Arma 3: Community wishes & ideas- DISCUSSION

[PuFu 4591]

The very definition of "condensed" means "elimination of volume without loss of mass." So yes, creating a condensed control preset means exactly that. What I think you're trying to say is that condensed controls aren't necessarily better, and that's technically correct. In the case of my idea however I think I've found a great way to make controlling your highly realistic soldier as easy as possible. I wouldn't complain if someone suggested a better and different idea from mine however.

Condensed also means compacted, and in this case compacting the most used keys around the hand that sits on the keyboard. Hell, it might mean collapsing certain keys into fewer ones, such as stances, or gear and weapon elements and functions (bear in mind that arma already supports control keys (ctrl/alt/shift + key, as well as double tap versus single tap. It doesn't know long press versus tap afaik).

You should be able to use the map to select your units. You should also be allowed to use a drag/drop box. Even without the map, you should be able to select your units no matter how far away on screen. And when we're talking about controls, we should be talking about how to make them easy for the player to use. The less you have to "exercise" in order to use controls, the better they are.

Yes, of course you should.

There's nothing complicated about pressing one button in place of two actually. I believe pressing q and e to be just as intuitive, but what I'm suggesting is better because it allows those keys to be used more effectively, while at the same giving you a key that is just as intuitive to use while at the same time giving you analog leaning where previously you would lean all the way left or right. Now your able to lean as much or as little as you want which is much more useful for obvious reasons.

What you are suggesting is in fact pressing CAPS + drag mouse to lean, and while holding CAPS to have a lean stance, to press ALT and drag mouse to aim vertically and horizontaly. It is way to complicated. So you end up with a worse implementation, and one that takes way more to perform than the current non-analog one, where the mouse is NOT locked into movement, but used for aiming.

Using the mouse wheel to change weapons is much easier and more natural for the same reason selecting soldiers by aiming at them is. I should remind you that you can still use these hotkeys in place of or in combination with my suggested condensed controls, this is after all a PC exclusive game we're talking about.

Yes it is, but you break it when that mouse wheel is used for another 3 or for actions in conjunction with some controls keys. The problem with selecting weapons via a scroll vs pressing a desigated key, especially in arma where one could have 2 weapons + a launcher and a wide range of grenades and other tools, is the fact that you would need to pass through all of those to reach the desire one (just like F key is currently used, with - hopping - the exception of the fireselector).

A handful of people? Really? All I know is that only a handful of people even play ArmA or any of Bohemia's games for that matter in comparison to COD or Battlefield. While perhaps those games are a bit overrated, they are much more polished, even for their full price, than Bohemia's games.

I see not relation. While we all want a polished product, you are again comparing a generic game where you can play it as the developers set it up, with a sandbox that allows you to play however and customize your gamemodes as well as the experience further. Activision, DICE ~insert name~ can predict certain behaviour because the gameplay is set in stone, and predictable/replicable and repetitive. It is not the same with Arma.

Surely, i am hopping for a product with no show-stopping bugs and as polished as possible right from the release, which is something that never happened so far with Arma franchise. More of a reason of joy for me knowing the development phase has been extended further, and that there will be semipublic-Alpha and Beta testing phases before game release.

To clarify, those games may be less ambitious and less unique but they are at least polished. Bohemia is responsible for the creation of ArmA 3, more specifically in this case, it's modders. The modding community should only exist to create things that bring fresh new ideas the developers never would have thought of usually to be implemented in future games. The modding community should never be responsible for patching a game, fixing major design oversights in gameplay, or otherwise fixing something that should not be broken. Bohemia is not a charity after all, it is asking for our money in exchange for their game, and I assume ArmA 3 will be full price.

I do agree with you.

You are completely wrong to assign the responsibility of multiplayer creation to modders solely.

1. modders != mission designers. Mission designers are not modifiing the game, they are creating (with the tools already provided - editor) new scenarious and game mods.

2. I am not assigning the entire responsibility to mission designers. I am saying that BIS should create gamemods that will be used on a larger scale (especially wide range of PvP and CooP games), and all RPG oriented scenarious where the player-base target is lower should be dealt by the ones asking/wanting such experience.

[iceman77 18]

People are arguing over 13 year old controls. The controls are fine. keyboard layout is fine. Controllers suck. What's the big deal here?

[bigpickle 0]

People are arguing over 13 year old controls. The controls are fine. keyboard layout is fine. Controllers suck. What's the big deal here?

Approved

[chortles 263]

People are arguing over 13 year old controls. The controls are fine. keyboard layout is fine. Controllers suck. What's the big deal here?

Maybe because he's never accepted said controls for all these years and their persistence is more likely thanks to development inertia? :P

Seriously though, even if keybindings aren't changed the main development 'fix' I'd want in the area of controls would be better controller detection/support for those "whoops I'm in a vehicle better plug in a controller" moments -- after all, they're way more likely to be on hand than a flight stick or a racing wheel.

I see not relation. While we all want a polished product, you are again comparing a generic game where you can play it as the developers set it up, with a sandbox that allows you to play however and customize your gamemodes as well as the experience further. Activision, DICE ~insert name~ can predict certain behaviour because the gameplay is set in stone, and predictable/replicable and repetitive. It is not the same with Arma.

Surely, i am hopping for a product with no show-stopping bugs and as polished as possible right from the release, which is something that never happened so far with Arma franchise. More of a reason of joy for me knowing the development phase has been extended further, and that there will be semipublic-Alpha and Beta testing phases before game release.

I think it comes down to your differing priorities and expectations -- then again, thanks to Arma 2 the franchise hasn't had a great history of "meriting high expectations" when it comes to this* and Jay Crowe specifically addressed the importance of doing better this time. Speaking of Jay... "we've now locked down our internal plans, & currently planning how to communicate important info publically".

* Do I need to compare Arma 2 to BRINK? Because I've played both. :p

[VerkadeB 1]

What about adding some different camouflages for each map/mission.

[papanowel 120]

What about adding some different camouflages for each map/mission.

Have a look here :)

[R0adki11 3945]

People are arguing over 13 year old controls. The controls are fine. keyboard layout is fine. Controllers suck. What's the big deal here?

Agreed, Arma3 is a PC game no need for a controller. Unless of course its a joystick for flying.

[mercenar1e 10]

anyone mention the physics of the vehicles? in Arma 2 the tanks felt like paper weight as it slide and drifted all over the place... it needs to feel more beefy and planted on the ground... its hard for me to describe it.. maybe someone can help?

[Smurf 12]

anyone mention the physics of the vehicles? in Arma 2 the tanks felt like paper weight as it slide and drifted all over the place... it needs to feel more beefy and planted on the ground... its hard for me to describe it.. maybe someone can help?

Yes, PhysX.

[mercenar1e 10]

Yes, PhysX.

oh mhm.. i see its a confirmed feature.. have Bohemia released any videos demonstrating vehicle PhysX?

[rye1 21]

To quote:

Bullet impact feedback depends on Caliber

Please give the rounds some knock down power I want to see a 50 cal knock people on their ass and rock the crap out of a vehicle.

This was posted in NON-DISCUSSION. Bullets don't "knock people over". And also caliber does not just determine damage ratio. If I was using a .50 cal HEAPI and you were using a standard 14.5mm ball or whatever they use, then there is a difference in those sub-ammunition types.

[scrim 1]

+1. A .50 cal round would tear your arm/head/leg/whatever straight off, but you wouldn't go flying from it. It's an object that passes through your body, not some sort of battering ram that doesn't enter you body but kills you by tossing you 50m into the air. The same goes for vehicles, a vehicle that is well armoured and isn't penetrated won't shake or anything because it weighs too much, and a vehicle that isn't armoured enough won't shake because the rounds will pass through.

[JCDBionicman 1]

@JCDBionicman - for you interest pc gaming is usually about making use of keyboard + mouse, except maybe simulations where one can enjoy them a bit more using a proper flight stick, pedals and/or a steering wheel. If you just want to play games focused around streamlined console controlls - just simple play games that are developed for consoles (or consolified). Imo if players don't like or can't be bothered with a little game specific controller familiarization (phase) they should stick to casual games. Isn't it great to have variety of games that aren't just trying to be profitable copy of another one? :)

You seem to be ignoring a key point of mine. PC is better than consoles because the more freedom you get to do whatever you want with it, whereas in a console you are restricted to whatever software they want to allow you to use. Similarly, PC games are better because it's audience is more demanding of quality, both in graphics, and of course in challenge and unique gameplay. You are confusing difficulty with interfacing with difficulty (healthy challenge) in the game itself. Sloppily designed controls are not some required prerequisite to enjoying a PC game. Furthermore, smartly made controls in game x does not make x "consolified" (nice strawman btw). Imo if developers don't like or can't be bothered with a little interface and proper control creation, they don't deserve the money they are demanding from me. And the last is another strawman: I never said anything about not enjoying games that are wholly unique and "not trying to be a profitable [ripoff] of another one." On the other hand, some games have managed to be still original while rightfully borrowing certain concepts from others. Amnesia's insanity concept borrowed from Eternal Darkness for example. Also, ArmA 2 would have done better to include bite sized chunks of it's maps for CTI so that people could play shorter more fast paced games, similar to Battlefield. Taking pointers from successful concepts is not always shameful, it depends on how much of your own material is already original and how original your use and modification of borrowed concepts is.

[chortles 263]

Also, ArmA 2 would have done better to include bite sized chunks of it's maps for CTI so that people could play shorter more fast paced games, similar to Battlefield. Taking pointers from successful concepts is not always shameful, it depends on how much of your own material is already original and how original your use and modification of borrowed concepts is.

Don't sweat it JCDBionicman, this is a common problem with the fanboys. :p Thankfully, BI's design priorities and "what we focused on showing off at E3/Gamescom" showed that they don't feel the same as their fanboys...

Supposedly Ivan months ago said that Warfare is out, so while CTI is expected I don't believe anyone at BI has confirmed that CTI will remain? My usual idea for "shorter more fast paced games" is to simply wall off parts of an existing map on a per-mission basis* though for performance reasons I can see the 'value' in simply making smaller terrains, especially since BF2 did that with "player count"-based versions of maps, but "wall off part of an existing map on a per-mission basis" would simply mean "shorter, more fast-paced gameplay is per-mission and doesn't require additional work by BI".

* For example, Stratis is the smaller of the two islands in Arma 3, which I guess helped with the framerates at E3/Gamescom/the public alpha -- so if I want an "infantry-only team deathmatch", just create a mission where you wall off the intended play area and place all the infantry within it. :p

[JCDBionicman 1]

Condensed also means compacted, and in this case compacting the most used keys around the hand that sits on the keyboard. Hell, it might mean collapsing certain keys into fewer ones, such as stances, or gear and weapon elements and functions (bear in mind that arma already supports control keys (ctrl/alt/shift + key, as well as double tap versus single tap. It doesn't know long press versus tap afaik).

What you are suggesting is in fact pressing CAPS + drag mouse to lean, and while holding CAPS to have a lean stance, to press ALT and drag mouse to aim vertically and horizontaly. It is way to complicated. So you end up with a worse implementation, and one that takes way more to perform than the current non-analog one, where the mouse is NOT locked into movement, but used for aiming.

Yes it is, but you break it when that mouse wheel is used for another 3 or for actions in conjunction with some controls keys. The problem with selecting weapons via a scroll vs pressing a desigated key, especially in arma where one could have 2 weapons + a launcher and a wide range of grenades and other tools, is the fact that you would need to pass through all of those to reach the desire one (just like F key is currently used, with - hopping - the exception of the fireselector).

I see not relation. While we all want a polished product, you are again comparing a generic game where you can play it as the developers set it up, with a sandbox that allows you to play however and customize your gamemodes as well as the experience further. Activision, DICE ~insert name~ can predict certain behaviour because the gameplay is set in stone, and predictable/replicable and repetitive. It is not the same with Arma.

Surely, i am hopping for a product with no show-stopping bugs and as polished as possible right from the release, which is something that never happened so far with Arma franchise. More of a reason of joy for me knowing the development phase has been extended further, and that there will be semipublic-Alpha and Beta testing phases before game release.

1. modders != mission designers. Mission designers are not modifiing the game, they are creating (with the tools already provided - editor) new scenarious and game mods.

2. I am not assigning the entire responsibility to mission designers. I am saying that BIS should create gamemods that will be used on a larger scale (especially wide range of PvP and CooP games), and all RPG oriented scenarious where the player-base target is lower should be dealt by the ones asking/wanting such experience.

Why are you reexplaining the definition of condensed (compacted is a synonym, meaning the same exact thing), the same thing I explained to you already?

I think you're confused. The mouse would be for aiming as always. Alt would be used for freelooking, as always. Alt and the mousewheel together would be used for aiming. Caps lock with the mousewheel would be used to change stances, while caps lock with mouse movement would be used for leaning. I never said anything about locking the mouse into movement either, really I don't know where you're getting this stuff from.

I break the ability of the player to use hotkeys in place of scrolling through them with the mousewheel? You can't even use hotkeys for weapon selection in ArmA 2 since the number keys are reserved for the horribly designed command interface. What your arguing against is in fact something that is already in ArmA 2, I'm just suggesting that the mousewheel be used exclusively for scrolling through weapons and mapping the action menu to the reload button. Also, that you are directly scrolling through your weapons is irrelevant since the switching animations are interruptable. I though I'd spare the player from having to press the fire button to select it from the menu when it would serve no purpose.

ArmA 2 allowing for sandbox does not excuse the developers from creating proper multiplayer modes and smaller maps to choose from. I'm asking for some basic multiplayer functionality here, nothing special.

Yeah, and I can make that comparison. The idea that you can't compare two similar things just because they differ in irrelevant ways is fallacy. You can compare the quality, execution, whatever else there is to compare in two different videogames. What you can't easily compare is for example, horse riding to videogames, but that has to do with ease of comparison and nothing else. Your argument is irrelevant.

Also, that "modders != mission designers" is irrelevant.

And no, BIS should also be responsible for the creation of smaller sized games as well. 70 people in an area greater than 144 square miles is very boring and too time consuming, go figure few people want to play multiplayer. Something like chunks of Stratis and Lemnos in 5 square mile chunks is more reasonable. Battlefield's largest maps are still much smaller than this, so games would still be long winded. If you really think the average gamer, hell even the average ArmA 2 gamer wouldn't want the developers to create smaller maps then you are mistaken. They included bite sized CTI modes as part of their recent reinforcement DLCs.

[TheMike 1]

I saw something about this on the 'no-discussion' it was about bullet impacts and such, but inside the post I didn't see anything on decals on bodies of wounded soldiers or anything. So, basically all I really wish to see, which is a small 'nit-picky' request is bullet wound decals on soldiers. Example: you shoot an enemy in the forehead, and there would be a bloody bullet hole decal where the bullet hit the target. So I guess it could be called 'Dynamic Bullet Wound Decals'? Max Payne 3 and Metro 2033 did a great job with this. Here's a picture from Max Payne 3 so you can get a good idea of what I mean: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/18273999/Abstract/Dynamic%20Decals.jpg

They don't necessarily have to be actually 3D models like depicted in the picture, they could simply be just like the blood stains around the holes, 2D decals. This would just give a nice feel of realism and immersion in my opinion :)

[JCDBionicman 1]

Don't sweat it JCDBionicman, this is a common problem with the fanboys. :p Thankfully, BI's design priorities and "what we focused on showing off at E3/Gamescom" showed that they don't feel the same as their fanboys...

Supposedly Ivan months ago said that Warfare is out, so while CTI is expected I don't believe anyone at BI has confirmed that CTI will remain? My usual idea for "shorter more fast paced games" is to simply wall off parts of an existing map on a per-mission basis* though for performance reasons I can see the 'value' in simply making smaller terrains, especially since BF2 did that with "player count"-based versions of maps, but "wall off part of an existing map on a per-mission basis" would simply mean "shorter, more fast-paced gameplay is per-mission and doesn't require additional work by BI".

* For example, Stratis is the smaller of the two islands in Arma 3, which I guess helped with the framerates at E3/Gamescom/the public alpha -- so if I want an "infantry-only team deathmatch", just create a mission where you wall off the intended play area and place all the infantry within it. :p

A fanboy is someone who is a fan of a given thing. I'm not a "fanboy" of either Battlefield or ArmA 2, they are both filled with flaws that cause me to regard them as little more than average games. Battlefield and 3 requires that you spend an additional 50$ in order to get a full experience, with maps and features that were withheld for more money only. Battlefield 3 in particular still has problems with balancing and identity issues. It tries too hard to be like COD. I've already mentioned the problems with ArmA 2.

As far as listening to their community goes, BI would do well to do so more often, as they are the people who are responsible for BI's existence in the first place. BI shouldn't listen to all or even most of the community just for the sake of it, they should listen when the community has something intelligent to say. When BI ignores the intellect of the community, that's in fact irresponsible. Many people rightly want smaller maps. Few people want to play a game that spans for days, or a great portion of a day.

What you did in quoting Ivan was a bit of strawman from you and from him. Nobody is asking for BI to do less work, if Ivan actually listened to the community he would know that.

Finally, chunks taken out of the two massive islands that will be in ArmA 3 will still be large, in fact as I said already, still larger than Battlefield. "Walling off" sections isn't necessary, let the player be free to utilize the whole map, but make the objectives make up a smaller portion of the map.

And, though this should be obvious information, people that want to use the whole of Stratis and Lemnos still can, just give the majority who are asking for it a way to play a quick 1 hour session.

Edited January 16, 2013 by JCDBionicman

[NoRailgunner 0]

Well JCDBionicman didn't you basically said that you have a huge problem using a keyboard in A2OA? Didn't you also claim memorizing keys is just too demanding to have fun playing a pc game? Again - its up to the player to decide what he can and will do to enjoy a game, for example: if one likes to play DCS flightsim series he probably will not go an argue/moan much about these controlls or even trying to talk people into using HAWX 1/2 controller setup. You seem also to ignore the point that BF (or COD) gameplay pace is not the same like in Armaverse. Just have a look at what ranges tanks, APC/IFVs and helicopters operate and compare it with those smaller areas in most mainstream shooters. Few people here tend to forget that there is more to enjoy than only tacticool CQB instant-kill/respawn-action. The bigger the islands/maps are the more choices one has to setup different battle areas/zones and interesting operations.

[chortles 263]

As far as listening to their community goes, BI would do well to do so more often, as they are the people who are responsible for BI's existence in the first place. BI shouldn't listen to all or even most of the community just for the sake of it, they should listen when the community has something intelligent to say.

That's infrequent enough that I sympathize with BI not listening to the forums! :lol:

Yes, I'm thinking back to how Jay Crowe had to say "let's not be afraid of that word, streamlined"... that to me signals "the community is THAT trigger-happy"

Finally, chunks taken out of the two massive islands that will be in ArmA 3 will still be large, in fact as I said already, still larger than Battlefield. "Walling off" sections isn't necessary, let the player be free to utilize the whole map, but make the objectives make up a smaller portion of the map.

Just wanting to check, are you talking about what BF2 did with releasing "different scaled" versions of Stratis and Limnos, but with procedurally-generated areas-past-the-map-boundaries as PMC had with the Proving Ground?

[JCDBionicman 1]

That's infrequent enough that I sympathize with BI not listening to the forums! :lol:

Yes, I'm thinking back to how Jay Crowe had to say "let's not be afraid of that word, streamlined"... that to me signals "the community is THAT trigger-happy"Just wanting to check, are you talking about what BF2 did with releasing "different scaled" versions of Stratis and Limnos, but with procedurally-generated areas-past-the-map-boundaries as PMC had with the Proving Ground?

What I'm saying is, and I said just exactly this already, the player would be free to utilize the whole map, nothing would be walled off. The only difference between these chunks taken out of the maps would be the location of objectives, which would be fewer and closer between making PVP sessions reasonably timed. So like a normal CTI match on Takistan or Chernarus, but with less objectives that are closer together. And there would be a few of these "maps" to choose from.

Edited January 16, 2013 by JCDBionicman

[NeMeSiS 11]

but with procedurally-generated areas-past-the-map-boundaries as PMC had with the Proving Ground? every island in ArmA2.

Fixed that for you. ;)

[PuFu 4591]

Why are you reexplaining the definition of condensed (compacted is a synonym, meaning the same exact thing), the same thing I explained to you already?

They can be synonims indeed, but they can also mean different things:

What you said about condensing, and what i though about it, on the bellow diagram as compacted:

I think you're confused.

not really.

caps lock with mouse movement would be used for leaning. I never said anything about locking the mouse into movement either, really I don't know where you're getting this stuff from.

Now tell me, how would you put that red crosshairs on the target if your mouse movement is locked by the caps lock command = leaning? Even if you would be able to move vertically, the horizontal movement is still locked.

I break the ability of the player to use hotkeys in place of scrolling through them with the mousewheel? You can't even use hotkeys for weapon selection in ArmA 2 since the number keys are reserved for the horribly designed command interface. What your arguing against is in fact something that is already in ArmA 2, I'm just suggesting that the mousewheel be used exclusively for scrolling through weapons and mapping the action menu to the reload button. Also, that you are directly scrolling through your weapons is irrelevant since the switching animations are interruptable. I though I'd spare the player from having to press the fire button to select it from the menu when it would serve no purpose.

Learn to read before typing.

ArmA 2 allowing for sandbox does not excuse the developers from creating proper multiplayer modes and smaller maps to choose from. I'm asking for some basic multiplayer functionality here, nothing special.

You don't need smaller maps. A bigger map allows you to maneuver, and play on the entire thing if this is what your heart desires. On the other hand, no one is stopping you to restrict yourself (or force restriction if needed in the mission) to only a portion of the provided terrain. You can't really do the opposite with a smaller island, can you? Some of the (poor) PvP gamemodes that come with the vanilla game restrict the play to only a few areas/cities.

You can compare the quality, execution, whatever else there is to compare in two different videogames. What you can't easily compare is for example, horse riding to videogames, but that has to do with ease of comparison and nothing else. Your argument is irrelevant.

I do dissagre yet again. You can't compare a bicycle to a car, although both are transport vehicles. Same goes when it comes to fixing the bike versus fixing the car, the difference being the number of pieces and the complexity of the operation.

Also, that "modders != mission designers" is irrelevant.

It is because you obviously fail to see the difference here.

And no, BIS should also be responsible for the creation of smaller sized games as well.

While i agree with you that BI should spend more time on missions that will be delivered on game launch, you obviously fail to understand that unlike other games out there where you can't choose from other missions that the ones provided by the game developer on launch and via DLCs, Arma is way different. What missions are being played is a chore/responsability for the server admin. There are NO official hosted servers by BI, everything is community driven. I know it is hard to grasp with you comming from the console market, but yet again, this is how things have been and most likely will remain, even if BIS will release 10 times more gamemodes on launch.

Something like chunks of Stratis and Lemnos in 5 square mile chunks is more reasonable.

And as previously said, this is very very possible to do.

Battlefield's largest maps are still much smaller than this, so games would still be long winded. If you really think the average gamer, hell even the average ArmA 2 gamer wouldn't want the developers to create smaller maps then you are mistaken.

Yeah, go ahead and tell me, who have been around since 2001, and have played in numerous CTI games and tournaments along the way, that most people want BF3 sized islands. What part of "you can play on a 1000x1000 m zone just fine, on a 400sq km map" can't you grasp? Wanna bet who is mistaken here?

Edited January 16, 2013 by PuFu

[iceman77 18]

This debate is stagnant.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Iceman77

[Smurf 12]

That was unnecessary.

[iceman77 18]

That was unnecessary.

There I fixed it.