crosshair, third person and zoom needs to be rookie difficulty

[bad benson 1733]

The video test isn't 100% accurate

it still shows exactly what i described. for me it's out of the question if you can shoot people with them at 200m. no one would really do that because ironsights will do the job better and much more reliably. the shorter the range the more accurate they get though, rapidly.

as for the crosshair designs. i really dig the first one you made. how it looks and what it does.

at this point though this almost deserves a new thread about how crosshairs can be improved since all that is a little besides the point compared to the OP since closer ranges are still much easier with crosshairs than without. that can be easily illustrated by using your designs and moving closer to a soldier untill he fills up the crosshairs. at that point you might aswell use a hello kitty picture.

won't make much difference.

if people find they can snipe with them then that is just an additional "problem".

if you know that it's 100% representative you can "learn" each of the designs quickly to aim very accuratly. the real problem lies at the core of the game, if you want to talk about what's specifically "wrong" with crosshairs in arma.

in their own context and especially combined with properly represented "unaimed"/hip fire shooting these suggestions make a lot of sense though.

Edited July 1, 2014 by Bad Benson

[Bouben 3]

Did anyone notice the crosshair accuracy in prone position in the latest dev branch update? It's really accurate.

Yes, I noticed and it sucks a lot. This needs to be changed soon. There is no need for iron sights with such crosshair behaviour.

I also like the roshnak's mockups but I think they should be even less precise - bigger.

---------- Post added at 17:09 ---------- Previous post was at 17:05 ----------

for me it's out of the question if you can shoot people with them at 200m. no one would really do that because ironsights will do the job better and much more reliably.

Agreed. It is not good.

[Greenfist 1863]

I also like the roshnak's mockups but I think they should be even less precise - bigger.

Currently they are huge when you're moving and a bit tired. The spread is about 5 meters at 10m distance! Which is awesome. No more run & gun, literally. :)

[Bouben 3]

Currently they are huge when you're moving and a bit tired. The spread is about 5 meters at 10m distance! Which is awesome. No more run & gun, literally. :)

The crosshair should be huge even if one is standing still. You should have only approximate indicator when not using iron sights. And crosshair should not be showing your dispersion at all, in my opinion.

[roshnak 41]

at this point though this almost deserves a new thread about how crosshairs can be improved since all that is a little besides the point compared to the OP since closer ranges are still much easier with crosshairs than without. that can be easily illustrated by using your designs and moving closer to a soldier untill he fills up the crosshairs.

Probably. I wasn't super concerned with the crosshairs being too accurate at closer ranges, since I figure their whole point is to use them in close range.

Anyway, here's an album of the crosshairs at a bunch of different distances. There's also a couple of images with larger crosshairs as well.

And, like I said earlier in the thread, I don't really think crosshairs are one of the things that should be removed from Regular difficulty. Leaving aside the fact that I truly believe that crosshairs and third person have no place in the difficulty menu, honestly, when was the last time you played a game that was really challenging on the "Normal" difficulty setting? If you break that trend you risk alienating a lot of people who don't realise this game expects them to turn the difficulty down, instead of up. I hesitate to even bring this point up, though, because I really, really don't think that crosshairs have anything to do with how hard the game is. At most, they tweak the gameplay style. I can't stress enough how unintuitive it is to have to difficulty settings affect PVP multiplayer.

[bad benson 1733]

because I really, really don't think that crosshairs have anything to do with how hard the game is. At most, they tweak the gameplay style.

you said that before...a lot. it's just your opinion. repeating it won't make it a fact. if you still think that having a help for close range aiming (besides ironsights) is not easier than having none then i don't know anymore. it's simple logic...

help...no help. simple.

[DavidCastle 1]

You can actually change rookie, normal, veteran, expert etc. to have any settings you want in the menus and on servers... =/ I think default setting are negligible-who really plays default anything?

[vegeta897 13]

You can actually change rookie, normal, veteran, expert etc. to have any settings you want in the menus and on servers... =/ I think default setting are negligible-who really plays default anything?

Lots of people. You'd be surprised how many people don't bother changing any settings that aren't graphics. Many games don't even have detailed difficulty settings like Arma does. If third person was disabled by default, there would be drastically less people using it today. It does make a difference. Many people play for a while with default settings before even thinking about changing it, much less being aware that they can. By then, they're used to what they've been using.

[roshnak 41]

you said that before...a lot. it's just your opinion. repeating it won't make it a fact. if you still think that having a help for close range aiming (besides ironsights) is not easier than having none then i don't know anymore. it's simple logic...

help...no help. simple.

What I'm saying is that it's not like you're suddenly using crosshairs against people who don't have them. I won't argue that it changes the way the game is played. It obviously does. But from a strictly multiplayer standpoint, the playing field is still even. Even if crosshairs do make it easier to aim in close combat (I literally never said they don't. They are supposed to make it easier to aim in close combat. BIS did that on purpose. It was a design decision.), is it really relevant to have the option to turn them off in the same place as AI difficulty settings? Shouldn't UI options be in the UI options menu, or under realism settings, or literally anywhere else that doesn't imply that it primarily affects single player and maybe co-op?

I also never said it wasn't just my opinion. That's why I keep saying I think... and not It is a fact... But, by the same token, it's not like I haven't written paragraphs and paragraphs of reasons that I hold the opinion that I do. For example:

How many times have you been playing Arma and died and said to yourself, "I bet if I had crosshairs enabled that wouldn't have happened."

How many times have you looked at a situation and said, "If I turned crosshairs on I could win this engagement, but that would make it too easy."

Or is it actually a situation where you approach the game differently based on whether or not crosshairs are enabled? Maybe you're more aggressive in close combat situations. Maybe you're a little more willing to "kick down a door". Maybe things move a little quicker. Maybe the game becomes a little less focused on who is already in position and aiming at a corner. Maybe making the first move in close combat doesn't put you at quite as much of a disadvantage as it otherwise would. Maybe, knowing this, you become just a little bit more confident that you can beat that other guy even though he has a better position. Maybe you're a little more willing to open up in full auto at long ranges, since it's a little easier to judge where your rounds will impact and, even though you probably won't hit the guy with your first burst of fire, you know it'll be pretty close, and you can adjust from there.

Maybe some, or all, or none of these things sound familiar to you. But this is what I mean by crosshairs making the game different, rather than easier or harder. Yes, they make one aspect of the game a little to a lot easier. But the game isn't just that one thing, and the presence of crosshairs has a cascading effect that is so much more than just whether the game is "easy" now. It changes the playing field. It has an effect on the way people percieve almost every situation in the game. And, because of this, it changes the way people approach almost every situation in the game and that changes the way those situations unfold.

Whether or not any of the effects I described are good, I can't say. They're different.

Some people probably look at many of those things and think to themselves, "Yeah, that sounds dynamic and awesome and exhilarating. I want to live on the edge. I want to kick down doors and rely on my reactions and practice to bring me out alive."

Other people probably look at those effects and think, "No way. I want my game to be deliberate and thoughtful. I want to know that if I made the right choice that put me in a better position than my enemy, I will have a distinct and overwhelming advantage. I want to win before my opponent even knows we're in a fight."

Now, this is Arma, and the game will always lean more towards the second option, but crosshairs (along with the tweaked movement and aiming) are a way that some of the flavor of the first style can be brought into the game. You may hate that idea, or you may not, I don't know. But to say that one of those styles is easy and one is hard is an oversimplification. And that's why I don't think it's a good idea to say crosshairs make the game easy or hard.

You can actually change rookie, normal, veteran, expert etc. to have any settings you want in the menus and on servers... =/ I think default setting are negligible-who really plays default anything?

A large part of the argument in favor of changing the difficulty settings is that many admins do leave the default settings in place.

Edited July 2, 2014 by roshnak

[defk0n_NL 2]

Whether or not any of the effects I described are good, I can't say. They're different.

Some people probably look at many of those things and think to themselves, "Yeah, that sounds dynamic and awesome and exhilarating. I want to live on the edge. I want to kick down doors and rely on my reactions and practice to bring me out alive."

Other people probably look at those effects and think, "No way. I want my game to be deliberate and thoughtful. I want to know that if I made the right choice that put me in a better position than my enemy, I will have a distinct and overwhelming advantage. I want to win before my opponent even knows we're in a fight."

The advantages of being in a better position then the enemy are roughly the same regardless of your settings.

Crosshairs lower the margin oferrror which is why i consider it a crutch.

Hip/shoulder firing is often used when caught unprepared or under heavy fire. Your argument about deliberate and thoughtful gameplay goes out the window in such cases.

Crosshairs promote deliberate gameplay the same way a aimbot would. They let you deliberately shoot someone equally. Even if your so drunk your about to pass out.

Dont need to write 5 paragaph stories to see why crosshairs are bad news.

Edited July 2, 2014 by defk0n_NL

[roshnak 41]

The advantages of being in a better position then the enemy are roughly the same regardless of your settings.

Crosshairs lower the margin oferrror which is why i consider it a crutch.

Hip/shoulder firing is often used when caught unprepared or under heavy fire. Your argument about deliberate and thoughtful gameplay goes out the window in such cases.

Crosshairs promote deliberate gameplay the same way a aimbot would. They let you deliberately shoot someone equally. Even if your so drunk your about to pass out.

Dont need to write 5 paragaph stories to see why crosshairs are bad news.

I understand it was a long post, but nowhere in it did I ever claim that crosshairs encourage slow or deliberate gameplay. I'm pretty sure I explicitly said the opposite.

You may also want to reconsider the portion of your post where you compare crosshairs to aimbots.

[BL1P 35]

Lots of people. You'd be surprised how many people don't bother changing any settings that aren't graphics. Many games don't even have detailed difficulty settings like Arma does. If third person was disabled by default, there would be drastically less people using it today. It does make a difference. Many people play for a while with default settings before even thinking about changing it, much less being aware that they can. By then, they're used to what they've been using.

Which is basically the the premise behind this whole thread I think.

I feel the op was asking for Arma3 to promote a harder difficulty setting than it currently does.

Obviously this upsets people who feel they are not playing in easy mode and that certain options are needed, also Vice Versa.

I think it speaks for its self though that the devs don't have a difficulty without crosshair on and only one difficulty out of four that's not got 3rd on.

The default settings are geared towards a more casual game play style and could benefit from a revamp with increased difficulty as the default. From my point of view.

Though there must be a reason they keep the settings all geared towards casual play and only one difficulty (almost) on a harder style.

Money would be my guess.

[roshnak 41]

If BIS were interested in just making money they probably wouldn't be making niche military shooters. They've got DayZ now, but for over a decade that hasn't been the case.

[13islucky 10]

I feel the op was asking for Arma3 to promote a harder difficulty setting than it currently does.

That's it. Really, that's all you need. No need to restrict features or playstyles on the easier difficulties (which I still believe are about choice) and instead encourage people somehow to play on the harder difficulties.

But how?

[roshnak 41]

I made a couple of suggestions earlier in the thread. They basically boiled down to:

-Remove the crosshair, third person, and similar options from the difficulty menu and put them in a separate menu called "Realism Settings" or "Simulation Detail" or something.

-Add a prompt to the server start that asks the admin to pick AI difficulty and realism settings.

-Maybe add an option in the server lobby to change the realism settings or vote on it or something.

Even just adding the prompt at server start would ensure that no one could say that people were just too lazy to change the default settings anymore.

[Bouben 3]

-Remove the crosshair, third person, and similar options from the difficulty menu and put them in a separate menu called "Realism Settings" or "Simulation Detail" or something.

I believe this would be absolutely useless.

[bad benson 1733]

...

i really don't understand why you are so in love with your idea of separating certain aspects from difficulty. it makes no sense whatsoever. your wall of text of one and the same thought won't help you make that argument because it's nonsense.

i laughed a little when you made it sound like crosshairs make the game more exciting. you really caught me off guard there.

"Yeah, that sounds dynamic and awesome and exhilarating. I want to live on the edge. I want to kick down doors and rely on my reactions and practice to bring me out alive."

it also shows your strange thought process. you seem to think that close range engagements are way too hard without crosshairs and people who play without them are much less likely to "kick down doors" as you call it. why do you think there are close range optics and things like full auto?...do you really think you can't hit someone close to you without crosshairs by using estimation like in real life? that is just plain ignorant and only shows that you have a lot of imagination when it comes to trying to make your stuff sound reasonable.

crosshairs are NOT what creates that style of gameplay.

and now you even want crosshairs inside a UI section. "it's just a random dot on the screen for style reasons" while you, just on the side, admit that it makes things easier (finally..). that makes even less sense than your proposal to put it inside a realism section. that even made a little sense eventhough difficulty and realism are not exclusive to eachother as i explained. you want another example for that? advanced flightmodel. realism making the game harder. by your logic people will play "very careful and less exciting" with the new flightmodel while the people turnng it off will have a super awesome fun time with lots of michael bay flying. you couldn't be more wrong.

What I'm saying is that it's not like you're suddenly using crosshairs against people who don't have them.

why is that what you are saying? it was me who explained that distinction of unfair and fair advantage in PvP earlier. this is not relevant right now. are you just trying to say a lot of things for volume now?

But this is what I mean by crosshairs making the game different, rather than easier or harder.

you know, simply replacing rather than with and would turn that into something that makes sense. but it's quite obvious now that the distinction is pretty important to you, god knows why.

as you can see, putting "i think" infront of statements won't save you from reflection. and if you base your whole set of proposals even your whole thought process on something, it better make solid sense. it just being a random opinion/feeling you have about things won't cut it.

But to say that one of those styles is easy and one is hard is an oversimplification. And that's why I don't think it's a good idea to say crosshairs make the game easy or hard.

you are the one oversimplifying here by randomly mixing aspects together and being unprecise. you still owe a real explaination to why you think "it's not a good idea". but tbh i'm not interested in the answer to that because it will most likely involve you repeating the same thing again.

for the record. crosshairs are fine. your reasoning is not.

[roshnak 41]

I believe this would be absolutely useless.

Why? There are a couple of reasons that separating out those options might help:

-First, and most importantly, it's incredibly unintuitive for difficulty settings to affect PvP multiplayer. Have you ever played another PvP multiplayer game and said, "Oh, I better check the difficulty settings first?"

-People might get the impression that if they set the gamemode to Veteran, they are suddenly going to start getting stomped.

-If the server were to prompt admins to select a difficulty setting, admins may want to disable crosshairs and third person without upping the AI difficulty. Without separating those commands out, you're back to where we started with requiring admins to edit text files, unless you want to provide them with a whole list of stuff they have to change in the console. (Actually, this one is pretty important, too.)

i really don't understand why you are so in love with your idea of separating certain aspects from difficulty.

See above, please. Also, please don't just pick out the middle one and come after me about how I don't understand difficulty. It's one reason in three and the other two are far more important.

you still owe a real explaination to why you think "it's not a good idea". but tbh i'm not interested in the answer to that because it will most likely involve you repeating the same thing again.

The reason that I don't think it's a good idea to keep talking about crosshairs making the game easy, in a nutshell: It makes you sound like an elitest asshole who thinks that people who play games differently than you do aren't as good. It's dismissive and rude. It makes you seem oblivious to the whole world of different kinds of video games out there. It would be one thing to say, "That's just not my preferred style of game" instead of "It makes the game too casual and easy and it's a crutch for bads." Please note, this statement isn't directed at you personally, but the tone of some of the arguments in this thread in general.

I'm really trying to be polite and argue in good faith here. There have been a number of times that I've typed out snarky or dismissive replies and changed them because I decided that I'd rather try and have a real discussion (where those replies exist, they're probably toned down). I don't really feel like you are trying to do the same. You accused me of saying the crosshair is "just a random dot on the screen for style reasons" but that's an incredibly unfair reading of that sentence. Surely you read the next par which was, "or under realism settings, or literally anywhere else..." It couldn't possibly have been that unclear that the purpose of that sentence was to say that it's weird to have difficulty settings affect PvP multiplayer. That's not even the only time you have done that in this reply.

Honestly, man, it's taken me like 40 minutes to write this post because I keep deleting and revising things because I'm worried you'll just grab one part of a sentence out of context and jump on it instead of responding to the intent of the post as a whole. I'm naturally a little wordy, but I really am trying to be as clear and thorough as possible. It might help to know that I'm honestly not trying to bury you in words or confuse the issue.

[bad benson 1733]

The reason that I don't think it's a good idea to keep talking about crosshairs making the game easy, in a nutshell: It makes you sound like an elitest asshole who thinks that people who play games differently than you do aren't as good.

back to hurt feelings are we? this is the whole core of your argument which quite frankly explains why the rest is so inconsistent. you will have to finish this fight with yourself. that insult your cleverly kept general only shows that the issues you seem to have are all "meta" and based on your own perception of "vibes" rather than the actual game and its reality. i've given you nothing but facts and you give me "please don't say it like that because that offends me" in return. well played...not.

i obviously didn't really read beyond that quote because there's nothing to learn from your arguments but overreaction and sensitivity to certain semantics. it's almost esoteric. reminds me of some political correctness discussions in the media.

i still agree with you that there exists elitism. still. i've been debating with you about why you think certain changes to the game should be made or not made. it's not my fault that you try to escape valid criticism into finger pointing. i made it more than clear that for me personally the only real problem is isolated to 3rd person. so i'm assuming in good will that your finger pointing is not directed at me eventhough i have a hunch it is, taking your sensitivity into account.

this was clearly a waste of time and i was right about my assumption early on, which by the way you then dismissed. nothing but butthurt he. nothing to see. move along. i guess you now know what i meant by "hurt feelings" that don't help the discussion when there are clearly real issues that require real pracmactic solutions. on that, i appreciate your suggestions. you can stop repeating them. some of them are good some of them are "useless" as someone said, no offense.

sorry to everyone for spamming this thread like that. sorry to you for obviously being to straight forward for your taste. i still stand by each of my points.