never complained. He just killed all of us!

Yes I definitely don't disagree. I am just trying to point out that realism is and is perceived slightly differently by everyone. And actually even if there was a three hundred pound beast here I doubt he would be the one complaining. Its usually the people who's argument is "my avatar could be a 300 pound navy seal and he wouldn't feel any recoil" that complain. But anyhow, your friend had the right attitude. adapt. IMO opinion its better to have too highh recoil than too low because with time you will learn to control it and get better - if it is too low though things are just going to be unrealistically easy for everyone.

[7mary3 10]

You guys should try in the infiltration mod ( If you can find a copy of Unreal Tournament ). They had a lot arma like ideas, like letting recoil kick your gun up. You had to control it with mouse by shooting and coming down with the mouse on full auto. Made firing the AKMSU on full auto real fun. The game's pretty dead now, but its got some examples of realism I wouldn't mind seeing in Arma. I really liked how grenades were thrown. And the gun blast sounds were pretty good.

infiltration.sentrystudios.net

[infiltrator_2k 29]

You guys should try in the infiltration mod ( If you can find a copy of Unreal Tournament ). They had a lot arma like ideas, like letting recoil kick your gun up. You had to control it with mouse by shooting and coming down with the mouse on full auto. Made firing the AKMSU on full auto real fun. The game's pretty dead now, but its got some examples of realism I wouldn't mind seeing in Arma. I really liked how grenades were thrown. And the gun blast sounds were pretty good.

infiltration.sentrystudios.net

An user with 7 posts with an account created today...

I rest my case.

Edited November 24, 2013 by Infiltrator_2K

[7mary3 10]

An user with 7 posts with an account created today...

I rest my case.

Lol, whats your case? I'm an Arma 2 vet of many years. I've had many names on this forum. I'm sure there are plenty of other vets like me on these very volatile forums.

[dnk 13]

^ makes it sound like you've been banned a few times...

There is no need to "strike a balance" between this unrealistic recoil and real recoil. We need the real recoil and not this COD or BF like recoil. Arma games have always leaned over towards realism over balance and there's no need to change that.

There is really no need to create a thread as 500+ people have already voted on and discussed it here: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=2425

Fully disagree. Forums are for discussion, feedback tracker is for keeping tabs of issues. This is a discussion, so this forum is the appropriate place for it.

Regarding recoil,

Well said. I personally prefer accuracy-based realism over recoil anyway. I love the America's Army system (at least the original - haven't played in a long while) where weapons all had fairly high (by Arma standards) built-in inaccuracy. Even if you put the cursor/sight right on a target, you'd get a like 5-degree Gaussian deviation at best.

With recoil, in real life it's not as hard to instantly counteract in full-auto to keep the weapon on-target (well, pointed in the right direction, give or take a bit) than it is with a mouse, especially with video lag thrown in. Your muscles can handle a lot of that by themselves, but in the game you have to constantly be using your eyes instead to track where the barrel is pointing and relate that to your desired sight picture, then relate that to delicate hand/wrist motions, and by the time you've started to counteract the most recent recoil movement (if it's random in direction/amplitude), so many milliseconds have passed and it's moved somewhere new, and it does feel very much like "fighting the avatar" rather than "real recoil". The division of time in a game is just so much more grainy than the more fluid non-division in reality - it's always going to be hard to do recoil via video output.

Which is why I'd just settle for real inaccuracy, and have that increase substantially for X milliseconds after a shot is fired, cumulative, up to some hard upper limit. So, each weapon has a set base inaccuracy (much higher than current, since it's not only weapon-specific MOA but also the shooter's non-super-delta-force-ability/stress), which is adjusted for stance, health and fatigue. Then, each weapon also has an amount of inaccuracy increase per shot. Then each weapon also has a set reduction of inaccuracy per second, as well as a maximum inaccuracy (you're never going to accidentally shoot 90-degrees to your intended target due to recoil).

Example:

MX base inaccuracy = 4-deg (modified by health, fatigue, stance, and skill)

MX shot increase = 6-deg (modified by health, fatigue, stance, and skill)

MX decrease/sec = 4-deg 1/(modified by health, fatigue, stance, and skill) [might be adjusted more often than 1 second, but this is the cumulative 1-sec reduction]

MX max = 14-deg (modified by health, fatigue, stance, and skill)

So, it takes about 3 seconds to return from full auto to a "perfectly" aimed shot. Any single shot will take 1.5 seconds to fully recover from back to a "perfect" shot. You can adjust the values according to how much you think recoil affects attaining a "perfectly" aimed shot (given battlefield conditions, shooter error, etc), but I think this is clearly the best way to handle it.

Proposed modifiers:

"hold breath" (total)x(0.60)

health (1.0 - 0.01) >> (x1.0 - x1.5)

fatigue (0.0 - 1.0) >> (x1.0 - x1.5)

stance (stand, crouch, prone) >> (x1.0, x0.67, x0.33)

skill (0.01 - 1.0) >> (x2.0 - x1.0)

So, a crouched man at 0.20 fatigue and 0.92 health with an "aimingskill" of 0.5, who has fired 4 shots in the past 3 seconds on an MX, without holding his breath, would have a Gaussian dispersion with 92% of shots falling within this many degrees of the cursor:

(base: 4) x (x1.1 x1.04 x0.67 x1.5) + 4x(shot: 6) x (x1.1 x1.04 x0.67 x1.5) - 3x(reduce: 4) x (x1.1 x1.04 x0.67 x1.5)

= 4.6 + 27.6 - 13.8

= 18.40 degrees

= 14 degrees (max)

That makes way more sense and would best serve both sides of the debate, I think. You could add a camera-only shake/movement for each shot (that doesn't move the cursor, and which will automatically return the camera to be centered on the cursor after X amount of time). That would add to immersion and at least be slightly disorienting vis-a-vis the sight picture, without requiring constant micro-adjustments of the mouse.

[progamer 14]

More towards this threads topic, have you guys seen the difference in vehicle loadouts, especially aircraft loadouts between Arma 3 and Arma 2?

If anything that's some stupid balancing thing. Or a product of the 100% quality thing that invalidates 99% of stuff Arma 2 had.