Weapon Resting & Deployment Feedback

[bad benson 1733]

I don't know if it would really be confusing at all with an icon, though. Icon disappears: You're not rested anymore. Icon reappears: You're rested again.

i was talking about the fact that an icon (or similar) would be needed even more, if it would be more unforgiving, which in my opinion it needs to be, if they want it to be realistic. you misunderstood. i meant the opposite ;)

i too prefer auto resting over a button. much like in i44 and my personal resting mod i played with. ironically the fact that modders had to handle resting via animations prevented some of the problems the current system has. such as checking contact per anim change (that's how i did it, no idea how others did). that way it would reset always when it made sense since turning has an animation too. (except for turning in adjust stances which is th reason i dropped that project :D)

i agree that auto feels more natural. but my point was that the way you can rest on walls and the way it is forgiving now, it would work much better/balanced with it having to be manually triggered. if it would be very accurate and convincing in how it detects and how contact is broken, then auto resting would be fine, but i'm talking about the entire picture here. in reality it requires more than gravity to "rest" you weapon on a corner. then we're really talking more about deployment. it's all a matter of design balance. weighing of pros and cons of an approach and finding the one that has fewest logical/balance problems.

the current system does one thing well but the rest is lacking. it's just too simplistic to treat every rest the same way, no matter the angle of the surface.

If for whatever reason they're not prepared to do the extra calculation required to make side-resting only useful when it really ought to be I'd be in favour of removing it altogether (vs leaving it as-is).

a bit harsh but since i don't see them adding a more complex system for it, i'd agree on that.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Bad Benson

[machineabuse 11]

I'm finding auto works fine. I do however agree with the other users who think that better feedback is needed for the state of being in a weapon rested position. For the most part if I am always consciously looking out for things to rest my weapon on it seems fine but when thinks heat up and I start to lose fine motor control under stress I find myself squidging myself around objects struggling to find a good position not knowing if the shot I'm about to fire is as good as it's going to get.

With VTS there is no such ambiguity. I don't think the design itself NEEDS a HUD element per se, but the overall reliability of proximity detection currently in game kind of necessitates it. That kind of comes with the territory of oddly shaped rocks and ethereal guard rails :)

Credit where credit is due though I got to say that the values feel pretty spot on. I had a little bit of an internal debate on whether or not the degree of stabilization would be useful to have indicated but I think that should be more a factor of the time a player spends getting a good shooting position. But for the time you need to go to ground, dig your elbows into the dirt and press a shot in haste yes better clarity for that would be good.

Personally it would be nice if I could hold a key down to force my player avatar to stay in the weapon-rested state. Some of the frustration is when you are tracking a moving target as they move and right as you want to fire your shot you move your weapon out of the weapon resting boundary and you only realize after the fact you aren't doing what you thought you were doing. That's a failure to translate player intent.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

No. A fix to this issue, is actually quite simple. It should work a little bit like this.

Walk up, rest your weapon. Aim. Your rested.

Aiming more than 30 degrees automatically un rests you, even though your still in that resting zone.

Aiming anywhere else, even where you were aiming first, won't re rest you.

You must now stand up, and go back crouched in the direction you turned to engage, in order to rest again.

Aiming more than 30 degrees will now unrest you again.

[Healbeam 10]

No. A fix to this issue, is actually quite simple. It should work a little bit like this.

Walk up, rest your weapon. Aim. Your rested.

Aiming more than 30 degrees automatically un rests you, even though your still in that resting zone.

Aiming anywhere else, even where you were aiming first, won't re rest you.

You must now stand up, and go back crouched in the direction you turned to engage, in order to rest again.

Aiming more than 30 degrees will now unrest you again.

This sounds like the thing that would really annoy me when playing. Imagine you are at one of these tiny stone walls (well, let's just pretend weapon resting worked on them), dug in, resting your weapon on it and fighting. Now, you hear something behind you, turn around expecting a flanking enemy just to see a rabbit scampering around (let's also pretend rabbits made noise in ArmA). You want to go back to fighting your enemy, but your weapon won't rest! Great, now you have to stand up and expose yourself to get it rested again!

I think it really is fine the way it is now. It is reliable, it isn't instant (it takes about two seconds until your weapon is fully rested), it doesn't annoy you, it just works. All I think is needed is an indicator and I'm happy.

Regarding the dot-below-the-crosshair-idea, I don't think this would be the right option, because many people play without crosshairs and the crosshair itself shows you that you are rested by getting significantly smaller.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

This sounds like the thing that would really annoy me when playing. Imagine you are at one of these tiny stone walls (well, let's just pretend weapon resting worked on them), dug in, resting your weapon on it and fighting. Now, you hear something behind you, turn around expecting a flanking enemy just to see a rabbit scampering around (let's also pretend rabbits made noise in ArmA). You want to go back to fighting your enemy, but your weapon won't rest! Great, now you have to stand up and expose yourself to get it rested again!

I think it really is fine the way it is now. It is reliable, it isn't instant (it takes about two seconds until your weapon is fully rested), it doesn't annoy you, it just works. All I think is needed is an indicator and I'm happy.

Regarding the dot-below-the-crosshair-idea, I don't think this would be the right option, because many people play without crosshairs and the crosshair itself shows you that you are rested by getting significantly smaller.

If I'm not mistaken, the crosshairs actually gets Crazy small when resting. Small than it is whe. Your not rested. But then think about those playing realism style gameplay, with no HUD at all. This is the kind of gameplay I like the most, so then what would be needed for me to know I'm resting? To be honest, the smallest, most subtle nudge of the screen works fine for me. I agree, it's fine the way it is, but it just needs kinda like, a few adjustments. Without notification, as of now, it's easy to tell is my weapon is resting, because my aiming is very steady.

[machineabuse 11]

I would like to add a community reminder to test these features in missions and not just muck around in the editor. When you have more in your head to mind than the feature at hand you are intent on testing usability of said feature changes dramatically.

[royaltyinexile 175]

Walk up, rest your weapon. Aim. Your rested.

Aiming more than 30 degrees automatically un rests you, even though your still in that resting zone.

Aiming anywhere else, even where you were aiming first, won't re rest you.

You must now stand up, and go back crouched in the direction you turned to engage, in order to rest again.

Aiming more than 30 degrees will now unrest you again.

That approach begins to touch upon the idea of Weapon Deployment, where rotation around a pivot is possible, but exceeding certain limits could 'undeploy' you, and you must elect to deploy once again.

The idea of forcing players to 'reset' resting by changing stance is interesting in principle but, ultimately, could lead to frustration (if you're under fire, the last thing you'd want to do is be forced to stand up to regain the possibility to rest).

Best,

RiE

Edited February 23, 2015 by RoyaltyinExile

[Sniperwolf572 758]

That approach is begins to touch upon the idea of Weapon Deployment, where rotation around a pivot is possible, but exceeding certain limits could 'undeploy' you, and you must elect to deploy once again.

The idea of forcing players to 'reset' resting by changing stance is interesting in principle but, ultimately, could lead to frustration (if you're under fire, the last thing you'd want to do is be forced to stand up to regain the possibility to rest).

Best,

RiE

Simple solution is to determine the "force" of the movement and reduce the benefits by a factor of it and the duration of movement. When the gun is steady, return the benefits.

For example, imagine you have a situation in that video, where restable surfaces are all around you. If you move slow and steady, you lose benefits slowly until you lose them completely, and if you stop moving you regain in a certain amount of time.

So, if you rotate slowly around an axis where everything is providing you cover, continuous movement would result in you losing the benefits after a few seconds of moving instead of keeping it at all times. If you do it fast, you lose them instantly.

Similar logic as with the inertia you applied to the camera, except for the resting benefits, and it's no longer a vector but a float.

[royaltyinexile 175]

Simple solution is to determine the "force" of the movement and reduce the benefits by a factor of it and the duration of movement. When the gun is steady, return the benefits.

For example, imagine you have a situation in that video, where restable surfaces are all around you. If you move slow and steady, you lose benefits slowly until you lose them completely, and if you stop moving you regain in a certain amount of time.

So, if you rotate slowly around an axis where everything is providing you cover, continuous movement would result in you losing the benefits after a few seconds of moving instead of keeping it at all times. If you do it fast, you lose them instantly.

Yes, that would be consistent with the general approach to Weapon Inertia, an extension of this approach could be to link weapon type / 'dexterity' to some rotation/resting threshold. However, we might ask how intuitive such additional mechanics would feel, and whether the penalty applied via Inertia would be satisfactory in and of itself in terms of creating a similar output.

We might also argue that resting as a physical action doesn't map directly to the proposed mechanics. One may 'brace' the weapon to a surface and turn with relative ease; on the other hand, that might be closer in principle to deployment, and we could think about resting as something suited to more static aiming benefits (and deployment as beneficial to pivoting).

In that case, relative to deployment, your proposal could offer a nice differentiation between the advantages of deployment vs resting, which tie back into some of the inherent disadvantages of deployment (e.g., longer to activate). Thanks for the feedback!

[laxemann 1673]

Just another thought, I guess that we'll be able to get a button for deploying bipods, right?

Many guys are eager to see a more "static" approach to weapon resting, so why not "hardrest" it with the deployment button when no bipod is attached?

You'd have the benefit of an even steadier aim and (as far as I read this) your body following your aim/staying within concealment.

[royaltyinexile 175]

Many guys are eager to see a more "static" approach to weapon resting, so why not "hardrest" it with the deployment button when no bipod is attached?

Currently, Weapon Deployment is not planned to be dependent upon attachments; rather, bipods offer additional handling / stability advantages.

[Brisse 78]

That means weapon deployment is something that can be used for every weapon, not only those with bipods?

[Sniperwolf572 758]

Yes, that would be consistent with the general approach to Weapon Inertia, an extension of this approach could be to link weapon type / 'dexterity' to some rotation/resting threshold. However, we might ask how intuitive such additional mechanics would feel, and whether the penalty applied via Inertia would be satisfactory in and of itself in terms of creating a similar output.

We might also argue that resting as a physical action doesn't map directly to the proposed mechanics. One may 'brace' the weapon to a surface and turn with relative ease; on the other hand, that might be closer in principle to deployment, and we could think about resting as something suited to more static aiming benefits (and deployment as beneficial to pivoting).

In that case, relative to deployment, your proposal could offer a nice differentiation between the advantages of deployment vs resting, which tie back into some of the inherent disadvantages of deployment (e.g., longer to activate). Thanks for the feedback!

Good argument, I can probably see that recoil reduction could stay in it's "rested" state, but sway reduction would be denied. My initial thinking was that all benefits are affected, only the "value" of it is decreased the longer you are not stationary. For example, let's assume variable "restEffect" to be at 1 when resting is fully active and 0 when it's inactive.

For the sake of the argument, imaginary numbers below.

Moving a few degrees, fast, (high force - short time) would bring the value to around 0.5 and then it would start to go climb back to 1 after you've stopped and are being still or moving slowly.

Moving a lot of degrees, fast, would bring the value to 0, effectively removing the resting state, but when you stop, it climbs back to 1 again.

Moving a few degrees, slowly, would barely bring about any change to the number, maybe 0.85 or something.

Moving a lot of degrees, slowly, would eventually get you to 0, but it would be slowly deteriorating over the course of your movement.

As you can see, the "more intense" the action, the more severe the consequences on your rest state.

Either way, I believe there are more severe issues with the resting currently than this is.

Currently, Weapon Deployment is not planned to be dependent upon attachments; rather, bipods offer additional handling / stability advantages.

So, if I'm understanding this, regular MX can be deployed? If so, I'd certainly make resting provide much less benefits than it currently is.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Sniperwolf572

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

I was thinking, if one has a foregrip, the ability to pivot via. the hand holding the foregrip. In other words, i'm holding a gun, i take my left hand with the foregrip, and place it firmly on a surface for the same kinda feel as the Bipod. Would that be a possibility? Or is deployment only set to Bipods. It would be interesting if one could deply their weapon without bipods, but with less of a pivot, slightly less accurate. Referring to resting again though, it's a little difficult finding a perfect solution to balancing it against certain behavior. But the best solution was the one after my suggestion, where moving your weapon more than a respectable mount would loose accuracy reward for a short time, as you can't actually nudge your weapon 45 degrees while rested and remain rested, rather, lift your weapon, and place it in that direction. So having the accuracy reward rest, and steady after a few seconds, sounds about right, but moving it slowly, does not interrupt the rest.

[royaltyinexile 175]

That means weapon deployment is something that can be used for every weapon, not only those with bipods?

So, if I'm understanding this, regular MX can be deployed? If so, I'd certainly make resting provide much less benefits than it currently is.

That's the plan. Attachments like bipods help, but, physically, one can create a point of rotation in any given circumstance (currently limited to a horizontal plane for technical reasons).

I don't recall if we've explicitly confirmed / denied that previously, but I reckon that information is useful/relevant in terms of framing the feedback to Resting now.

As we've said before, Deployment needs a few more weeks in the oven to finish off.

[good stuff]

Thanks - nice illustration of your points.

Either way, I believe there are more severe issues with the resting currently than this is

I must have missed a page or two of feedback.

Interesting points. Resting in this context isn't intended to model a fulcrum; rather, it's more about the shooter bracing himself against a stable surface. As mentioned above, we may, for technical reasons, not implement deployment on a vertical plane, but this would be closer to the point you're making.

Obviously we're limited by feedback/animations - you're not literally leaning against the wall - but the implementation goes some way towards modelling what you might choose to do in reality.

[bad benson 1733]

So, if I'm understanding this, regular MX can be deployed? If so, I'd certainly make resting provide much less benefits than it currently is.

That's the plan. Attachments like bipods help, but, physically, one can create a point of rotation in any given circumstance (currently limited to a horizontal plane for technical reasons).

oh that's awesome! does that apply to resting on vertical surfaces aka side resting too? if so, i think one could really either remove or severally nerf the side resting without deployment like Defunkt suggested. that could also solve some of those problems illustrated in that video, if Sniperwolf is right about the side detection causing the constant resting when turning. it's just a bit much to passively rest on walls and corners not even from a realism but also gameplay perspective. why would you even bother deploying your weapon, if you get such steady aim from just being around stuff, which happens a lot anyways. so worst case could be that one feature makes the other obsolete.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Bad Benson

[roshnak 41]

Currently, Weapon Deployment is not planned to be dependent upon attachments; rather, bipods offer additional handling / stability advantages.

That's interesting. Since weapon resting already adds so much stability, and I'm assuming that deployment will add even more, I'm wondering how much more stability could be added by bipods.

[Sniperwolf572 758]

Interesting points. Resting in this context isn't intended to model a fulcrum; rather, it's more about the shooter bracing himself against a stable surface. As mentioned above, we may, for technical reasons, not implement deployment on a vertical plane, but this would be closer to the point you're making.

Obviously we're limited by feedback/animations - you're not literally leaning against the wall - but the implementation goes some way towards modelling what you might choose to do in reality.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I've only used the fulcrum as an example/argument why resting should be available when your weapon is next to a vertical surface but you aren't. And I'm not considering animations of course, merely analyzing the feature as is.

As bad benson said, if it stays like this where any point of a vertical surface is restable, the feature, in my opinion becomes overly "exploity", for lack of a better word and other features lose legitimacy. My argument is that only thing needed to counter fatigue or sway would be any kind of vertical surface, no matter it's length or your point against it. Middle of a broad side of the barn becomes a tactical advantage in regards to weapon stability as much as a chest high wall, a table, a window sill. Free weapon resting is available at any point. Long hallway is stable central merely if you stop moving. Etc.

[twisted 127]

When RIE mentions horizontal planes is he meaning the plane of support or the plane the weapon moves in. I guess the latter, but then how to accommodate distance where you'd normally angle your rifles for a higher trajectory?

Edited February 24, 2015 by twisted

[GottyPlays 10]

amazing work so far...reading the comments it seems that guys want too many things

for me it's ok as it is apart from the instant reduction when resting

when i hear people talk about "pivoting" and actually having the gun phisically on something it reminded me of an anciant game that had all of this realism.

turns out it took 15 minutes to be able to shoot at something :

go at : 10m 50s

guys, remember that many prefer to have fun in a credible way, realism is not fun, and realism and credible are two differnt words ;)

[Sniperwolf572 758]

When RIE mentions horizontal planes is he meaning the plane of support or the plane the weapon moves in. I guess the latter, but then how to accommodate distance where you'd normally angle your rifles for a higher trajectory?

I believe he means the pivot point for horizontal weapon rotation will change to where "bipod" is when you're deployed, but vertical weapon rotation is still going to be in your shoulder.

Fingers crossed it's not going to end up awkward looking, but probably is. For horizontal weapon rotation when deployed, they can just slide you around, but vertical would require animations so it looks appropriate, and you know what that means.

[bad benson 1733]

Fingers crossed it's not going to end up awkward looking, but probably is. For horizontal weapon rotation when deployed, they can just slide you around, but vertical would require animations so it looks appropriate, and you know what that means.

i was really hoping for a proper IK based solution for both axis. but sure doesn't sound like it :(

[royaltyinexile 175]

I believe he means the pivot point for horizontal weapon rotation will change to where "bipod" is when you're deployed, but vertical weapon rotation is still going to be in your shoulder.

To clarify, my point was that Deployment (and pivot-point rotation) on a horizontal surface (i.e., braced on top of a low wall) is planned / splendid-in-progress / should be released to Dev-Branch, etc.

However, Vertical (i.e., braced against the wall at the corner of a building) is not at all certain / guaranteed for a number of technical / schedule reasons. Therefore, the (existing, Dev-Branched) Resting when 'leaning against a wall', may be the fullest extent of ('vertical') weapon stabilisation in Marksmen DLC.

However, currently the scope of this thread is feedback regarding Resting only, so don't let me interfere with that! :)

Best,

RiE

[OMAC 254]

I have written before that I think the current resting system is good, but needs some tweaking and an indicator. However, I prefer the active system in VTS and IFL44, meaning that you have to hit ctrl+space (or some other combo) when near a potentially usable resting surface, since resting your weapon is an active process IRL that requires a choice on the part of the soldier. Should I rest or not? This choice has a price, as it takes a second or two to rest, resting reduces the field of fire temporarily, and you can't rotate your weapon as fast to aim at a target behind you or to the side of you. It takes about a 1-1.5 seconds to unrest your weapon to rotate quickly (depending on its weight and your fatigue), plus a stutter and temporary weapon sway, which could result in death if an enemy suddenly appears behind or to the side of you.

Here is a quick video of VTS Weapon Rest usage in Arma 3 which I hope will provide a basis for comparison with A3 systems under development. VTS isn't perfect, but is damn good for a beta mod, and adds immeasurable gameplay benefit and realism (I never play without it, and it's the only mod I use). Anything to reduce weapon sway while aiming is a good thing. One main problem is that the weapon remains rested/stabilized too long when player rotates horizontally away from aim point when resting on the hood of a car.

However, I realize that BI will also implement weapon deployment (bipods, etc.), and is reserving the active keypress for that, I assume. This is good for weapons that have bipods (or does "deployment" also involve an active resting of weapons without bipods? [perhaps so?]) Is the idea to have passive resting for any weapon (like we have now), and add a key combo to deploy a weapon (creating fulcrum) for any weapon? If so, that sounds perfect. Resting would not need an audio indicator if deployment has one. I think that resting and deployment can really only be fully tested when both are implemented, as they are obviously related. Resting indicators (audio/visual/icon/stance indicator/crosshair) cannot really be considered properly unless we know what the deployment indicators (if any) will be.

Could a weapon without a bipod be rested and/or deployed on the ground when prone? I would check the resting myself, but I'm on 1.40 RC branch for now.

[R3vo 2652]

I have written before that I think the current resting system is good, but needs some tweaking and an indicator. However, I prefer the active system in VTS and IFL44, meaning that you have to hit ctrl+space (or some other combo) when near a potentially usable resting surface, since resting your weapon is an active process IRL that requires a choice on the part of the soldier. Should I rest or not? This choice has a price, as it takes a second or two to rest, resting reduces the field of fire temporarily, and you can't rotate your weapon as fast to aim at a target behind you or to the side of you. It takes about a 1-1.5 seconds to unrest your weapon to rotate quickly (depending on its weight and your fatigue), plus a stutter and temporary weapon sway, which could result in death if an enemy suddenly appears behind or to the side of you.

Here is a quick video of VTS Weapon Rest usage in Arma 3 which I hope will provide a basis for comparison with A3 systems under development. VTS isn't perfect, but is damn good for a beta mod, and adds immeasurable gameplay benefit and realism (I never play without it, and it's the only mod I use). Anything to reduce weapon sway while aiming is a good thing. One main problem is that the weapon remains rested/stabilized too long when player rotates horizontally away from aim point when resting on the hood of a car.

However, I realize that BI will also implement weapon deployment (bipods, etc.), and is reserving the active keypress for that, I assume. This is good for weapons that have bipods (or does "deployment" also involve an active resting of weapons without bipods? [perhaps so?]) Is the idea to have passive resting for any weapon (like we have now), and add a key combo to deploy a weapon (creating fulcrum) for any weapon? If so, that sounds perfect. Resting would not need an audio indicator if deployment has one. I think that resting and deployment can really only be fully tested when both are implemented, as they are obviously related. Resting indicators (audio/visual/icon/stance indicator/crosshair) cannot really be considered properly unless we know what the deployment indicators (if any) will be.

Could a weapon without a bipod be rested and/or deployed on the ground when prone? I would check the resting myself, but I'm on 1.40 RC branch for now.

I completely disagree about that "Press key to rest requirement". We already have more than enough keys to press and I can't stand another crtl+shift+esc+enter+(hold E 3,51123sec) to rest combo.

Players should have the option to disable/enable "Key press for resting" within the control menu.

I also disagree about the deployment indicator. The bipods should be animated, and if the player can successfully deploy his weapon, the bipod should simply unfold and that animation should be used as indicator.