Bad ArmA Trends

[Montgomery 205]

I consider myself somewhat experienced. I'm approaching 40 years old. I spent about 7 years in the Army. I spent a year in Iraq. I read a lot about military history and I watch a lot of military documentaries. There are two things which I consider "bad arma trends" and I wanted to see how other members of the community felt about it.

 

The first one is wearing NVGs without a helmet. In all my time, I have never seen or heard of anyone doing this. I'm not saying that I'm an expert. I'm not saying that no one in the history of the military has never done it. Have any of you ever seen or heard of any military unit wearing NVGs without a helmet in real life?

 

The second one is the masks that don't cover your nose. Again, this is something that I have never personally seen during my time in the military. When I was in the military I spent time in a variety of environments, from extremely cold (Alaska) to extremely hot (Kuwait and Iraq). The closest thing we ever had was called a neck gaiter, but I never saw anyone have it just covering their mouth. It was always pulled up to also cover their nose.

 

What do you guys think? Are there other "bad arma trends" that aren't realistic that bother you?

 

Please be civil and let's not let this thread turn into a bunch of rude remarks.

[Undeceived 392]

Can't say much about the masks but special forces use NVGs without a helmet.

 

E.g. http://photobw.info/kommando-spezialkrafte-183

 

In terms of Arma it doesn't really bother me, I never noticed it. I'm not ingame at the moment but AFAIR in Arma the NVGs aren't the ones attaches to a helmet. They are those that you can strap on your head. If you're wearing a helmet, all that happens is that the straps disappear because of the helmet, but the NVGs are still strapped to your head.

[Grumpy Old Man 3546]

Wearing an AT launcher, a .50cal anti material rifle and a backpack filled with satchels while flying a plane doesn't happen in the military either.

Does it disturb me up to a point that I'm making a thread about it? No.

 

Cheers

[Montgomery 205]

@Undeceived That's an interesting picture. I've never seen any other special operations forces using NVGs without helmets.

 

@Grumpy Old Man Ha! I don't play with people who would do that. I'm sorry if my thread bothers you.

[peegee 118]

The beards. Those ugly "tacticool" beards. The screenshot thread is flooded by them
Wookies using vehicles and AT launchers...
The players that use crew vehicles alone... :C

[andersson 285]

In the Finnish coastal rangers I was in a recon squad. We used NV goggles without helmets (then again we didn't use helmets very often regardless).

And we never covered our noses (but neither did we cover our mouths) and we did experience down to -35degC in the winter.

 

Bad trends in Arma.... Running all the time with way to much gear. Launcher sniper rifle combo. Using stat table to see if you hit the enemy.....

[Montgomery 205]

@andersson That's pretty damn cold not to have your face covered! Using the stat table to see if you hit the enemy was a good one, lol.

[andersson 285]

Yeah, every time I host I disable that table. Makes it more immersive and if it's there people tend to compete to be at the top instead of cooperating. Plus it can't be used to cheat.

[road runner 4344]

9 hours ago, peegee said:

The beards. Those ugly "tacticool" beards. The screenshot thread is flooded by them
Wookies using vehicles and AT launchers...
The players that use crew vehicles alone... :C

Right because Beards are never ever worn in Middle Eastern Locations by Militaries, especially the Spec Ops community.

Why would you consider this to be a bad Arma trend? it the same people that post, and it's probably a bad trend to you, as you're not lucky enough to have access to such mods.

By bad trends I'm thinking of the lack of realism, with the likes of Jester814 wearing a backpack full of ammo, and constantly jogging all over the map, without the player collapsing in a heap, breathing out his arse, with legs shaking like a shitting dog.

The Stamina for me is the big issue, even most SF Selection course don't RUN with 60KG Bergens, they "Tab/Yomp/Ruck" and on very limited occasions break into a trot, otherwise their knees will take a pounding, walk up hills run down them was always how we tried it on our fitness tests.

[Montgomery 205]

@road runner I agree with you on the beards. Special operations units working in the middle east and other areas of the world grow their beards out 99% of the time.

[Mynock 244]

Zombies are pretty annoying.

[peegee 118]

2 hours ago, road runner said:

Right because Beards are never ever worn in Middle Eastern Locations by Militaries, especially the Spec Ops community.

Uh, I wouldn't care. Spec-Op fantasies aren't my thing. They are completely unecessary and hey look horrible. Ridiculous blob attached to face. Why wouldn't I have access to those mods?

I keep my beard in my own face. The only good looking beards are the vanilla faces that have one already textured.

Found it funny that you got so upset about the fancy beards as if I wasn't lucky enough to have them in my game :D
 

[road runner 4344]

1 hour ago, peegee said:

Uh, I wouldn't care. Spec-Op fantasies aren't my thing. They are completely unecessary and hey look horrible. Ridiculous blob attached to face. Why wouldn't I have access to those mods?

I keep my beard in my own face. The only good looking beards are the vanilla faces that have one already textured.

Found it funny that you got so upset about the fancy beards as if I wasn't lucky enough to have them in my game :D
 

It's even funnier you got upset at these mods and the pictures..

No less ridiculous than standard ARMA characters clipping standard vests..

You do know that addons are indeed optional too? ;)

[peegee 118]

5 minutes ago, road runner said:

It's even funnier you got upset at these mods and the pictures..

No less ridiculous than standard ARMA characters clipping standard vests..

You do know that addons are indeed optional too? ;)

I'm not upset, they just look absolutely ridiculous. Your high defense mode tells me otherwise :D

 

[EDcase 87]

I don't care about proper uniforms etc.

 

Bad ARMA trend: Playing in 3rd person

 

[Grumpy Old Man 3546]

2 minutes ago, EDcase said:

Bad ARMA trend: Playing in 3rd person

[joostsidy 685]

In my opinion 3rd person is not a bad trend. I use a mix of 1st person and 3rd person views. Sometimes I use 1st person for immersion, sometimes I use 3rd person to have a wider FOV. Very important reason: I sometimes use 3rd person just to admire the kit I'm wearing or the aircraft I'm flying. Especially on long missions when you're a little bit bored. I've been happy with option of 3rd person since Novalogics Delta Force! :-)

 

I don't play competitive multiplayer so incentive to cheat is not a factor for me.

 

Talking about comp. multiplayer, the other day I saw a KOTH session on youtube. I have to admit I was surprised and face-palming quite a bit by by the COD gameplay :-). I saw an alien spacecraft that looked like a little bird but performed many physics defying manoeuvres and crashed into things without taking damage. Even though it's cool that people can play the game the way they like, I still get the feeling that it's a bad trend. Ideally, Arma should be about tactical, (sort-of-) realistic gameplay.

 

For me the true spirit of Arma is feeling anxious about driving a vehicle on a dirt road. It's not difficult normally, but you're two hours in a mission, and if for some reason you bust a tire, you have to jog five kilometers and probably miss achieving the final objective.

[FallujahMedic -FM- 867]

Bad Trends

People forgetting that Arma is just a game. Don't get me wrong, I love the game, but I also understand that its sole purpose is entertainment. Arma has lots of room for improvement, I agree, but as a fairly modular (or moddable) platform, it does pretty well.

Players need to understand that mods are OPTIONAL. If you don't like them, don't use them. If you think there's something in them that needs improvement, try messaging the author directly and giving some constructive feedback and make a sound case for your reasoning. Don't just say "your mod is poo, fix it". If they aren't responsive to your suggestions, make something better yourself. Simple.

As far as bad Gameplay trends, I'd have to say that things like Arsenal are over used by mission makers. In the case of specific missions, give your players only the kit needed to do the job. Nothing worse than having to wait 10 min for people to pick and choose gear then have them run out of ammo in the middle of a fire fight because they chose a different weapon than everyone else (and I don't mean support weapons). Additionally, many mission makers/players forget the importance of logistics. "So, you and your 10 man team are going to take 3 vehicles to investigate an area a few miles away....did anyone think to load an ammo/medical/support crate.... or repair/medical vehicle?" 

Additionally, my military days are over (did my year in Iraq as well), the last thing I want to do is play serious MilSim, because, well, it just makes me laugh. At the same time, I'm not going to mock anyone that attempts to, its just not my thing. Been there, done that, got the "Who's your Baghdaddy" T-shirt. 

Edited June 5, 2017 by FallujahMedic -FM-
typo

[Montgomery 205]

@joostsidy I'm with you on the 1st person, 3rd person argument. I always get a laugh at those who think they are superior for only playing in 1st person. I also use a mix of the views and pretty much for the exact same reasons you stated.

 

@FallujahMedic -FM- You make some really good points. That's what is great about arma, it can be whatever you want it to be. Some people like zombie stuff, some people like the gta-type stuff, some people like the strict milsim stuff. I'm kind of casual milsim, if that makes any sense. I like to play somewhat serious in game and try to be tactical, but I'm sure not going to call someone "sir" or go through hours of "basic training" to join some milsim group.

 

[Rich_R 1087]

All in all, this is a smart conversation and yet another reason why I enjoy the Arma forums :)

 

While not necessarily a bad trend but one that perplexes me; gaming groups that call themselves 'serious milsim groups', going to the extent of using ranks when they write recruitment posts or manage teamspeak channels using military courtesies and Chain of Command. But then they turn around and have names floating above their heads ingame and yes, use the dreaded third person while on foot. I click on videos of what is supposed to be an uber-realism unit and see all of these things as well as squad indicators, waypoints visible onscreen and even weapon reticules.

 

I have no problem gamers playing the game how they want to, but always confused by such a huge disconnect.

[Sniperwolf572 758]

4 hours ago, Rich_R said:

All in all, this is a smart conversation and yet another reason why I enjoy the Arma forums :)

 

While not necessarily a bad trend but one that perplexes me; gaming groups that call themselves 'serious milsim groups', going to the extent of using ranks when they write recruitment posts or manage teamspeak channels using military courtesies and Chain of Command. But then they turn around and have names floating above their heads ingame and yes, use the dreaded third person while on foot. I click on videos of what is supposed to be an uber-realism unit and see all of these things as well as squad indicators, waypoints visible onscreen and even weapon reticules.

 

I have no problem gamers playing the game how they want to, but always confused by such a huge disconnect.

 

There are multiple things that go into "realism". Realistic actions, realistic feedback, realistic sensory input, a realistic setting and so on.

 

• Realistic actions are "I can jump 50 meters in the air".
• Realistic feedback is "I got shot in the chest, I bled out and  died".
• Realistic sensory input is "The wind is blowing and I can feel it on my face".
• And realistic settings are "This is something that I know exists or has existed or could have happened"

 

What you're saying here is "They pretend to be soldiers in a realistic setting using realistic procedures, but they're using all these artificial enhancers for the lack of realistic sensory input! Ha!".

• Names floating above heads - Compensate for all the subtle visual identifying clues that are lost when the battlefield is in a game. Everyone is the same sized man, with the same identical movements, with the same identical gear, with the same identical head shape while looking at me on a screen at 4 or more times less visual acuity than IRL.
• Third person on foot - Debatable. This argument is mostly for spatial awareness, looking at your ubercool operator. Using it for cheating like in PVP is less hampering to the experience of everyone and in general, you will still probably spend most of the time in first person when shooting and there is a lot of incentive to not use third person due to the experience of "through your own eyes".
• Waypoints - I'll agree, this seems to be the realm of navigational and ranging skills that are actually fun to use and can be used instead of compensating for the obvious lack of detail.
• Crosshair - Aiming weapons in 2D without looking down the sights is much harder to do "naturally" than it is IRL. Plus, if you lock someone down in first person, the crosshair provides you the information that your barrel is inside that wall/post and not to the left of it as it appears, as your body and the weapon will render on top of anything else.

 

It's not such a huge disconnect as you make yourself think it is. If we sometime end up playing the same thing in a VR contraption, that lets them experience stereoscopic depth, with soldiers that are not clones of each other, all of the things that you present as disconnect would go away and they would probably use those things. But hey, some liberties can be had, and in the end, if you don't like it, don't play with them. :)

 

None of these seem to be the type of things like "god mode", "auto-aim" or "enemies glowing on screen", so I don't really judge for the things listed above. Besides, roleplay is roleplay. People find it fun to charge at each other dressed in medieval uniforms while carrying foam swords, and shoot at each other with tiny metal pellets or balls filled with paint. It's no less fun just because the swords and projectiles can't injure and the people who should be dead are walking around the battlefield with their hands raised instead of lying on the ground pretending their dead until the session is over. "Just buy real guns/swords and shoot each other guys! What's the point otherwise!"

 

Besides, what about the guys that are playing space marine in almost unpenetrable armor, in first person, no name tags and no crosshair, while calling each other by their ranks and following realistic radio procedures?
What about the boxes that have infinite weapons and ammo and give you an interface to select what you want from them? Why not use logistics and ammo trucks and carry food around and sleeping bags and shovels and clean their boots and blah blah blah, you get the point I guess, you can pick holes into how everyone plays if you want to down the "realistic" rabbit hole.

[Rich_R 1087]

To reiterate "I have no problem gamers playing the game how they want to". Everyone has their own opinions on what to include in the game to overcome it is in fact a gaming environment. Case in point;

• Names floating above heads - The fog of war is what it is and combat awareness is what it can be. I've personally only ever played in groups that turned-off nametags, using instead shack's radar to help with the clues of who's who. I've found a well organized squad with clear communication gives enough clarity to know whats going on as well as giving the immersion I personally want from Arma 3.When things go to hell, I don't want to know exactly who everyone is, IMO this is my personal version of realism. Besides, I felt it made me a better player to keep track of who said what and where they were.
• Third person on foot - Seriously, this is one of those black and white things people either like or don't. However, I don't see how realism and third person go in the same sentence
• Crosshair - All the reasons for them can be given but, its not my opinion of realism.

And just to be clear, none of those groups I've been a member of claimed to be uber-realistic or lived on rank. Personally, I think someone requiring to be addressed with a fictitious rank or using one in forum communications is in some ways disrespectful of those of have put in the time, dedication and sacrifices in RL to earn that title.

 

But again, this is just my opinion and part of an overall conversation. This is the beauty of Arma, its a sandbox to be used how players want to use it.

 

My comment was about my perception of an apparent disconnect and the over-use of 'serious milsim groups'

[Ben@Arms 4]

Quote

The first one is wearing NVGs without a helmet. In all my time, I have never seen or heard of anyone doing this. I'm not saying that I'm an expert. I'm not saying that no one in the history of the military has never done it. Have any of you ever seen or heard of any military unit wearing NVGs without a helmet in real life?

 

In the german military we wore the "BIV Lucie-Tragegestell", when we did not wear our helmets.

 

Soldier with LUCIE Tragegestell

[scooterperpetual 248]

*

[Sniperwolf572 758]

51 minutes ago, Rich_R said:

To reiterate "I have no problem gamers playing the game how they want to". Everyone has their own opinions on what to include in the game to overcome it is in fact a gaming environment. Case in point;

• Names floating above heads - The fog of war is what it is and combat awareness is what it can be. I've personally only ever played in groups that turned-off nametags, using instead shack's radar to help with the clues of who's who. I've found a well organized squad with clear communication gives enough clarity to know whats going on as well as giving the immersion I personally want from Arma 3.When things go to hell, I don't want to know exactly who everyone is, IMO this is my personal version of realism. Besides, I felt it made me a better player to keep track of who said what and where they were.
• Third person on foot - Seriously, this is one of those black and white things people either like or don't. However, I don't see how realism and third person go in the same sentence
• Crosshair - All the reasons for them can be given but, its not my opinion of realism.

And just to be clear, none of those groups I've been a member of claimed to be uber-realistic or lived on rank. Personally, I think someone requiring to be addressed with a fictitious rank or using one in forum communications is in some ways disrespectful of those of have put in the time, dedication and sacrifices in RL to earn that title.

 

But again, this is just my opinion and part of an overall conversation. This is the beauty of Arma, its a sandbox to be used how players want to use it.

 

My comment was about my perception of an apparent disconnect and the over-use of 'serious milsim groups'

 

I understand.  My argument is that "fidelity under/over compensator difficulty settings" don't really matter. Experience is what matters. If you want your experience to be "I'm looking at that guy and I know that it's him because he has a floating nametag above his head" that's fine. If you want your experience to be "I have a compass in my pocket, I know the exact positions, direction and role of people in my 30 meter radius is" that's fine too.

 

For example, there are a bunch of first person vids with people flying helicopters with Track IR and whatnot and brouhahaing around how using third person in helicopters is not "true simming". Well neither is it realistic to expect me to have three hands to control the helicopter and the direction of my ingame view because I don't have a head tracking device, so I rather compensate by being to judge where I'm landing in other ways. I'd love to be able to hit a button to lock my first person camera to horizon so I don't have to pop into third person because I want to see the ground and not the sky while flaring for a landing.

In the end, until someone specifically defines what a "serious mil-sim" is and everyone agrees on it, the definitions can vary wildly. 

 

Personally, I'd rather focus realism on actions, effects and settings rather than compensators. I.E. I care more about my round hitting a guy and showing the wound in the correct place than if shot him with a help of a crosshair glued to my screen. And then ACE ties into the position of the bullet hole and displays the action on the correct position so I can patch it up and leave a bandage on that exact same spot. Mmmmmmm.