Arma 3: Community wishes & ideas- DISCUSSION

[onlyrazor 11]

I think heavy weapons should turn slower even if floating zone is reduced to 0 (maybe to the same extend as if floating zone would be set to max). This would make heavyer weapons less useful in CQC since they would take just a little bit longer to get aimed at.

Additionally if looking trough the ironsights of a heavy weapon this should limit the turning speed accordingly.

I agree with pretty much everything you just said

[AviPure 1]

I hope people realize that the main character in the game is British, and Blufor is NATO, not US Military. At the moment there is NOTHING British in the item suggestion part. Actually there's hardly anything NATO in that full stop.

[antoineflemming 14]

But the U.S. is a member of NATO, so to suggest U.S. items is to suggest SOME NATO items. Not all, but some. NATO does use a lot of U.S. technology. Yes the main character is British. But that doesn't mean that NATO in ArmA 3 is essentially a UK faction. The main rifles used aren't even U.S. or British weapons, but Belgian FN F2000s. If you want there to be more British suggestions, then ask some British ArmA fans to make some suggestions. My only problem with the character models is that ALL the gear we've seen from screenshots has had U.S. flags only. No UK flags at least. And only U.S. helmets, No UK helmets.

Edited December 10, 2011 by antoineflemming

[onlyrazor 11]

Even the SAS use C7 rifles, which are licensed copies of the M16 series by Canadian manufacturers. The reason most assault rifles use either 5.56 or 7.62 NATO is because NATO suggested it. That's just how it is.

[antoineflemming 14]

AviPure, I get the sense that you are strongly pro-British, am I wrong? There's nothing wrong with that, but just know that just because there's nothing glaringly British doesn't mean that the UK is being slighted in the game. Previous ArmA games have had US and UK focused factions. ArmA 3 is taking a bigger picture and taking NATO as a whole. Really, we should be seeing French and German stuff as well, and that from other nations. But seeing as how the US, Canada, and UK are about the only NATO members not invaded by 2035, it'd probably be only their stuff being used.

[Maio 293]

I hope people realize that the main character in the game is British, and Blufor is NATO, not US Military. At the moment there is NOTHING British in the item suggestion part. Actually there's hardly anything NATO in that full stop.

There are plenty of items on the weapons and vehicles list's that are usually used by western/NATO forces.

Plus it's the year 2035, maybe by then due to the war weapon systems became standardized across all NATO member states.

[BelgarionNL 10]

its 2035 so everything could have happened! they could either use US weapons because europe is almost conquered or NATO is using european tech because they are closer to the island!

as long as there is some cool stuff in there i am very happy! and hopefully user created content is better implemented online( automatic mod downloader )

[GepardenK 0]

I think heavy weapons should turn slower even if floating zone is reduced to 0 (maybe to the same extend as if floating zone would be set to max). This would make heavyer weapons less useful in CQC since they would take just a little bit longer to get aimed at.

Additionally if looking trough the ironsights of a heavy weapon this should limit the turning speed accordingly.

Personally I belive BIS should get ridd of the crosshair for no ironsight, and not even have it as an option. Yes, it's an nostalogic OPF thing and kind of cute; but it's also a red herring for newer players that kind of puts them in the wrong mindset for Arma. This would aslo solve the heavy weapon CQC problem if we follow your idea and makes ironsight for those guns slower. MP would be more balanced as well. And hipfire should produce more recoil (you are not steadying the gun properly after all), but they must still of course keep that lovely float zone and allow directional blind fire.

Edited December 11, 2011 by GepardenK

[JSj 12]

Yes, the crosshair needs to go. Yes, you can turn it off, but just the fact that it exists detracts a lot from the realism of Arma, and makes it feel more of an arcade game. Also, even if turned off it is needed for some heavy weapons. These need to get real sights instead, like the iron sights for the light weapons.

But, there's no hip fire, look at yourself in third person view while not using the iron sights. The gun is clerly not held at the hip, but high at the shoulder.

Edited December 11, 2011 by Johan S

[kylania 568]

Yes, the crosshair needs to go. Yes, you can turn it off, but just the fact that it exists detracts a lot from the realism of Arma, and makes it feel more of an arcade game.

People wanting to play ArmA like BF or CoD with rounds and zones and deathmatch nonsense detracts more from the realism and makes ArmA feel more like an arcade game far more than a few newbies using a crosshair ever will. Even the idea of using weapons "from the hip" (and expecting accuracy) or heavy weapons in CQC is ridiculous.

[GepardenK 0]

People wanting to play ArmA like BF or CoD with rounds and zones and deathmatch nonsense detracts more from the realism and makes ArmA feel more like an arcade game far more than a few newbies using a crosshair ever will. Even the idea of using weapons "from the hip" (and expecting accuracy) or heavy weapons in CQC is ridiculous.

The idea of using weapons "from the hip" and expecting accuarcy is sadly not ridiculous, in all Arma games including OPF the weapons are actually very accurate when shooting from the hip. And when you are using crosshair its easy to aim like that as well. There is no question that increasing recoil and/or bullet spread is needed for this type of shooting.

And crosshair needs to go. It's not about making the game less arcadey or any such BS. It's about helping new players ease into the style of play better by not offering red herrings, stuff like that (maybe suprisingly) really confuse people because they start to play around with the feature from day 1 since its right in their face. Scanning the treeline with your view zoomed in and using crosshair feels like clunky simulation, scanning the treeline with ironsighs feels like real war.

[iratus 71]

The idea of using weapons "from the hip" and expecting accuarcy is sadly not ridiculous, in all Arma games including OPF the weapons are actually very accurate when shooting from the hip. And when you are using crosshair its easy to aim like that as well. There is no question that increasing recoil and/or bullet spread is needed for this type of shooting.

The point is: there is no firing from the hip in ArmA. If f you do not look down the ironsights your weapon is still on your shoulder, not down at the hip. You just dont look into the ironsights. Because of that the bullets will not spray more than when firing and using the ironsights. This should stay as it is.

IMO the whole "too acurate when not using sights"-problem does not come fron the acuracy of the fire itself. Its more about being able to aim verry precise. If crosshairs are disabled most people wont fire without using sights for more than about 50m and even use them for closer ranges if the time is aviable. And if floating zone is not 0 using the sights becomes even more necessary.

btw: was it possible in OPF:CWC and ArmA1 to turn down the floating zone to 0? I allways had it activated back then and allso remember to have adjusted it a bit. But i do not remember if it could be set to no floating zone like in ArmA2.

[Pulverizer 1]

No there's no hipfire but it might as well be called that because the unsighted, unsupported, shouldered aiming is superhumanly steady and perfectly aligned and causes zero fatigue of arms etc.

[stilpu 0]

@Iratus, ArmA1 - yes, OFP - no.

[GepardenK 0]

No there's no hipfire but it might as well be called that because the unsighted, unsupported, shouldered aiming is superhumanly steady and perfectly aligned and causes zero fatigue of arms etc.

^this

We may as well call it "hipfire" for lack of a better word. The bottom line is that its way to easy to fire fast and precicely over long ranges with the crosshair/hipfire combo. Arma need less of this to make tactics and better movement through terrain count more in combat, and also to make CQC have a place. So get ridd of crosshair, even the option for it, and increase "hipfire" recoil!

This is not about making the game more hardcore or anything. This is about Arma having a more focused design on what it's good at. Red orchestra 2 has no crosshair and insane hipfire recoil, and it is a much more newbie friendly game than Arma. So stuff like this will not scare people away, on the contrary: It will make new player "get" what arma is all about faster, and thats the first step to enjoying it :)

Edited December 11, 2011 by GepardenK

[iratus 71]

We may as well call it "hipfire" for lack of a better word.

I felt the need to point this out because when discusing things like this it's useful to use a correct description/wording. Otherwise people are not argumenting about the same thing and the whole discussion is somewhat pointless. And there is no doubt a huge difference between shooting a rifle from the hip or shooting it from the shoulder.

Anyways: The core of the problem lies in the aiming. You can fire that acurate while not using ironsights because you have onscreen crosshairs. If the crosshairs would be removed (maybe just turn them off by default for every dificulty level) we would no longer be able to shoot at 300m without using sights. Add a floating zone wich cannot be set to 0 and those "Ãœber-accuracy" problems are gone.

BTW if i remember it correctly those guys in Red Orchestra 2 actually are firing from the hip, wich explains why they cannot handle their weapons as precise as when firing aimed.

[Egosa-U 10]

Imho the biggest problem of the current setting is:

• The actual "noaim"-firing-view provides overview of terrain with the possibility to make aimed shots without looking along the barrel, thus hipfire/armpit-fire.
  
• Aimed firing takes up a lot of FOV
  
• 4x+Scopes leave a lot of black screen areas (BSA)
  

The aiming should be more, for example:

1. Lowered gun by default, running possible
   
2. No more armpit-view
   
3. pressing optics-button once and short should raise gun to shoulder with optics in view (Looking along the barrel with more FOV), walking is standard, running returns gun to 1.)
   
4. Something like "holding optics-button" makes Player look deeper into scope/nearer to sights"
   
5. pressing optics-button once and short again, should return to 3.)
   
6. pressing optics-button once and short again, should return to 1.)
   

EDIT: To point 3: Looking through sniper-scope should be like: Surrounding visible, view through scope blurred. The more you get nearer with eye to scope, the clearer the view of the scope and the more blurred the surrounding gets.

Edited December 12, 2011 by Egosa-U

[nodunit 397]

No there's no hipfire but it might as well be called that because the unsighted, unsupported, shouldered aiming is superhumanly steady and perfectly aligned and causes zero fatigue of arms etc.

How about Fire from the shoulder.

[Pulverizer 1]

No. That wouldn't differentiate it from normal shooting. I think "unaimed shooting" would be a much more descriptive term for example.

[antoineflemming 14]

Don't bother wasting time and money on atmospheric musical scores.

Fair enough have usable radios in vehicles.

I'd much rather hear the natural resonance of a dense forest than bizarre over dubbed action music.

I still don't understand why you people immediately equate atmospheric, or orchestral, or symphonic music with bizarre, overbearing, hollywood action music. Is COD music the only atmospheric music you've heard? I mean, your comment is completely irrational. Atmospheric shouldn't even BE bizarre or overdubbed. Orchestra or symphony are merely the means by which you record or produce the music. Just like a synthesizer is the way Ondrej records his music.It's not like COD has created this new genre of music that signifies hollywood. And atmospheric music would be the BEST kind of music for the game. And you know what? BIS even including this special option just for people like you: an option to change the volume of the music. So if you don't want to listen to music while you play, or if you want to listen to your own music, you can turn the music volume to zero. A win-win situation for everyone, especially since the forest resonance would be tied to effect, not music.

[JSj 12]

Don't bother wasting time and money on atmospheric musical scores.

Fair enough have usable radios in vehicles.

I'd much rather hear the natural resonance of a dense forest than bizarre over dubbed action music.

Agreed. Music have no place in Arma, which is more of a simulation than a game. Are you running around listening to your ipod instead of paying attention to the vital sounds around you on the battlefield, or is there a military marching band following you around?

Better that BIS would spend their time and resources on further improving the game sounds.

[antoineflemming 14]

I'd be fine with no music. The thing is, ArmA 3 most likely WILL have music. So, if it's going to have music, I'd rather it be done with an orchestra so that the music can be as "atmospheric" as possible. In other words, so that it isn't bizarre, so that it doesn't stand out, and so that if need be it can complement the environment and capture the atmosphere. I play with the music turned off anyway. And a military marching band doesn't sound the same as orchestra music that is often soft and ambient. Ambient music would be the best kind of music, actually. It's generally soft, one continual sound, so it's not action or overbearing. It's meant to complement ambient effects. And, just because you have music playing doesn't mean you can't pay attention to other vital sounds.

[wolfbite 8]

I'm just gonna add in being able to give vehicles skeletons or be able to be fully animated ( so we can make mechs) No need to include a unit.. just the ability to give modders the chance..

Oooh and whilst I'm at it... If the developers could add in a mod making for dummies guiede to help people getting into modding. These forums are awesome and people are very helpfull.. but its still extremely difficult to get all the info you need to develop a full mod.

Edited December 15, 2011 by wolfbite

[GepardenK 0]

What about low-key ambient music that occasinaly play during long silent moments of walking through the forest? It would slowly fade inn so you don't even notice its there in the beginning. Of course, it wouldn't play all the time, so you'll have plenty of moments to enjoy birds singing and wind blowing as well.

If shooting starts while it is playing, the music will aslo slowly fade. But it would do so well into the battle so you can't use it as a cue for being spotted or not

[purepassion 22]

Here is a suggestion for the OPFOR fighter jet:

SUKHOI SU-50 FIREFOX

The SUKHOI SU-50 serves as replacement of the SU-34 (in armaverse :p) and opponent of the NATO X-35B fighter jet.

Do you think that sounds nice?

Edited December 18, 2011 by PurePassion
ahh... eeehhm... well... SU-50 is the fictional Arma 3 name! :P