roshnak
-
Content Count
1130 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
-
Medals
-
Everything posted by roshnak
-
I tested it with a friend on a listen server earlier and didn't have any issues. I even had him firing from the back of a slingloaded offroad.
-
Arma 3 Helicopters DLC Discussion (dev branch)
roshnak replied to FredAirland's topic in ARMA 3 - GENERAL
You know what else doesn't have a learning curve? A context-sensitive action key like every other game has. -
Do you mean to say that your country has 20+ closed communities? Because the important part is that they are closed, not that there aren't very many of them.
-
I guess I'll just put this back here: I don't think you need "whole kit" pickups. There just needs to be less use of things like virtual ammobox. Admittedly, this isn't really up to BIS. While I tend to agree with this, I also feel like it's almost irrelevant at this point. There are plenty of multiplayer gamemodes and missions that have been released and lots of servers hosting them. The only problem at this point is if someone wants to set up a listen server for his or her friends and doesn't know about downloading custom missions.
-
This is a bug that was introduced in Arma 3, right? I don't remember it being a problem in previous games.
-
I don't think you need "whole kit" pickups. There just needs to be less use of things like virtual ammobox. Admittedly, this isn't really up to BIS. While I tend to agree with this, I also feel like it's almost irrelevant at this point. There are plenty of multiplayer gamemodes and missions that have been released and lots of servers hosting them. The only problem at this point is if someone wants to set up a listen server for his or her friends and doesn't know about downloading custom missions. Since it's a genre that BIS basically invented, they can really call it whatever they want. And if they decide that the word "simulation" creates unwanted or unrealistic expectations, who are you to tell them they can't change it? By the way, by your definition, games like Battlefield and Call of Duty are milsims, too.
-
Arma 3 Helicopters DLC Discussion (dev branch)
roshnak replied to FredAirland's topic in ARMA 3 - GENERAL
I'm honestly not clear on how any of this is "balancing." It just seems like underdeveloped systems to me. There was no difference in how the Strelas or Iglas and Stingers behaved in Arma 2 -- they just looked different. How does only giving the stock aircraft burst mode for flares balance anything? If they were that concerned about balance, they could have just given all of the aircraft the same number of flares, which they kind of did, since most classes of aircraft have the same number of flares. If they were concerned that aircraft would have too many flares to use on single mode, they could have just given them less flares. But, does dropping more or less flares in Arma 3 even change the likelihood of the missile being spoofed? -
Arma 3 Helicopters DLC Discussion (dev branch)
roshnak replied to FredAirland's topic in ARMA 3 - GENERAL
It looks awesome. -
It could very well be an issue on your end. Are you on the dev branch? I know that several people were having highly exaggerated inertia effects, so for all I know it could be something related to that.
-
Do you have a link to how to do this? I may be dumb, but a cursory search of the wiki and google didn't turn anything up.
-
Weapon Inertia & Sway Feedback (dev branch)
roshnak replied to solzenicyn's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
I don't think it is, since as far as I am aware, the current inertia implementation is just a camera trick. -
It's okay, I made a video for you. Youtube's compression is a real jerk, so you probably can't read the waypoint I placed. I am starting at 30 meters, sprinting uphill to 20 meters, and then engaging 3 targets. There is nearly no noticable sway.
-
Weapon Inertia & Sway Feedback (dev branch)
roshnak replied to solzenicyn's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
It seems highly unlikely that the game will have your sights misalign based on weapon weight due to the movement of the vehicle you are in. It will be plenty difficult to shoot accurately from a moving helicopter without such a feature. -
No, it's not unreasonable. I do think it's a little unreasonable to call for a halt on the development of other features and DLC until those problems are fixed, though. For one thing, there are probably people who never even touch AI that are very excited about sling loading and the ability to fire from cargo positions.
-
Quick question: Do you believe that BIS has a continuing obligation to go back and fix all of the AI problems in OFP? Many of the AI problems in Arma 3 still exist in OFP as well, after all. I'm just trying to figure out how far you're going to extend this line of logic. I am not apologizing for Arma 3's shortcomings, and I doubt Chortles is either. I have at times been highly critical of decisisons that have been made regarding Arma 3's development. I posted relatively recently that I would not have been happy if I had paid full price for this game. I'm sure we all want AI to be fixed and improved upon, I'm sure many of us think that AI should be a (but not necessarily the only) priority, and I'm sure that almost everyone on these forums would rather that Arma 3's development took priority over DayZ's.
-
Weapon Inertia & Sway Feedback (dev branch)
roshnak replied to solzenicyn's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
How do you mean? Like, will the helicopter's movement contribute to the inertia effects? -
Wait- what?
-
I am not saying that any of this is too much to ask, just that it isn't as simple as Killzone_Kid is making it out to be. A "negative" response doesn't sound like a bad solution, to be honest. As for the plane, I was never really saying that AI shouldn't engage, but more asking what they should do when it moves outside their engagement range, which it is much more likely to do and will happen much quicker than with ground based units. Currently AI will move into engagement range and chase enemy units that move out of it when they are told to shoot at something. You might have to create a special exception for planes, or just make it so that they will only chase a unit for a certain distance before giving up.
-
I understand where you are coming from with this statement, but how do you want the unit to comply with your orders? If you tell a rifleman AI to engage an MRAP, should it just start shooting the vehicle's center of mass? Should it be smart enough to try to engage weak points like tires? Should it try to use grenades if it has them? What if you tell it to engage a tank? There is nothing the AI can do to damage a tank, should it still try to engage weak points? Waste grenades on it? What if you tell the rifleman to engage a jet? Should he chase it down trying to shoot it with his rifle? I'm just saying that it's not quite as simple as, "Do what you're told. Always."
-
I actually hadn't considered that aspect. I don't know if it's essential, given that we have a weight indicator in our inventory, but I can certainly see how it could provide valuable feedback and awareness of weight levels. I have to say that my issues with this approach have less to do with "watering down the experience" than with "muddying" it. Regarding fatigue, the current system requires players to practice, experiment, and get a "feel" for their avatars' capabilities, especially since the game currently lacks clear, distince feedback on fatigue levels. Having scalable fatigue settings would exacerbate this issue. It is difficult to get a good handle on what exactly you can get away with when what you can get away with changes from server to server. I feel that this sort of situation is detrimental to people learning the game. We are already getting a lot of frustration from players who don't understand the fatigue system as it is. This kind of thing would not make it any more clear. I have plenty of other reasons to be against this strategy, but you're right, and that is getting into off-topic territory.
-
Okay, but those things didn't happen, and complaining about them now doesn't do any good. The Arma 3 dev team isn't going to get a huge influx of developers at this point. I mean, if you really want to complain about the allocation of development resources, you should probably recognize that DayZ is pretty clearly the focus of development at this point, with a much larger team than Arma 3. Money doesn't last forever. That mod only addresses the "to be suppressed" portion of your request to allow the AI to "suppress and be suppressed." It's much more difficult to teach the AI when and how to suppress other groups. There are a lot of potential factors involved. Not thinking BIS should put everything else on hold until they solve my pet issues doesn't make me an apologist.
-
First of all, you understand that those features are not really "DLC content," right? They are just updates to the core game. Second, those features are some of the most requested features in the history of the series. People have been begging for the abiliity to fire from vehicles for nearly a decade now. Third, BIS needs to have a continuing revenue stream in order to pay the developers of the game to work on things like AI. DLC does that. That alone sounds like it would be enormously complicated to do properly, given the variety of unit sizes and types that may be involved in any specific engagement. Don't get me wrong, it's a feature that I would love and think should be in the game, but I wouldn't say that it's "not talking about much."
-
I've said it before, but I really think this is the realm of mods. Having a lot of options to change gameplay/trying to please multiple camps may sound like a good idea, but it usually leads to an unfocused game and confused players. I believe that, more than anything else, this would make it very difficult to get a feel for the fatigue system and your avatar's capabilities (especially without a stamina bar). Players have been modding in fatigue systems with harsher penalties for years. Why shouldn't it go the other way, too? Perhaps, but I doubt it would make much of a practical difference in gameplay.
-
I think you're fully misreading the intention of that statement. It was almost certainly intended to mean "DayZ's AI doesn't have to work as hard as Arma 3's AI does," not "zombies should be dumb."
-
It's worth noting that the issuing of more DLCs is probably what is financing the further development of the game. I would say that I frequently see AI taking cover, but far too often I see them taking cover on the wrong side of an object. I also think that even forgoing special animations, just having the AI utilize the stance adjust system would go a long way towards making it more obvious when they are "using cover."