roshnak

Wait - I'm pretty sure HL2's way of doing it is the "old way" and doing this stuff in-engine is the way it's going to be done in the future (and also right now, apparently). It would be pretty great if Arma 3 had proper 3D/spatialized sound.

You did. This is this basis for BIS's entire DLC strategy.

Probably not going to happen (fortunately).

DayZ doesn't need to worry about AI knowing how to deal with injuries.

Yes, but it was terrible. It would be nice if there was a good weapon collision implementation, but that's probably not going to happen any time soon.

Arma 3 has the same kind of locational damage that Arma 2 had. The only difference is that now being shot in the legs forces you to a walking pace (probably to simulate limping) rather than forcing you to crawl. It would be nice if it came with an animation, though, and probably cut down on complaints like this as well.

Pretty sure it means that players won't automatically radio contacts or status reports like "LOW AMMO" and the like.

Basically every PVP game has at least one thread like this on its official forums. There are always going to be people who like to rile others up, and there are always going to be people who complain about it and cook up schemes to try to control people's behavior.

Why would BIS be responsible for crashes caused by RHS?

What do you mean? The stance adjust system doesn't apply when the weapon is lowered. It just locks you into normal standing or crouched (obviously, you can't lower your weapon at all while prone). And different walking animations wouldn't apply to crouched walking, since it's a completely separate animation that has both hands on the weapon anyway. Edit: Or are you referring to enex's suggestion? If so, yeah, the shoulders postition would obviously not make any sense, but the lowered position could perhaps be tweaked to be viable. Probably not necessary, though, when you could just use a regular two handed grip.

Maybe? I get that a tank shell will probably make a significantly louder sonic boom than a 9mm bullet. What I'm not sure of is if a .50 cal will make a significantly louder sonic boom than a 7.62, or if a 7.62 will make a significantly louder boom than a 5.56 will. What I'm asking is, does someone know at what point bullets start making obviously louder sonic booms? As for the video you mention, it's not particularly useful in this case.

Yes, but are the differences in the sizes of bullets enough to substantially change the loudness of the sonic boom they create? I'm sure different bullets create sonic booms of different loudnesses, but, practically speaking, is it enough to be noticable and/or worth implementing in the game other than maybe one for small arms and one for larger caliber weapons like cannons? Like, would someone be able to say that a certain bullet crack was from a bigger bullet than a previous bullet crack, or would they all just sound like cracks? I've never been in a position to experience bullet cracks, but I asked someone with some experience and he indicated that the muzzle report and impact sound were more useful to him in identifying weapon type than the sonic boom created by the bullet. That's just one person's experience, though, and it's not like he was specifically listening for differences in bullet cracks. It's not easy to find information about the loudness of bullet cracks relative to each other.

Uh, why? Edit: I mean, is the size of the bullet the determining factor in the loudness of its sonic boom?

That doesn't sound right. Here's an old video I made to show off the effects of hold breath, but it's also showing weapon sway under extreme fatigue (more than 60%). The sway may look silly, but the optic is never anywhere near the corners of the screen.

This is not true or your game is bugged.

Wait- this change doesn't have anything to do with arrow keys, does it? Isn't it just that walking has been given priority over jogging, so that it can act as a modifier to the (intended) default jog speed? Isn't this just a function of Yokhanan wanting walking to be the default movement type? Because if I transfer the default Arma movement controls over to the arrow keys, everything works as intended, and if I transfer Yokhanan's movement configuration to WASD, I have the same problems that he's reporting with the arrow keys. I'm sure it's frustrating that keybindings that worked for years no longer do, but can't you just reverse the bindings for slow forward and forward such that up arrow = forward, and 2x up arrow = slow forward?

Suppression effects. Also, I would say that a little over 200 players, mostly in Europe, is pretty insignificant compared with the roughly 2000 people playing KOTH right now. There are currently 0 people playing EUTW in NA servers and there aren't even any TacBF servers in North America at all. Unless an NA player wants to play with high latency or has enough friends to jumpstart an empty US EUTW server, KOTH looks like the only viable option. This is compounded by Arma's poor server browswer. Edit: And of course other non-European players are also out of luck as far as servers go.

TacBF doesn't seem to be that popular, and contains some gameplay changes that many players are likely to find questionable. There really aren't any (played) sector control missions for vanilla Arma other than KOTH.

Are you suggesting that it should take longer for the sights to come up? That wouldn't make the game more challenging or require skill, it would just add a delay before you can shoot. As for wind affecting bullets, I believe the devs have said that they don't want to include this feature as they are not happy with their ability to convey wind direction and strength to the player. Even if windage was included, though, it would only be a factor in long distance shooting or in certain weather conditions. And how is this not true in Arma 3? Arma isn't a first person medical game, a first person mechanic game, or a first person driving game, it's a first person shooter. And even so, flying helicopters is plenty skill based in Arma, with or without the AFM. By the way, there are mods that significantly tone down weapon sway. Being able to disable weapon sway in the stock game is obviously not an option.

I believe that the Mk14 is supposed to be an "antique" rifle in use by irregulars. It certainly looks more beat up than the other weapons in the game. That's probably why it's less accurate than the shiny new Mk18s.

The sway is not supposed to simulate stress or anything like that. It's designed to make shooting in Arma appropriately difficult and skill-based. The problem with equating the skillset involved in shooting and the skillset involved in using a mouse is that they are completely different. For example: This argument doesn't make sense. If weapon sway was tied to how much you were inadvertantly moving the mouse, there would never be any weapon sway. (Almost) Anyone can move a mouse cursor over a stationary point and hold it there without letting it move at all. The number of human beings who could accomplish the same thing with a gun is zero.

I was happy to read about this fix, and then kind of disappointed with the implementation, since the game just takes control of the camera away from the player while the weapon is undeploying now. Why does the camera have to return to center to undeploy the weapon? It seems weird, especially since you can enter deployment at different angles.

That gun has a muzzle brake on it, so it's not really a good example of recoil without a muzzle brake. Although, as RobertHammer pointed out, suppressors for .50 BMG rifles exist. There are also .408 suppressors, so there's no reason to say that either the Lynx or the M320 couldn't realistically have suppressors available in game.

Where would the practice and skill come in, then?

Really? Day of Defeat, Killing Floor, Red Orchestra, Insurgency, and Infiltration (highly praised for its realism) all had recoil systems like this. And those are just games that I have currently installed, I'm sure there are more. My sensitivity is set to 0.5 at 1000 DPI which results in about 11.5 inches of travel to rotate 360 degrees. I don't find myself having to pick up my mouse any more than I do in any other game. I also don't think there is anything wrong with having to pick up the mouse, I do it all the time in video games without even thinking about it. It especially shouldn't make a difference during slow fire. I also don't have much trouble firing off 200 rounds from the Mk200 an auto, though: Why do we have to assume this, especially with recoil? I can't think of a single way to allow player input on sight alignment, trigger control, or shooting stance that wouldn't wind up feeling bad and clunky in a game like this. The only ways I can think of doing it for reloading would be with timing minigames and I bet that would get old pretty quick. Making players manually control recoil is a simple, obvious game mechanic that is in plenty of other video games. It feels natural and intuitive. It also accounts for many aspects of shooting and recoil control. Stance, grip, leaning into shots, these are all things that don't need to be their own gameplay mechanics if they are abstracted into a recoil mechanic that demands that players actively push the mouse down to correct for recoil. As for your suggestion: How, specifically, do you see such a system working? Because it seems to me that it could potentially be more cumbersome for anyone who already knows how to counter recoil effectively in the game.