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

[-Coulum- 35]

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 am glad you realized that. I tend to agree. But its for a separate thread.

Among other things, the ai give the people the idea that they should be able to engage and kill targets from so far away and so quickly. Because if you don't you yourself are often killed. You say that it takes 6 seconds to kill a moving CSAT (I am guessing at in and around 200m) which in game easily get you killed. Well, from a real life perspective that's pretty damn fast. Firefights can go on for hours, with thousands of shots fired and produce only a couple walking wounded at times.

Like you say the big problem is the ai and the way the handle getting hit/suppressed that makes it overly unbalanced. But that will become fixed soon enough as well I am confident.

[EDcase 87]

I've also had time to get used to the new system (Stable branch)

I think it just needs a bit of tweaking to be just right. The distance to move before becoming exhausted should be extended overall.

Combat pace or moving with sights up (looking through) should be the same as walking. ie very little fatigue.

Maximum sway should be reduced a bit.

Its very annoying when moving through a town where you turn a corner to face an enemy and you try to shoot him while your weapon is swaying wildly around until he kills you with 1 shot.

(Yes you will say that I should pace myself and pause to recover from exhaustion after running every few metres but NO, it should not be swaying THAT much)

My problem is the AI. They spot and kill you through bushes/trees and GRASS. Can't you reduce the size of grass a bit so we can see more than 0.5m while it gives no concealment to AI.

I remember the fun sneaking up to or past AI in OFP and ARMA1. It worked MUCH better because they did not spot you if you stayed still. Perhaps because they were simpler minded back then...?

[twisted 128]

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.

agree, it makes shooting a bit more chllaneging and moving more tactical. brave and real game changer. hope bis can evolve it rather than lose it now.

i also hope they add blood effects on impact (to better see you are hitting the damn target, i use maos blood mod and it adds a lot of immersion) plus good ragdoll fall on impact (not just on death). and make that fall on impacxt also affect player on big hits. TPW does it and wow its soemthing else as well. then shooting enemy becomes more visceral and rewarding and taking a couple shots to kill isnt so hit n miss.

[roshnak 41]

Already posted it. Twice.

The solution you posted (1mm tremble) does nothing to solve the problem of players being able to easily and accurately engage targets at unrealistic ranges without any kind of practice or training, and it's not realistic because it does not take into account the larger movement caused by breathing.

[CaptainObvious 95]

Already posted it. Twice.

If I understood correctly what you suggested, I fail to see how that would make this any better? :confused:

Replacing a larger sway that you can negate with your mouse if you practice enough with a tremble you can't fight against is hardy an improvement in my eyes.

I'm sorry if your hand can't cope with the current system, I really am, but I don't want to see my game becoming something that doesn't require training to master.

[Gera_CCT 12]

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.

I agree. It makes the game less fast paced BUT the AI should have the same "penaltys". I think that a simple way to end this discussion is to put in the game an option to choose between this mode or the "classic".

[roshnak 41]

I think that a simple way to end this discussion is to put in the game an option to choose between this mode or the "classic".

You could make that argument for every mechanic that has ever been put in a video game.

[soulis6 24]

You could make that argument for every mechanic that has ever been put in a video game.

Yeah, this is approach i've seen some recent Indie early access titles take, and I think it's actually creating a lot of problems for everyone down the line. As soon they change/add content down the down, they now have to make sure both branches of that system work, and they now have to spend twice the amount of time on that mechanic.

It's a very 'programmer-y' approach to game design, but not one I personally like. I'd rather the game designers actually stand by what they believe to be the best implementation of a mechanic, and have the rest of the game support it.

[Echo38 1]

The solution you posted (1mm tremble) does nothing to solve the problem of players being able to easily and accurately engage targets at unrealistic ranges without any kind of practice or training

How can a millimeter of deviation, measured at the hand & occurring several times per second, not make long-range gunnery difficult? o O

Remember, that'd amplified by a scope. If anything, my millimeter figure is too large for a physically-fit person who is not already fatigued. As for breathing, I don't have any objection to a realistic breathing mechanic. Indeed, I'd welcome any change that makes shooting more realistic. As I said, with pistols, I don't suffer any adverse affect to my shake IRL if I breathe, compared to if I try to hold my breath. Maybe it's different if with rifles -- it's been a while since I've shot mine and (unlike my pistol) I don't have my rifle at hand. So any difference from breathing versus holding breath would have to be negligible for pistols, at least, and not particularly severe for iron-sight rifles being held while standing. (I suspect it's more noticeable when resting your elbow on your knee and such, because then you've got a pivot point that's moving with your torso and one that isn't, causing the discrepancy.)

Replacing a larger sway that you can negate with your mouse if you practice enough with a tremble you can't fight against is hardy an improvement in my eyes.

It may not be an improvement from the point of view of an arcade game player, but from a simulation point of view, my idea would be an improvement because it's a more accurate simulation of what actually goes on. In real life, you can't eliminate this tremble, nor significantly reduce it from the "static" level (that is, the level of stillness at which a minimal amount of effort --comparable to that required to stand without falling over -- keeps the weapon). However, in real life, you can decide when to shoot, and this doesn't require a long firing window, as the tremble's deviation is travelled very quickly (perhaps a fifth of a second to go from one side of the "circle" to the other). So, even if this tremble is randomized in the game (and it's pretty random IRL!), you still can -- like real life -- time when you shoot, meaning that it wouldn't be "random instead of skill" like a random-spread CoF would be. It would mirror reality closer, without having any gimmock that isn't applicable to the real shooting experience. (Again, you'd also have to add the other things that the simulation needs for a more complete depiction of the difficulty of shooting, of course -- this one change alone wouldn't fix everything.)

Again, if I had access to sufficient recording hardware & software, I could easily post a few comparison videos (real-life & in-game) to excellently demonstrate the problems & solutions of which I speak. However, since I do not possess such equipment, I suspect that nothing I say -- no amount of word exchange -- will change anyone's mind on the matter, especially if those people have never experienced real-life shooting for themselves. (Bearing in mind that even amongst those with RL shooting experience, experiences and results can differ, if only due to difference in physiques -- for example, any given recoil force is going to affect a 125-lb. person twice as much as the same force affects a 250-lb. person ... and that isn't getting into things like muscle tone & cardio-pulmonary stuff.)

Edited July 29, 2014 by Echo38

[CaptainObvious 95]

It may not be an improvement from the point of view of an arcade game player, but from a simulation point of view, my idea would be an improvement because it's a more accurate simulation of what actually goes on. In real life, you can't eliminate this tremble, nor significantly reduce it from the "static" level (that is, the level of stillness at which a minimal amount of effort --comparable to that required to stand without falling over -- keeps the weapon). However, in real life, you can decide when to shoot, and this doesn't require a long firing window, as the tremble's deviation is travelled very quickly (perhaps a fifth of a second to go from one side of the "circle" to the other). So, even if this tremble is randomized in the game (and it's pretty random IRL!), you still can -- like real life -- time when you shoot, meaning that it wouldn't be "random instead of skill" like a random-spread CoF would be. It would mirror reality closer, without having any gimmock that isn't applicable to the real shooting experience. (Again, you'd also have to add the other things that the simulation needs for a more complete depiction of the difficulty of shooting, of course -- this one change alone wouldn't fix everything.)

Again, if I had access to sufficient recording hardware & software, I could easily post a few comparison videos (real-life & in-game) to excellently demonstrate the problems & solutions of which I speak. However, since I do not possess such equipment, I suspect that nothing I say -- no amount of word exchange -- will change anyone's mind on the matter, especially if those people have never experienced real-life shooting for themselves. (Bearing in mind that even amongst those with RL shooting experience, experiences and results can differ, if only due to difference in physiques -- for example, any given recoil force is going to affect a 125-lb. person twice as much as the same force affects a 250-lb. person ... and that isn't getting into things like muscle tone & cardio-pulmonary stuff.)

I've served my time in the army, thanks.

Problem with the tremble is that you put your crosshair on target and it will stay there, even if you don't touch your mouse at all.

Besides, when you counter the current sway with your mouse,the outcome is more or less a tremble.

[Echo38 1]

I've served my time in the army, thanks.

Problem with the tremble is that you put your crosshair on target and it will stay there, even if you don't touch your mouse at all.

By definition, the tremble would make your crosshair not stay there, whether you're touching your mouse or not. Instead of staying on target, it jitters around several times per second. (By the very definition I gave in my last post ...)

Like I said, I don't think any amount of word exchange is going to convince anyone of what I say. Heck, after this post of yours ("but a tremble won't move the crosshair!"), I'm convinced that you aren't even understanding what I'm saying. (Or perhaps just not listening.)

[CaptainObvious 95]

By definition, the tremble would make your crosshair not stay there, whether you're touching your mouse or not. Instead of staying on target, it jitters around several times per second. (By the very definition I gave in my last post ...)

Like I said, I don't think any amount of word exchange is going to convince anyone of what I say. Heck, after this post of yours ("but a tremble won't move the crosshair!"), I'm convinced that you aren't even understanding what I'm saying. (Or perhaps just not listening.)

When the crosshair is jittering on the target, do you need to aim with your mouse any more? No.

It would affect only precision, not accuracy, I don't want to see that.

[NordKindchen 12]

Has anyone tried Red Orchestra 2? I found the weapon handling extremely satisfying there.

However due to regulations in my country I never came to shoot rifles myself so Iwould really like to know what people with shooting experience say about RO 2 weapon handling.

Best regards!

[deceitfulphoenix 10]

I honestly don't see why this isn't configurable, it would literally solve any and all problems. For anyone wanting the (In my opinion) ridiculous sway they're more than able and for anyone wanting to alter it to their liking they're also able. It's the best of both worlds, everyone ends up with what they consider enjoyable. Not to mention that the sway transition from SP to MP is appalling considering it's almost doubled when on a server.

[martin_lee 33]

By definition, the tremble would make your crosshair not stay there, whether you're touching your mouse or not. Instead of staying on target, it jitters around several times per second. (By the very definition I gave in my last post ...)

I think one problem with your method is that it's hard to make the tremble predictable. In real life, in my experience, at least, I can kind of "feel" the tremble, I can kind of "know" when I will be on target. It is not too hard to seize that moment and pull the trigger. This "predictability"/"feel" is something hard to translate in game if you just model the trembling part.

I think what Capt Obvious is trying to say is that when we try to align the shot, we tremble somewhere around the target. If only the tembling is modelled, we don't need to do much for the crosshair to be near our target.

That, I think, would be similar to what ArmA 2 implementation. We point to the target, don't need to do much, just wait until crosshair meets our target and click.

[dav 22]

agree, it makes shooting a bit more chllaneging and moving more tactical. brave and real game changer. hope bis can evolve it rather than lose it now.

i also hope they add blood effects on impact (to better see you are hitting the damn target, i use maos blood mod and it adds a lot of immersion) plus good ragdoll fall on impact (not just on death). and make that fall on impacxt also affect player on big hits. TPW does it and wow its soemthing else as well. then shooting enemy becomes more visceral and rewarding and taking a couple shots to kill isnt so hit n miss.

Yes Mao mod is fab. Love the way the hits are real with this mod. Bis are doing great work I hope they dont reverse the current model.

[soulis6 24]

Has anyone tried Red Orchestra 2? I found the weapon handling extremely satisfying there.

I liked the way the weapons feel in RO2, it has some great sounds and feedback, but they really badly needed either sway or more penalties for firing position or stamina exertion. I got pretty bored of the game quickly, mostly because everyone can basically just sprint around everywhere, then stop on a dime and snipe someone from across the map on the first shot, then keep on sprinting. Everyone is just way too accurate and it makes for some pretty boring/bland tactics and gameplay. You know there's some bad problems when most of the machine gunners (mg42 and others) only fire in single shot mode, like snipers but without the scope.

I think the current sway will be very good for the game in the long run. I think there are still some tweaks and adjustments to be made, and of course the addition of offical weapon resting will be much appreciated, but otherwise I think they're on the right track.

@DecietfulPheonix Making it configurable as a common setting is a (very) bad idea IMO. See my earlier post, but it would essentially split the game into two different branches. They should be able to stand by their design decision, and allow the rest of the mechanics to be supported by that.

[Echo38 1]

Making it configurable as a common setting is a (very) bad idea IMO. See my earlier post, but it would essentially split the game into two different branches. They should be able to stand by their design decision, and allow the rest of the mechanics to be supported by that.

They've already got many of the difficulty settings as options. One more wouldn't split the community up much more. By the way, it's very inconsiderate for you to suggest that I should have to play with { the option that aggravates my old hand injury } forced on. Do you also feel that restaurants shouldn't have handicapped-accessible restrooms?

[soulis6 24]

Haha ok, c'mon now, that's just ridiculous. I'm sorry you have a hand injury, but that has nothing to do with what we're talking about, and there's no realistic way that a game developer can possibly include options for injuries; there's too many and such a wide variety. A game is not a basic human need like a restroom, it's entertainment. If you find that a game hurts a hand injury, that's up to you if you find it uncomfortable enough to stop playing.

But to my main point, some might disagree with me, but I don't think fatigue and weapon sway are on the same level as difficulty options, I think it's more directly tied in with gameplay, and I don't think you can easily separate that, it has too big of an impact on the rest of the game. I also just don't think it's conductive to the overall health of the game, I feel like it's going to result in better long-term gameplay, especially with the weapon resting that's presumably coming with the marksman DLC.

[vegeta897 13]

By the way, it's very inconsiderate for you to suggest that I should have to play with { the option that aggravates my old hand injury } forced on. Do you also feel that restaurants shouldn't have handicapped-accessible restrooms?

What the hell are you talking about? Comparing game mechanics with restaurant bathrooms? Making a bathroom handicap-accessible does not split anybody. Playing Arma is not a necessary bodily function. You've taken this hand injury argument much too far. Decisions on game mechanic design should not be influenced by your inability to manipulate a mouse to a reasonable extent. What about people who only have one hand? Should we change the game to accommodate single-handed play too? "One more wouldn't split the community up much more" is a fallacy called slippery slope. Just because there are currently some difficulty options that split realism from arcade (third person and map/3d markers are about the only ones) doesn't mean adding more is okay. Arma has always had some amount of challenge in shooting weapons. This is just an increase in that challenge. It is not a change that is so radical it needs it's own option. Your hand injury (or other people's injuries) could prevent you from adapting to many different game mechanics, but that doesn't mean they should all be optional too. Designing a first person shooter that requires the ability to use a mouse without impedance is not the same as preventing your handicapped customers from being able to use the bathroom.

[Echo38 1]

Making a bathroom handicap-accessible does not split anybody.

Nor does a difficulty option. If one group likes playing with Setting X and another group dislikes playing with Setting X, then the two groups aren't going to both be happy playing on the same server with Setting X. Trying to force the two groups to play together doesn't work -- people who dislike Setting X will simply quit the game, if they aren't allowed to play on servers without Setting X turned off, so there's going to be your "split" either way. The difference is whether the second group plays on separate servers from the first group (if there's an option), or quits the game altogether (if there's no option). Which is why difficulty options exist. It's about different people having different preferences & requirements.

Decisions on game mechanic design should not be influenced by your inability to manipulate a mouse to a reasonable extent.

I have the ability to manipulate a mouse to a reasonable extent. The current workload is not a reasonable amount -- it's abnormally high. None of the other hundreds of games I've played require nearly as much mouse-hand workload as Arma 3's current aiming system. Objectively, it's approximately five times more hand workload compared to the old system and compared to the average game.

"But Arma is a sim," you might say. Then why can a soldier take two 5.56mm hits to the unarmored throat and keep firing back? (Which is at least half the problem here -- this is also making the mouse-hand workload several times more than it needs to be.) Moreover: if Arma had an accurate simulation of shooting, then it would not be hurting my hand to aim & shoot, since it doesn't hurt my hand to aim & shoot in real life. If the game mechanic is supposed to be a simulation, then an activity which is done with the hand (both in reality and in the simulation), which does not hurt my hand in reality, should not hurt my hand while using the simulation.

What about people who only have one hand? Should we change the game to accommodate single-handed play too?

If reasonably possible, then of course it should accommodate one-armed players. Why would you want it not to? I don't know how well Arma could accommodate one-armed players (with pedals, it might be doable). But we do know that Arma is easily able to accommodate playing with hand injuries such as mine, because it has done that -- until now, when they took away the low-hand-workload aiming system and forced a high-hand-workload system, with no option to switch back. Since the mechanics for accommodating my injury already existed in the last major version of Arma 3 (and since we established that giving that back to me won't reduce your server population), I can't imagine a good reason why this option should be withheld. I am a customer, too, and I do not feel that my handicap should be dismissed so quickly.

Arma has always had some amount of challenge in shooting weapons. This is just an increase in that challenge. It is not a change that is so radical it needs it's own option.

You don't call { a ~500% increase in mouse-hand workload } a radical change? Look, I can't force you to take my handicap seriously, but what I'm asking is very reasonable. When I bought Arma 3, I was fully able to play it without my old hand injury hurting me. Since then, they've changed the game mechanics in a fashion that multiplied the hand workload by several times, so that my hand now hurts while playing. All I'm asking for is an option to be able to use the old system again, a system that has a normal, reasonable hand-mouse workload, comparable to that of other games. This would be reasonable even if I didn't have any disabilities. Remember, I'm far from the only person who dislikes this drastic change in the aiming system; regardless of our reasons for disliking it, there are quite a few Arma players who don't like the new aiming.

Just because there are currently some difficulty options that split realism from arcade (third person and map/3d markers are about the only ones) doesn't mean adding more is okay.

If enough of the community dislikes the drunken weapon wave enough that they would play with it off, then it needs to be an option. Arma has always given the community lots of options for difficulty settings, because not everyone likes to play the game the same way. (Even if you disregard those of us who are physically unable to.)

Edited July 30, 2014 by Echo38

[soulis6 24]

I think you're doing it wrong. Either way, ignoring the rest of your responses, because of general inanity.

[Gutsnav 13]

The new system is actually pretty easy, especially in Dev Branch. I can accurately engage targets at almost over 1 kilometer with a mid - range scope (MRCO, the AAF one). Almost over 1 kilometer. Almost. Over. 1. Kilometer. Yes, I was laying down but I had been running around. When I'm in a crouched position I can accurately engage targets at like 700 meters. Standing is like 400 if I'm lucky, but that's pretty good.

[GShock 10]

The problem is not weaponsway or the eventual holding breath bug.

The problem here is that things have become harder and, in my opinion, more realistic and better, for the player but the AI hasn't been tuned down to accomodate the increased difficulty. This is only true for AI vs player engagements. AI vs AI is extremely poor and the result is that in order to complete a showcase you must kill dozens whereas your entire team is regularly obliterated. All of them don't make 1/5th of your kills.

I think the weaponsway and hold breath are ok. In some cases the holding breath seems not to work at all. The problem is that the AI doesn't really care. We're down to engagements at 200 meters and more where the AI can hit you easy with this swaying without zoomed optics. That is really lame and makes the game unplayable since you, on the other side, are forced to do the same WITH the harder system.

I agree, this is a gamechanger (and a good one) but it needs to be better implemented with the AI. The 3 infantry-based showcase missions (Infantry, Combined Arms and Armed Assalult should be revised in view of the increased difficulty).

[-Coulum- 35]

The new system is actually pretty easy, especially in Dev Branch. I can accurately engage targets at almost over 1 kilometer with a mid - range scope (MRCO, the AAF one). Almost over 1 kilometer. Almost. Over. 1. Kilometer. Yes, I was laying down but I had been running around. When I'm in a crouched position I can accurately engage targets at like 700 meters. Standing is like 400 if I'm lucky, but that's pretty good.

Yep, that's pretty much my feelings. I personally want it to be harder to achieve more realistic results. But I guess if a compromise had to be made, it would be good enough how it is now. I hope BI doesn't compromise.The difficulty 1.24 brought was great and it really changed the way you had to engage in combat. The devbranch, meh, it makes combat a bit longer and harder, but it isn't the same game changer that makes an entirely new and unique form of FPS combat.

Echo38, I am sorry, but I don't consider any arguments that include your hand as a reason why XYZ should change are valid.

not everyone likes to play the game the same way.

Correct. But since when is BI obligated to make changes for every single persons desires. I know we all want that to be the case (me included), but you must understand when so many people disagree with you because your preference is based on reasoning very personal to you. Its why we have mods. There are at least one that can help you in your current situation. Use it. Sorry if I come across as overly curt.

Edited July 30, 2014 by -Coulum-