New Weaponsway is way to much. And holding breath bug?

[-Coulum- 35]

Some "hardcore" folks in here do the very common misstake of mixing up hard with realistic. Its the same in all simulation communitys.

Try hitting a target in arma at 1500m. Even with 1.24 sway it is realtively easy. With the devbranch sway it is childsplay. Takes about 5 seconds to line up the shot.

Now try doing that in real life. If you can even do it, I doubt it would be so quick.

Reality is harder than ingame

Yes sometimes people get hard and realistic messed up, but in this case the results of ingame shooting speak for themselves. Shooting is to efficient, and it often makes real world tactics far less useful ingame, which is my main gripe.

And I know that arma lacks wind and what not but that is definitely not the only reason that shooting is harder in reality. It is because there is alot more to weapon handling than point and click.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that the sway system is by any means perfect, and I doubt it will ever be, because of the limitations of a mouse and keyboard, but I do think the difficulty of shooting brought with 1.24 is realistic. Here are my thoughts on how it I think it should be changed.

The correct solution, I think, to the "too easy" versus "too hard" problem is to simulate it as accurately as possible. That would mean removing the unrealistic drunken sway and adding a realistic tremble. One wouldn't be able to significantly counter the tremble -- just like reality, it'd always be there and it'd always keep your aim from being 100% precise while not resting the weapon, but it would be fairly slight. Enough to make shooting progressively difficult at longer ranges (again, like real life), but not exaggerated beyond realism to the point where one is forced to unrealistically wrestle the mouse with far greater difficulty than the real deal in order to get a fraction of the steadiness of the real deal.

I disagree that this is the right solution because although it may look more realistic, you are taking all the human interaction out of it. There is no skill, it is just mainly luck as you hope that your weapon trembles onto target as you hit the trigger. Pretty much as bad as random dispersion. Like Roshnak says the sway actually requires some skill and more importantly concentration and time on the players part:

This comes down to a difference in game design philosophy. Some people want the sway to be exaggerated, but counterable in order to stand in for the skill involved in accurately aiming and shooting a rifle. It's just a different way of looking at the game. I don't want it to be impossible to be precise while shooting the gun. I want it to possible to be very precise if I practice, in a different, but analogous way to practicing with a real rifle.

Another thing that one might notice is when you compensate for the sway you actually end up with that "tremble". Just like in reality when you try to compesate for gravity and breathing you get that "tremble".

Echo38 I am sorry to hear about your hand, but you must understand that is pretty much a problem specific to you. I don't see it as a good reason why the whole sway system should be toned down. Maybe you should look up the sway mods to help you better enjoy the game. And as a tip, I find its actually good practice to not fight the sway too much. Instead guide it. Make a small adjustment so that the weapon sways onto the target, rather than constantly trying to pull it onto target. At least that really helps me make the long range shots accurately. When I am sniping in arma the moment I shoot I am never actually fighting the mouse, I am just letting the sway line up the reticule and timing my shot accordingly. I don't know, maybe that might help you experience less pain. Hope you can still find a way to enjoy the game mate.

Edited July 25, 2014 by -Coulum-

[roshnak 41]

Trying to aim at anything while getting max 20 fps makes aiming difficult as it is. Couple that with Armas aiming mechanism, it's already hard imho.

Mouse smoothing feels like inertia and actually detracts me from using it because I have to up the sensitivity on my mouse, which is low to begin with because of how sensitive aiming is. It's a losing battle for me.

I'm not 100% sure what you're trying to say here. Surely you aren't suggesting that the poor performance should be viewed as a game mechanic?

Also, you can turn mouse smoothing off, right?

[GShock 10]

Actually the issue here is rather easy: as shown in the video when holding the right mouse button the weapon doesn't get any more stable.

I think there's a bug in the swaying system but it would be nice if it was somehow confirmed officially so we could move along.

[Sterlingarcherz101 15]

Actually the issue here is rather easy: as shown in the video when holding the right mouse button the weapon doesn't get any more stable.

I think there's a bug in the swaying system but it would be nice if it was somehow confirmed officially so we could move along.

It was. They had to take out something to work more on it. And this had a knock on to the sway.

[calin_banc 19]

The weapon sway is as realistic as the action menu or the inability of the soldier to leap, climb or other half baked stuff, just thrown in. :(

[down8 30]

Try hitting a target in arma at 1500m. Even with 1.24 sway it is realtively easy. With the devbranch sway it is childsplay.

That can be true, but you can add wind deflection and improve that situation the proper way. But You said is not enough.

You seem worried about those very long range engagements, and the fact is that those are a very,very small fraction of gameplay situations, and you are asking to make worse the vast mayority of spots to improve a few in an unnatural way, without properly implementing the other complementary features (wind, weapon resting, AI, damage model).

From a realistic standpoint you have some guys with real life weapon experience telling that the sway is overdone,and the breath mechanic broken. From a gameplay perspective is annoying and boring.

For me shooting now in Arma 3 feels hard but not good.

[faire 10]

That can be true, but you can add wind deflection and improve that situation the proper way. But You said is not enough.

You seem worried about those very long range engagements, and the fact is that those are a very,very small fraction of gameplay situations, and you are asking to make worse the vast mayority of spots to improve a few in an unnatural way, without properly implementing the other complementary features (wind, weapon resting, AI, damage model).

From a realistic standpoint you have some guys with real life weapon experience telling that the sway is overdone,and the breath mechanic broken. From a gameplay perspective is annoying and boring.

For me shooting now in Arma 3 feels hard but not good.

And that is perfectly well! On the other hand there are two factors: realistic process of shooting (low horizontal sway) and realistic results of shooting. A lot of the people was saying in this thread that most confrontations in their games are done from over 500m, which is unrealistic. The wind would solve the problem to a degree, but still players are able to shoot unrealistically well and fast on longer distances. For you it obivously isn't a problem, for other it is. In the end it's more about preferences. Read the discussion between Rath and Coulumn, it's worth the time.

Wind deflection is fine but obviously not ready to be implemented.

[martin_lee 33]

Another thing that one might notice is when you compensate for the sway you actually end up with that "tremble". Just like in reality when you try to compesate for gravity and breathing you get that "tremble".

Just want to chime in and say that's what I feel as well. And that tremble in real life, while random, you can kind of feel where it's going to go. Compare to ArmA 2's "tremble", it is much easier in real life to seize the moment the reticle is on target because you can feel it. Predictability is the key here I think.

So no, the sway in and of itself is not realistic, but when the player counters the sway, the end result is. (or at least a close representation)

What you get is kind of that tremble, some difficulty in shooting at longer range, and less stability when you are putting less effort into countering it (eg in the heat of battle)

[roshnak 41]

That can be true, but you can add wind deflection and improve that situation the proper way. But You said is not enough.

You seem worried about those very long range engagements, and the fact is that those are a very,very small fraction of gameplay situations, and you are asking to make worse the vast mayority of spots to improve a few in an unnatural way, without properly implementing the other complementary features (wind, weapon resting, AI, damage model).

I wonder what your definition of a long range engagement is. In my experience, this game has long been defined by unrealistically long engagements. People frequently don't think twice about accurately engaging and killing targets from 300-500 meters, standing or crouched, with an assault rifle or carbine, while under fire.

Unorganized, public PvP games have an incredibly high percentage of snipers engaging from over 600 meters away.

From a realistic standpoint you have some guys with real life weapon experience telling that the sway is overdone,and the breath mechanic broken. From a gameplay perspective is annoying and boring.

Counter-point: From a realistic standpoint, you have some guys with real life military and weapon experience saying that the sway is not 100% realistic, but that it's in the realm of realism. From a gameplay perspective, it's a good mechanic that encourages more realistic engagements and provides an impediment to long range shooting that can be overcome and mastered by good players who are willing to put in the time and learn the system.

[-Coulum- 35]

That can be true, but you can add wind deflection and improve that situation the proper way. But You said is not enough.

Yes. As you can see in arma 2 with ace (I know, I know its not 100% correctly simulated there either) adding wind doesn't really make shooting that much harder for those that are aware of its presence and how to compensate. With wind in arma 3, you would still have people making the same shots with ease, just they will have to press a few extra buttons first. So lack of wind is not the only thing making shooting so easy if you ask me (though I do very much hope to see it added.)

You seem worried about those very long range engagements, and the fact is that those are a very,very small fraction of gameplay situations, and you are asking to make worse the vast mayority of spots to improve a few in an unnatural way, without properly implementing the other complementary features (wind, weapon resting, AI, damage model).

But you must understand that this is not just about the long range shots. I merely use these as examples to try to demonstrate how easy shooting in general is in arma. At ranges of 300m you will also be able to see that shooting is very quick and effective compared to reality. A 300m shot might take 5 seconds for a good shooter to line up in reality while in arma it takes just over one while prone. You might not think its much of a difference but it vastly effects the way a firefight plays out and what tactics can be used. At 300 metres that few extra seconds might give the target the time he needs to duck down into cover. Or it might be more than the shooter is willing to expose himself. A few seconds extra to aim accurately can drastically change the length of a firefight, the tactics that are available and the range at which these firefights occur which brings me to my next point:

Like roshnak explains, the definition of "long range engagements" in arma and reality isn't in sync. In reality 800 metres would be long range. In and around 300 might be mid range. Yet in arma for a guy with optics, 800 metres is just a regular engagement. Earlier in the thread someone was saying that long range shots are difficult - it took him tons of effort to line up a shot at 2300 metres... But what he didn't realize is that in reality that isn't long range shooting! That's just ridiculous!

The point I am trying to make is that long range shooting actually does make up the majority of arma firefights (outside of urban combat). It just it isn't recognized as long range because ranges in arma aren't matched up with that of reality - due to the ease at which you can shoot at any range. I hope you kinda catch my drift, I know I tend to ramble.

In summary: Arma 3 firefights take place at unrealistic ranges in unrealistic duration because the shooting is so easy compared to reality. Thus the need for a sway system to achieve realistic firefights and make realistic tactics more viable

Agree/Disagree?

From a realistic standpoint you have some guys with real life weapon experience telling that the sway is overdone,and the breath mechanic broken. From a gameplay perspective is annoying and boring.

You have alot of guys with experience on both sides of the argument. In the end it comes down to what they are basing their judgements on: the look and feel of the sway, or the results it produces.

For me shooting now in Arma 3 feels hard but not good.

Being hard is how it should be. Not being "good" is another matter which I can sympathize with you on. There was a discussion on exactly that in this thread: how to make the sway system hard/require a realistic amount of time and concentration to aim, but also not come across as annoying and gimmicky. 1.24 did the difficulty part well, but the method was obviously not to everybody's likings. The suggestions I came up with that may or may not help are here:

Okay guys I've spent some time to analyse what is actually happening with the sway in 1.24 stable. Picture is worth a thousand words so here are my general findings:

The shaded area represents the vertical and horizontal axis of sway, while the line represents the actual sway pattern (Yes sway isn't actually something random, each stance has path that the weapon follows). Basically the axis of sway manipulates the sway pattern by stretching or compressing it.

This is sway while standing pointing at a target 300 metres away:

Sway Speed is moderate.

This is sway while crouched pointing at a target 300 metres away:

Speed of the sway is about two thirds as fast as while standing.

This is sway while prone pointing at a target 300 metres away:

Speed of the sway is about one tenth as fast as while standing.

This is the sway while prone pointing at a target 1000 metres away:

You can see that higher power optics magnify the sway.

And Lastly a comparison of the 3 stances

Basically when you are fatigued or injured it stretches the vertical and horizontal axis of sway as well as increasing the sway speed. Injury general causes a horizontal stretch in the sway pattern, while fatigue general causes a vertical stretch in the sway pattern.

Based on this I have several suggestions that I think might help players find the system more intuitive and immersive/believable/aesthetically realistic and less frustrating/annoying, while also retaining the more realistic challenge that 1.24 stable brought. Here are a few key points:

• Sway should be much more vertical and much less horizontal - stance will change vertical sway not as drastically but will almost nullify horizontal sway the lower you go.
  
• Sway speed should not be effected by stance as much. Standing speed should be slightly slower (than in 1.24), while prone speed should be slightly faster (than in 1.24). Your breathing rate doesn't change when you change stance.
  
• Fatigue will not increase the vertical axis of sway as much, but will effect sway speed drastically, since your respiratory rate is increasing.
  
• Injury is fine as it is. It is pretty damn hard to shoot with an arm injury now but I don't think anyone really knows what its like to aim with a bullet in your arm. We can assume it is very hard. The current achieves this. If anyone has better ideas/experience feel free to share.
  

So basically this is somewhat like what the new sway system would look like...

Standing 300m:

Compared to 1.24

Much less horizontal with a slightly slower sway speed than 1.24 currently has, and a longer vertical axis.

Crouched 300m:

Compared to 1.24

Less horizontal with the same sway speed as 1.24 and a longer vertical axis.

Prone 300m:

Compared to 1.24

A bit less horizontal with a slightly faster sway speed than 1.24 currently has, and a longer vertical axis.

Prone 1000m:

Compared to 1.24

You will notice that prone still has a considerable range of motion when targeting long range targets. This is intentional. The hope is that the much more vertical and thus predictable sway pattern will make it feel more natural and smooth, and less jerky and frustrating. I don't want 1km sniping to be a cakewalk, but at the same time I don't want it to be a painful experience that can't be mastered. With the hold breath I suggest below, I think that this system will achieve this far better than what we currently have.

Basically the goal here is to keep the challenge while changing the sway such that it is more intuitive and less gimmicky. The more vertical movement will allow players to better predict and thus compensate for sway. Meanwhile, the speed change (standing slower than 1.24, prone faster than 1.24) will make shooting standing a bit more viable while still keeping prone shooting engaging despite the predictable weapon sway.

Hold breath feature would ideally not change the sway pattern as it does now in devbranch - it is confusing when you hold breath and your sway basically changes direction. Instead hold breath should merely slow down the speed of sway equally in both the vertical and horizontal direction (maybe by 75%) while keeping in the same motion. This will allow players to have more time to line up their shots or train their aim, while steadying their weapon.

Interested to know what you guys think... Does this seem like it might look and feel more believable? Could it be a step in the right direction?

Do you have any ideas to add that might "keep the challenge but ditch the annoyance"?

So no, the sway in and of itself is not realistic, but when the player counters the sway, the end result is. (or at least a close representation)

What you get is kind of that tremble, some difficulty in shooting at longer range, and less stability when you are putting less effort into countering it (eg in the heat of battle)

Precisely.

I do wonder though: how one's rifle would sway in reality if they weren't to put any effort to steadying it. Its hard to really know because by default when you raise a rifle to your eye you're going to try to steady it to some degree. But what if you didn't. How steady is a rifle when one just shoulders it and doesn't look through the sights? I bet it is actually alot closer to the sway we see in arma than one might think. Just food for thought. People must remember that in reality you are putting effort into steadying your aim. When you just sit and watch the sway ingame you are not putting in the same effort, so you shouldn't expect the same level of steadiness.

The devbranch sway right after 1.24 was imo far to easy. But later they did change the the "sway formula", whatever that might mean. Although it is still a bit easy, it is much better. Far better than before 1.24. Given the lack of bipods/weapon resting, I think it is a fair balance for now. But I do hope if those features are ever introduced they will up the default sway some more, since we will have realistic ways of countering it.

Either way I think BI aren't touching sway until they have also gotten inertia out, which I am looking forward to.

[roshnak 41]

I do wonder though: how one's rifle would sway in reality if they weren't to put any effort to steadying it.

This really depends on how you're defining the process of steadying a rifle in reality. Actual shooting isn't about countering sway. What you're actually doing is just holding the weapon correctly, such that you have the maximum amount of bone support possible. There isn't a whole lot of muscle work involved. So would the process of not putting any effort into steadying your weapon just be making a conscious decision to not hold it correctly?

[UltimateBawb 1]

Why do all of you that are against the sway realize that no matter how well you hold a rifle your body still moves, trembles, and sways? It's just fact. And when you have this small weapon pointed at something hundreds of meters away a small tremble makes a huge difference. It's simple math and physics, it doesn't matter if you 'don't like it,' I don't like how my body trembles when I target shoot but I counter it through trigger and breath control. That's what you do in real life and that's what you do in game. The whole everyone-wins 'it should be an option' argument makes no sense either, how about we have an option to sprint forever? Or carry infinite amounts of gear? Or do X? The options argument only goes so far, but something as fundamental and mechanical as weapon sway needs to be constant.

[-Coulum- 35]

This really depends on how you're defining the process of steadying a rifle in reality. Actual shooting isn't about countering sway. What you're actually doing is just holding the weapon correctly, such that you have the maximum amount of bone support possible. There isn't a whole lot of muscle work involved. So would the process of not putting any effort into steadying your weapon just be making a conscious decision to not hold it correctly?

Well yes its about proper positioning of the rifle and your body, but when it comes down to it what is holding all those bones up? Muscles. Not saying you get a workout holding a rifle on target but you do have to use fine muscle control to compensate for breathing and involuntary muscle movement. Holding the rifle right doesn't give you steady aim. It just helps. So when I say "steady the rifle", I guess what I actually mean is compensating when the reticle inevitably moves off target. To test this: how stable do you think you can hold a rifle with your eyes closed. This is how much sway you would have with minimum input from the shooter. Not saying this is what should be ingame in any way, but I am trying to point out that in real life more concentration and work goes into holding a rifle steady than one might think.

Why do all of you that are against the sway realize that no matter how well you hold a rifle your body still moves, trembles, and sways? It's just fact. And when you have this small weapon pointed at something hundreds of meters away a small tremble makes a huge difference. It's simple math and physics, it doesn't matter if you 'don't like it,' I don't like how my body trembles when I target shoot but I counter it through trigger and breath control. That's what you do in real life and that's what you do in game. The whole everyone-wins 'it should be an option' argument makes no sense either, how about we have an option to sprint forever? Or carry infinite amounts of gear? Or do X? The options argument only goes so far, but something as fundamental and mechanical as weapon sway needs to be constant.

Some people as you say don't realize this. But then there are others who do, but don't feel it is properly represented with sway. Or don't feel like sway is as natural as it is in reality. Or that its looks weird and unimmersive. Or some just don't give a fuck about realism. Not everyone is ignorant of what goes into hitting a target a couple hundred metres away. Of course, still some are.

Generally I do agree that two many options is not ideal. But maybe for lower difficulties it is reasonable to help people get into the game. Games like Red Orchestra had this and it didn't seem to hurt anybody. In the end most people end up flocking to the regular difficulty anyhow. If not difficulty options, people can pretty much always find/build their ideal with mods.

[dav 22]

Bravo to Bis. The combination of managing positioning, fatigue and sway adds a much needed depth in gameplay. Movement is now slow and steady like in real life when lives are on the line. I think the "hold breath" should tighten and steady aim for longer though. I hope they dont nerf the next update. This update is a game changer. Well done Bis.

[GShock 10]

The problem is not the sway nor the holding breath. I've come to realize the breathe could be improved a bit but the sway is ok.

The problem is that the AI is a killer at any difficulty level (your own AI is totally useless in comparison) and with any non zoomed sight you're dead.

I mentioned the combined arms showcase but you can see that in Infantry and in Armed Assault showcase. Things have become considerably harder (I am on devbranch) for the player but the AI seems to still be unaffected. On the contrary... you need multiple hits to do a kill and right now, there's a big sway (understandable, fatigue, equipment, stress, etc) and a harder breathing (possibly even broken). The AI is still aimbotting you happily, regardless of distance or absence of zoomed sights.

I mostly end a mission (if I can end it alive) with someone else's gun and ammo. That says it all... It is harder to hit and very hard to kill but only for the player apparently.

[roshnak 41]

Well yes its about proper positioning of the rifle and your body, but when it comes down to it what is holding all those bones up? Muscles. Not saying you get a workout holding a rifle on target but you do have to use fine muscle control to compensate for breathing and involuntary muscle movement. Holding the rifle right doesn't give you steady aim. It just helps. So when I say "steady the rifle", I guess what I actually mean is compensating when the reticle inevitably moves off target. To test this: how stable do you think you can hold a rifle with your eyes closed. This is how much sway you would have with minimum input from the shooter. Not saying this is what should be ingame in any way, but I am trying to point out that in real life more concentration and work goes into holding a rifle steady than one might think.

I've bolded what I consider to be the relevant part of this argument. The answer: Pretty much the same amount of sway that you would experience with your eyes open, assuming that you are holding the rifle properly. While muscles are certainly involved, the goal is generally to minimize their influence, not expand upon it.

[UltimateBawb 1]

I've bolded what I consider to be the relevant part of this argument. The answer: Pretty much the same amount of sway that you would experience with your eyes open, assuming that you are holding the rifle properly. While muscles are certainly involved, the goal is generally to minimize their influence, not expand upon it.

Except your answer is wrong, it wouldn't be the same. With your eyes open you actively adjust and compensate, with your eyes closed you cannot. It's simple and factual. Point at something with your arm outstretched and close your eyes. After 30 seconds I guarantee you won't be pointing exactly where you were before.

[roshnak 41]

Except your answer is wrong, it wouldn't be the same. With your eyes open you actively adjust and compensate, with your eyes closed you cannot. It's simple and factual. Point at something with your arm outstretched and close your eyes. After 30 seconds I guarantee you won't be pointing exactly where you were before.

That's not really weapon sway, though. It's drift, which is different from consciously trying to counter movement caused by breathing and something that is not modeled in Arma. And it shouldn't be -- it would be really annoying.

It's simply not accurate to say that in real life you should be using fine muscle control to compensate for breathing and involuntary muscle movement. That's quite likely to have a negative impact on your accuracy.

I like the new sway mechanics and I think they have a positive effect on gameplay, but I also don't think that spreading inaccurate (or less than accurate) information is going to do us any favors with people who are also familiar with the topic.

Edit: Also, pointing with your finger isn't really the same thing as pointing with a rifle. A rifle generally has a lot more support than just your outstretched arm would. There are a lot more points of contact. A great deal of your body is helping to point the gun where it's supposed to be pointed. There will be some drift if you close your eyes, but it would probably be a lot less than what you would think. If you're holding the rifle right, it will probably be pretty close to where you would expect it to be.

Actually, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_point_of_aim

Edited July 28, 2014 by roshnak

[-Coulum- 35]

Well sway, drift, whatever you want to call it, fact is to keep on target you actively have to aim - and that is not just a matter of holding the rifle correctly.

Regardless, bringing things back to game, when people say that in real life they can hold their aim on target they must realize that they are actually doing something to maintain that steadiness. Thus it isn't exactly a fair comparison to expect to be able to hold your reticule on target without doing anything in game. Which is one of the reasons why we have mechanics like sway. Its really just more of a theory if anything. Overall what I am after is the results that it produces. And Arma 3 has generally been going in the right direction.

I do wonder how hold breath can be changed though. I don't really like its current functionality.

[Echo38 1]

when people say that in real life they can hold their aim on target they must realize that they are actually doing something to maintain that steadiness.

Yes, but it's automatic, like standing up. Technically, you have to spend effort to keep yourself from falling over, IRL, but it's pretty automatic for anyone past the toddler stage of life. It's the same with holding a weapon still. Just like with standing still, all I have to do is intend to hold the rifle still, and it happens "automatically." There's always a tremble that you can't get rid of, but there really isn't much you can do about it -- no amount of concentration is going to make a significant impact on this tremble, which has exclusively to do with your heartbeat and how good your muscles are.

Really, this insisting on having a mouse-chasing minigame to try to simulate the fact that you have to exert nominal force to keep your weapon reasonably steady IRL is along the same line of saying we should have a key-mashing minigame to keep our characters from falling over while standing upright. "It's too easy to stand upright in the game -- in real life, you have to exert effort, while in the game, you don't have to do anything at all!" Same deal. Both take primarily muscle strength to do well, and concentrating & putting hard effort into trying to do it better isn't going to make a significant difference.

[roshnak 41]

There's always a tremble that you can't get rid of, but there really isn't much you can do about it -- no amount of concentration is going to make a significant impact on this tremble, which has exclusively to do with your heartbeat and how good your muscles are.

You're leaving out probably the most important factor in weapon sway: breathing.

Any time someone talks about only experiencing tremble when they're shooting I immediately assume their primary experience is benchrested shooting.

Really, this insisting on having a mouse-chasing minigame to try to simulate the fact that you have to exert nominal force to keep your weapon reasonably steady IRL is along the same line of saying we should have a key-mashing minigame to keep our characters from falling over while standing upright. "It's too easy to stand upright in the game -- in real life, you have to exert effort, while in the game, you don't have to do anything at all!" Same deal. Both take primarily muscle strength to do well, and concentrating & putting hard effort into trying to do it better isn't going to make a significant difference.

Feel free to not play the "mouse-chasing minigame" if you want. You can just as easily (although probably not as quickly) predict the sway pattern and fire when your sights align with the target. That's the more realistic way to do it, anyway.

Also, there is no way that aiming and firing a rifle is as natural for you or anyone else as standing is. This is by no means a fair or reasonable comparison to make. Therefore, this entire line of reasoning is invalid.

[-Coulum- 35]

Yes, but it's automatic, like standing up. Technically, you have to spend effort to keep yourself from falling over, IRL, but it's pretty automatic for anyone past the toddler stage of life. It's the same with holding a weapon still. Just like with standing still, all I have to do is intend to hold the rifle still, and it happens "automatically." There's always a tremble that you can't get rid of, but there really isn't much you can do about it -- no amount of concentration is going to make a significant impact on this tremble, which has exclusively to do with your heartbeat and how good your muscles are.

Really, this insisting on having a mouse-chasing minigame to try to simulate the fact that you have to exert nominal force to keep your weapon reasonably steady IRL is along the same line of saying we should have a key-mashing minigame to keep our characters from falling over while standing upright. "It's too easy to stand upright in the game -- in real life, you have to exert effort, while in the game, you don't have to do anything at all!" Same deal. Both take primarily muscle strength to do well, and concentrating & putting hard effort into trying to do it better isn't going to make a significant difference.

Its not the same as walking. At all. Are you going to tell me that having more time and concentrating on your aim more doesn't help one shoot more accurately because "its automatic any-ways - all he needs to do is think about it and a moment later he is holding as steady as he ever will be."

And regarding the tremble, I think that martlin_lee described it very well why the sway system recreates it better.

Just want to chime in and say that's what I feel as well. And that tremble in real life, while random, you can kind of feel where it's going to go. Compare to ArmA 2's "tremble", it is much easier in real life to seize the moment the reticle is on target because you can feel it. Predictability is the key here I think.

So no, the sway in and of itself is not realistic, but when the player counters the sway, the end result is. (or at least a close representation)

What you get is kind of that tremble, some difficulty in shooting at longer range, and less stability when you are putting less effort into countering it (eg in the heat of battle)

And since when did this "mouse minigame" get so damn hard. Its not at all an impossible task as numerously demonstrated throughout this thread. I would even go as far to say that to some players, it is automatic. Like Roshnak says, you don't have to neccesarily fight the sway either.

You can just as easily (although probably not as quickly) predict the sway pattern and fire when your sights align with the target. That's the more realistic way to do it, anyway.

Thats what I do when I want a really accurate shot and have some time to take it.

Yes when bullets are whipping by you and your tired and can barely get a glimpse of the enemy it can be a challenge to prioritize controlling your weapon to get off accurate shots. Do you think its any different for a real infantry man in the same situation? Just like helicopter and tab lock, when certain tasks are too easy to do ingame, it creates an unrealistic balance which creates unrealistic gameplay. Thus the need for sway to add a wee bit more effort on the players part.

[Echo38 1]

Feel free to not play the "mouse-chasing minigame" if you want. You can just as easily (although probably not as quickly) predict the sway pattern and fire when your sights align with the target.

You've got to be kidding me! It often takes two hits to the head to kill a moving CSAT soldier (sometimes three, if you're using a suppressed carbine) and several more hits if you don't manage to hit the head each time. It takes, what, two seconds between the times when the sight wanders from on-target to on-target again? Which makes about six seconds to kill a moving CSAT soldier, if all my shots hit. In the meantime, I'll be long dead, because they typically one-shot you in the head. Besides, I don't think it's even subconsciously possible for me to not fight the weapon wander, given how unnatural & unrealistic the weapon wave is, and how fast-paced my shooting needs to be to have a reasonable time-to-kill.

Right now, the most effective way to kill an enemy quickly with iron sights is full-automatic. This is a problem. Full-auto should never be easier to control than single shots, especially at longer ranges. It isn't in real life, and it isn't in any remotely realistic simulation of shooting. I've always used semi-automatic, from Operation Flashpoint to now, but it's looking like the only way for me to "adapt" to this BS is to start spraying like a Call of Battlefield player. It's rewarded more than careful, precise aim. Realistic, my arse ...

Also, there is no way that aiming and firing a rifle is as natural for you or anyone else as standing is. This is by no means a fair or reasonable comparison to make.

In real life, aiming and firing isn't. Holding the rifle steady is. Shooting is by no means natural to me, nor am I an expert shooter. However, the difficulty is not how much effort I have to make at holding the rifle still-except-unavoidable-tremble. Holding the rifle still like that is low-effort. The primary difficulties comes from dealing with recoil and the imprecision of the weapon zeroing (which is not nearly as cut-and-dried on my AR-15 as it is in Arma). There are other things, but the great difficulty in shooting is not the amount of brainpower required to hold the rifle still-except-tremble. Holding the rifle still like that doesn't take that much more thought than standing upright.

---------- Post added at 04:46 ---------- Previous post was at 04:41 ----------

However -- and I feel this merits a separate post -- after a stop by the virtual shooting range today, I must concede that my character is, in fact, a significantly better shot in Arma 3 than I am in real life. Even with the current ridiculous cursor-chasing minigame. The problem isn't hitting the targets -- it's hitting them & their full-body-coverage armor enough times to take them down, before they one-shot you with their aimbots. : /

So perhaps the drunken wave isn't the big problem here. It's the armor-protecting-things-it-shouldn't and the A.I. not being affected by the weapon wave. Primarily the first one.

I still don't like the drunken wave. There's got to be a better way of simulating the difficulties of shooting, because this is not a realistic simulation of shooting. Give us wind, give us the fast-shaking ~1mm weapon tremble that we can't do much about (like in real life), make us drag the sights down all the way after each shot. That sort of thing. That'd be a fairly realistic simulation of shooting. 1mm too much/too little? Adjust it for virtual muscle tone & fatigue. Whatever. Can't possibly be worse than this. (Also, fix the damn body armor covering places it doesn't actually cover and stopping shots it shouldn't stop. But that's another story, isn't it?)

Edited July 28, 2014 by Echo38

[CaptainObvious 95]

The primary difficulties comes from dealing with recoil and the imprecision of the weapon zeroing (which not nearly as cut-and-dried on my AR-15 as it is in Arma).

Well, if your shooting stance is as good as it should, recoil isn't much of an issue with modern low kicking ARs.

There are other things, but the great difficulty in shooting is not the amount of brainpower required to hold the rifle still-except-tremble. Holding the rifle still like that doesn't take that much more thought than standing upright.

I'd say the amount of brainpower required to hold the cursor on target isn't that great either... When you, as you say, "play the minigame of chasing the cursor" it looks pretty darn accurate compared to real life aiming, I can't think of a better way to achieve that, of course if you, or someone else does, I'd be happy to hear it.

[Echo38 1]

And since when did this "mouse minigame" get so damn hard.

About the time I had hand surgery. : /

"Then turn it off in the difficulty options!" Sure, I'd love to. Except that there's no option. And using a mod for it would pretty much rule out multiplayer, wouldn't it?

I would love to post a video of the countless dozens of retries it takes me to get past a single firefight (firefights I could do in a couple of takes before the drunken-wave patch) now. Most of the time, I don't even think I'm missing -- it's really Arma's body armor anti-simulation that's the culprit, here, given that even moving targets are easy to hit at the virtual shooting range -- but the fact is that I have several times more difficulty killing things (even at 50m!) now than I did before the patch, and it's making my damn hand hurt like hell. I would love to record & post such a video (really, the consistent-multiple-headshots problem alone merits a video for a bug report), but I don't have any means of recording it.

I can't think of a better way to achieve that, of course if you, or someone else does, I'd be happy to hear it.

Already posted it. Twice.

Edited July 28, 2014 by Echo38