Jump to content

roshnak

Member
  • Content Count

    1130
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Everything posted by roshnak

  1. Uh, no I don't. I already said I would be fine with flipping the sway so it was more vertical and less horizontal. I stated that I don't agree that it's more realistic than the horizontal sway, but I don't care, as long as it makes people happy while maintaining the current gameplay. I aslo stated that making the onset and recovery of fatigue was probably a good idea. I also understand your desire for options, but like I said previously, most of the way options are presented in Arma (and the way they always have been) is through it being a highly moddable game, not through the vanilla experience being highly tweakable. In addition to the statements I have previously made about why I, personally, think that having options for different kinds of sway is bad game design, I also have trouble with the statements that various people have made about not wanting to force people to play the game a certain way. While it's true that Arma is more sandboxy than many other shooters, all game design is ultimately about crafting a certain gameplay experience. At its core, game development is about forcing certain kinds of gameplay.
  2. roshnak

    Patch 1.24 (Bootcamp Update) Feedback

    This sounds like what happens in ACE2 for Arma 2. Are you sure you aren't talking about that?
  3. roshnak

    Patch 1.24 (Bootcamp Update) Feedback

    Head bob is almost certainly in the game because it makes it look cinematic. It was introduced at a time when several other games were doing the same thing. If they just wanted to lower your situational awareness they could have blurred the edges of the screen or something and not given the option to disable it.
  4. Ah, I thought you wanted a corresponding increase in vertical sway for the decrease in horizontal sway. In this case, I just completely disagree with you. Sway is already based on fatigue. You might just think that the unfatigued sway is too much.
  5. Have the last few pages not been about how you think the sway should be flipped sideways, so it's more vertical and less horizontal? What I'm saying, in response to your last post, is that tweaking it so there is the same amount of sway, but it's heavier on the vertical axis than the horizontal axis doesn't make the game less challenging. Countering it is the same, you're just moving your mouse more up and down and less side to side. It's the same mechanic, it's just tweaked slightly. So I guess I'm back to not understanding exactly how it is you think the sway should be changed. Do you think that the amplitude of the sway is too high? Do you think that the amplitude is fine, but that it's on the wrong axis? Or do you think the amplitude is too high and it's on the wrong axis? I was under the impression that you thought the amplitude was mostly the fine, but that it should be more in the Y-axis than the X-axis. If that is in fact the case, then I would argue that you're okay with the idea and principle of the system, you just think it should have a minor tweak to it's implemenation. When I see that you stated that you're "finding a way around this ridiculous system" I think that you are not okay with the idea and principle of the system and think that the sway should be significantly reduced overall, such that it no longer impairs long range shooting. Sorry if this sounds nitpicky, but I'm trying to figure out what discussion we are having, and I think that being precise is important since the devs have already started implementing changes based on player feedback. Edit: Basically, I don't understand if you just want the horizontal sway to be reduced, or if you want the horizontal sway to be reduced and the vertical sway to be increased.
  6. See, this is the part where your messages are getting confusing. By your own admission, the system is fine. You said that the sway is fine, it should just have the amplitude on the x and y axes switched, so that it's basically as though you took the current sway, and rotated it 90 degrees. That' snot a bad system. It's not a choice between realistic and challenging. It's just a minor tweak to the current sway. When you call the whole system ridiculous, that's what makes people think you want the sway to be removed or drastically changed.
  7. roshnak

    Patch 1.24 (Bootcamp Update) Feedback

    Right, well the question is, then, should BIS not make improvements to the game that will ultimately give modders more tools to work with in the name of not confusing people that, quite frankly, will probably be confused no matter what? Like, I just don't understand what some people expect BIS to have done in this situation. Modders seemed very happy with the new capabilities they were getting from this change. BIS announced that the patch would necessitate updating existing weapon mods a month ahead of time, told modders what they would have to do to update their addons (add like 7 lines to the config), and had the updates in the dev branch and release client weeks ahead of time, so that modders could fix their addons. Anyone who was able to find and install addons would, presumably, upon launching their game and finding that their addon weapons had no sound, be capable of Google searching "arma 3 update mods no sound" or similar and finding out what had happened from these forums. They would then learn that they have to download the updated versions of their addons. I don't feel like it's unreasonable for a video game company to expect basic computer literacy from people using computers.
  8. roshnak

    Patch 1.24 (Bootcamp Update) Feedback

    This is going to sound kind of harsh, but downloading and installing mods isn't rocket science. If someone can't figure out how to update their mods, they probably shouldn't be messing around with them in the first place. Minecraft updates break mods all the time and their playerbase seems to be able to figure this stuff out, despite the fact that a substantial portion of that playerbase is under the age of 15.
  9. I can link you to references, if you want. I doubt it would change your mind, though, since that's apparently not what you're experiencing. I agree. There are some shooters that balance snipers fine, although, they tend to be significantly less realistic games. Sway is not random. It's a pattern that you can learn to control or compensate for. That's the exact opposite of "RNG." Proper implementation of windage would be significantly more random than sway alone, since it's entirely possible for the wind to change suddenly or be different downrange of you (especially at the long distances that are possible in Arma 3).
  10. I don't know, I just feel like this is exactly the kind of thing mods are good for. Having different levels of weapon sway depending on what server you join is the kind of thing that I could see causing a lot of confusion and angry posts about bugs. I think it's best not to make people learn two different shooting styles within the game. On the other hand, if he literally just wants the current sway to be flipped on its side, I'd be open to just outright changing it to be that way. That's the kind of thing that's more aesthetic than anything. My primary concern is the effect it has on gameplay, which is to make it so that snipers have to be putting in more effort than what they did before the patch. Although, I have to say, I'm still finding a lot of references to sights tracing a sideways figure-eight when shooting offhand. I mean, it's all anecdotal evidence, but so is Rath's, and it's basically making me think that it could have a lot to do with the individual shooter. The first part is mostly answered in the first section of this post. I think that changing this kind of gameplay mechanic is best left to mods. While I agree that freedom of choice is one of the things that makes Arma great, many of those cool gameplay changing things have historically been mods. And I don't think the changes in this particular mechanic would be transparent enough to prevent a great deal of confusion without some sort of obnoxious notice telling you what had been changed. It's not like 3rd person or crosshairs where people can immediately tell that those things just don't work. From a game design perspective I also think it's not great, since it makes people form two different muscle memories for dealing with sway, which can be confusing and annoying for the player in a different way. As for the second thing: Yeah, it's primarily a PvP thing, although I would argue that it can be bad in co-op as well. It's possible to shoot at AI from outside the range that they will shoot back, although that distance keeps going up with each game. Well, the way around it is to get good at countering the sway and develop those skills, which I'm fine with. My problem with the previous system was that there wasn't that much skill involved in long range shooting. If it's harder to shoot at me, then when I killed in one shot from 1.5 km away (honestly, probably more like 800 meters), at least I know that player had some degree of skill and had to work at killing me a little harder. Moreso than pre-patch, anyway. I just don't like the best and easiest option for killing people to be grabbing the biggest possible gun and hiding on a hill well outside the combat area.
  11. I mean, it's cool that you guys played that way before and everything, but you could have played like that in BF4 if you wanted, that doesn't mean BF4 has realistic gameplay. The question that Coulum and a I are asking is whether or not you feel like the increased weapon sway encourages others to play like that. And if it does, I would argue that it's having a net positive effect on the gameplay, and should remain in the game. Groups that played like that before and don't play PVP or whatever can mod it out, right? The thing about making it an option is that it's no longer encouraging players to play like we're talking about and we're essentially back to a situation where the kind of gameplay tactics that the increased sway encourages are entirely voluntary. Yeah, but some of the most important things that have to go right, and some of the things that are most often wrong (from an unstabilized position), are hold and trigger pull. How do you deal with that in a video game? At some point we have to have some form of approximation of that if we want to have realistically challenging long range shooting. We're also getting some of those more challenging aspects of long range shooting in the Marksman DLC, but that is several months away at minimum. Perhaps the heavy sway is a decent stopgap until then? Yeah, this is the where some of the misunderstanding is. People like dsiOne and myself aren't saying that it isn't more challenging. We're saying that the challenge isn't insurmountable like some others are claiming it to be. We* were responding to people like SillyWabbit and HAseOne who kept claiming that the new sway made it impossible to hit anything anymore. Specifically, to cases where people kept posting videos of their weapon swaying and saying, "How can I possibly be expected to shoot targets like this?" We posted examples (mine was of my own gameplay) to show that it is still possible to shoot targets with the new sway, it's just more difficult and takes more effort. If it didn't make any effective difference in how the game played out I doubt either of us would care about it at all. *Obviously I can't really speak to exactly how dsiOne feels, but this is the impression I got from his posts. edit: We're probably just having a misunderstanding then, because, personally, I got the impression that you thought the sway was excessive.
  12. He's referring to the fact that heavier weapon sway forces closer range engagements and encourages the use of suppression and fire and maneuver tactics, while dissuading people from sniping at each other from 600 meters. What he's asking is if you disagree that those are the effects of the new sway or if you disagree that those effects are more realistic or both or neither. How does taking the current sway and rotating its axis make it not a minigame, though?
  13. On the other hand, he could be talking about counteracting any kind of recoil. Remember when Arma 3 added manual recoil control and everyone threw a fit? I do. If you want to talk about what happens in real life, maybe you would like to explain why it was more realistic when everyone could easily engage targets out to 2km with an M14.
  14. Yeah, wind effecting bullets is supposed to be coming in the Marksman DLC. But that's not coming out for several months, so this is a good way to make marksmanship appropriately difficult until then. On the other hand, the sway doesn't make it significantly difficult to shoot at long range if you give it a chance and are willing to learn the system. Most people came onto the forums to throw a fit within hours of downloading the patch. P.S. Long distance shooting in ACE was dead easy.
  15. roshnak

    Legal discussion regarding Steam Workshop

    Unless something happened outside of the Blastcore thread that I'm not aware of, I watched as this went down. You posted a compiled addon to the thread. It wasn't compiled. But you guys did post it as an "open-source version of Blastcore A3." You guys literally posted: Surely you can see how this looks like you are taking over this project, even going so far as to tell OS that any updates he submits may not be accepted. This is extremely presumptious.
  16. Right. This is probably the best argument in favor of even exaggerated weapon sway. There are way too many snipers in Arma. Too many engagements boil down to players taking pot shots at each other (or the AI) from 500+ meters away.
  17. roshnak

    Legal discussion regarding Steam Workshop

    This whole line of logic is a bigger stretch than when you tried to claim that the CBA license legally bound all mods using CBA to be open source. This is the problem, though. If you had communicated your desires with other people in the Arma modding community before releasing your mod, they probably would have suggested this course of action in the first place. You guys do this thing where you sort of almost apologize for going about this in the wrong way at first, then you undo it all by saying, "Well we really had every right to do whatever we wanted in the first place." Also, this is nothing like patent trolling. The only way it would be like patent trolling is if OpticalSnare tried to claim that you had no right to create an effects mod at all, because he owns the idea of effects mods. What you did (at first) is to use substantial parts of his code without permission. Or, if you intended to submit them to him as a possible fix as you claim, you did it in such a manner that it really, really seemed like you were trying to release an alternate version. (This thread is definitely going to wind up getting locked, right? Perhaps this discussion should happen elsewhere, although I do think it's a worthy discussion to have.)
  18. roshnak

    Legal discussion regarding Steam Workshop

    Have you tried asking for permission and the files required to create animations for those weapons from the author? Although, it's unlikely you would get it as you've got kind of a bad reputation around here. I've got a larger question. Why would you want to just add some dirt to those textures instead of creating new ones, anyway? How does having 20 tweaks of the same assets constitute innovation or variety? Aren't you tired of seeing those same CS models from 2010 in every Arma game? By the way, should this discussion be in another thread?
  19. roshnak

    Legal discussion regarding Steam Workshop

    Can I just say that it would be a real shame if things were handled this way? There are a bunch of people who have learned a great deal about modding Arma from looking at how other people have done things, and encrypting .pbos would be a surefire way to kill any hope of that happening in the future. I understand that you're upset that people are uploading modified versions of your work without your permission (and that the guy doing it is so insufferable about it), but this seems like a real overreaction that has the potential to do more harm to the community than he is doing. The same thing kind of goes for obfuscating your code. If you want to do that, it's your business, but you should know that there is a thriving modding community built around a game with obfuscated code. I hope we don't let a couple of jerks ruin things for everyone.
  20. roshnak

    Legal discussion regarding Steam Workshop

    Dude, if you want to change stuff for your private community, go for it. If you want to make a config that edits someone's mod, but still requires that mod as a dependency, go for it. What makes you think that redistributing a file that is composed of a majority of someone else's work is the best or only option here? If you want dirtier M4 textures, why don't you ask the original authors of those assets for permission to modify them and include them in Arma, which is what RobertHammer did? By the way, are you seeing a difference in how you went about this? If you want truly just want to help with bugfixes, why don't you offer those fixes to the original author of the work, and if you really care about getting credit (which I can tell you do), ask for it? What other mod community on the planet does things the way you're doing them?
  21. roshnak

    Patch 1.24 (Bootcamp Update) Feedback

    Alternatively, learn how computer games work and recognize that sometimes patches break mods. It's the nature of the beast. BIS announced that this was going to happen a month ago and the changes have been on the dev branch long enough for addon developers to either update their mods ahead of time or be prepared for the update when it dropped. Many addons were updated to work with the Bootcamp changes within 48 hours of the patch dropping. You're telling me that you couldn't wait (not even) 2 days to get your M16s back in the game?
  22. You sure like to use DMRs and sniper rifles in PVP, huh?
  23. roshnak

    Damage system sucks - fix needed

    Whether or not another game has done it better is irrelevant to whether or not this game does it well. On the other hand... This statement is kind of strange, given that Call of Duty is one of the higher lethality shooters out there.
  24. I don't have a magnified optic nearby, but there is a definite horizontal component to weapon sway as I experience it. I also found numerous references to it via a quick Google search. Although, there is some amount of conflicting information, since there are references to it being a used as a technique for offhand shooting as welll as being a natural phenomenon (either way, I would argue it is reasonable to include it in the game). I suppose I should clarify that it is a sideways figure eight or infinity symbol that I am talking about. I don't really know what to tell you then, man. Weapon resting isn't in the game yet. There is some hope that it might be included in the Marksman DLC, although that will also introduce other factors to make long distance shooting more difficult. Before the Bootcamp update it was unrealistically easy to fire from positions where it was impossible to support your weapon. Now it's unrealistically difficult to fire from situations where you would realistically be able to support your weapon. Until those features are implemented, your opinion of weapon sway is probably going to depend on whether you would rather err on the side of shooting being more or less difficult. As it is, there are several lightweight mods to add weapon resting. As much as it is a valid argument that you should not need to rely on mods for gameplay features, this is a game that has historically been largely reliant on mods to add gameplay features. Also, since it's much easier to mod in weapon resting than a comprehensive fatigue system, I think that in this situation it is more reasonable for BIS to release the fatigue system and let users mod in weapon resting (for now). I also have to say that some of the things you mention, such as pointing out the lack of gear used in the linked video and suggesting that not everyone wants to play like that, lead me to believe that you may have as much of a problem with the fatigue levels as you do with the weapon sway.
  25. But weapons realistically sway in a sideways figure eight pattern (roughly), which is what they do in the game. As for the sniper rifle swaying, you have to remember that weapon resting isn't in the game at this point. I was firing from the prone, unsupported position. The rifle wasn't resting on anything, so it would be affected by the character's breathing rhythms and, thus, be subject to weapon sway. Also, like I said, I would be far more willing to accept the argument that soldiers tire and reach the exhausted state too quickly than that the sway is unrealistic at various states of fatigue. And about disabling fatigue: Does "unit enableFatigue false" not work anymore? Edit: Just tested enableFatigue and it does work.
×