NotMoreZombies

That's pretty much exactly what happens IRL. The gun bounces up from recoil, and then falls back to it's original position through the combined effects of gravity and the shooters unconscious muscle memory. Making the player manually control something that is automatic to real soldiers is as silly as, I don't know, having the player constantly push their gun upwards to counter the gun's weight. That's not something soldiers have to constantly worry about, so why should the player? The more intuitive thing is to expect guns to behave as they do in reality. In real life, automatic bursts of fire don't leave machinegunners confused and staring at the sky. And again, I'm not alone on this:

Great, so we're effectively supposed to play Arma like it's Counter Strike or something? Look, I'm all for new ways to make games more immersive and bring them into the game. But achieving that with some arbitrary mechanic like this that is awkward and unrealistic to boot is absolute rubbish. Maybe learning to pull down your weapon manually after each shot is easy if you've played Counter Strike for years, but to most people it will be extremely unintuitive. Plus, your player skill equals avatar skill argument is total bollocks. Games are intuitive because they map complex actions to button presses. By doing this, games can eliminate the need to think about the controller or keyboard as much as possible. The aim should be to make your avatar handle all physical aspects of the actions you perform in the game. They're basically humans with wireless receivers instead of brains. They handle stuff like bringing the gun back down once fired through muscle memory, they reload, they throw the frags. It's the players' job to do the thinking for these avatars. Which targets to shoot, which stance to take, which fire mode to use, etc. I don't know why recoil works like this, seeing as it works almost perfectly in the Arma: Cold War Assault (AKA Operation Flashpoint). Guns could be fired accurately when standing if you paced yourself and used semi-auto. Trying to hit something with full-auto is near impossible, but you can at least remain pointed in the right direction, and not at the sky. Full-auto becomes feasible when crouched and even accurate when prone (of course, it remains a poor tactical choice due to the wasted ammunition from missed shots). Then there's Arma 3. Semi-auto is a joke, as you waste too much time trying to find your target again once your weapon has shunted you off course by about ten feet. You wonder why they even bothered implementing full-auto, as it leaves you pointed at the sky. The recoil reduction from changing stance is negligible and the new mounting system seems to make no difference at all. The point of this (now ridiculously long) rant is that there's enough going on in Arma without players having to worry about fighting their own guns to keep them on target. Should Arma be a game about mastering one's mouse or mastering the art of warfare? One last note, I'm not alone on this. Google these three words, "arma 3 recoil". Every result is people asking Bohemia to fix the damn recoil, including ex-military and gun-enthusiast types.

Hmm, we'll see. Although it probably won't be as much of an issue due to the reduction of recoil thanks to the resting system, it still bugs me that the weapons behave like this. If I wasn't clear before, what I meant by weapons being affected by gravity is the fact that, once the upward force from the recoil has stopped, the gun should come back down due to the force of gravity. For example, just look at how guns behave in Battlefield 4. You start firing, they rise for a bit, stop rising, and will maintain their position for as long as you keep the trigger held down (provided you aren't fighting the recoil). Put simply, there is a maximum amount the gun can rise when fired in full-auto. When you stop firing, the gun will return to it's original position. So, instead of having to pull the mouse down further and further the longer you fire, you only have to pull down a short distance, then you need only worry about aiming at your targets and countering horizontal movement. Anyway, back to Arma. The guns are basically just shunted up when fired, rather than jumping up with recoil, then falling due to gravity. It's like the gun is weirdly pulling the shooter's arms upward, rather than bucking in their grip. It's irritating because, aside from the fact that it's unrealistic, you either have to have a mouse mat as long as a landing strip or you're stuck lifting up your mouse, moving it, and then putting it back down over and over again. Well, that's my take on it, at least. Hopefully the changes they've made will mask it a bit.

Hey all, I've played a bit of Arma 3 in the past, and I can't say I was terribly happy with how the recoil worked. Specifically, when a series of single-fire shots are made in rapid succession, or when a weapon is fired in-full auto, the weapon rises, keeps rising, and then stays pointed at the part it rose to. So my question is, how has the recoil been changed, and how does it work now? Do weapons come back down once you've stopped firing? I'm really looking forward to playing Arma 3 on the new PC I'm building, but it'll suck to play if weapons still act like they're not affected by gravity.