roshnak

Why would I ever do this, though? And, yes, for a video game it does seem desirable to me. I would rather have control over compensating for recoil than give that control to the game. I understand the argument that recoil is naturally compensated for in real life, but it's not actually that natural. It's a learned technique. As the video posted by enex shows, there are ways to be more or less effective at compensating for recoil. Put a gun in a new, untrained shooter's hand and they will compensate for recoil less effectively than a trained shooter almost every time. In my opinion, making players manually counter vertical and side to side recoil is the best way to approximate that in a video game with only a mouse to control the weapon.

What do you think players should have to compensate for if not upward movement? Strictly side to side movement? We have no control over movement forward and rearward with a mouse.

Where are you hitting them?

Ok, how about we remove the ability to aim down the sights and stick a crosshair in the middle of the screen?

Hey, how about we just remove iron sights and stick a crosshair in the middle of the screen? That will pretty much achieve the both eyes open effect.

This is real annoying. Ideally you should be able to undeploy no matter what direct you're looking, it shouldn't try to recenter the view first.

What? I'm pretty sure this topic is about the decals used for bullet impacts on objects (as opposed to the slightly more detailed decals used on terrain). Not penetration or anything more complicated.

You didn't say how many magazines you were carrying. Also, are you jogging or sprinting? I doubt you will find anyone arguing that point either. I'll argue the point. Being able to pick your own equipment doesn't affect the realism of Arma 3's gameplay or the fatigue system. Either way, I find it amusing that this thread has people arguing that the fatigue system should be toned down because it's not realistic enough and that it should be toned down because it's too realistic.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. What I suggested is already how it works in game. If you initiate a reload while deployed and you need to move, you can simply move away at any time. The reload isn't interrupted or anything.

The same thing that happens if you have to get up in the middle of a reload while not deployed, I would imagine. Why should it be any different?

Not a fan of the Max Payne series, then?

I don't see why this has to be an either-or thing. This seems like the sort of thing that is perfectly suited to tweaking to your personal preference through the options.

As far as I can tell, this actually doesn't have anything to do with the weapon resting speed. The problem seems to be that your weapon actually never stops being rested when you duck behind cover like that. It's rested on the vertical surface of the wall. You can test this by walking up to any wall and basically burying the muzzle of your gun in it. Your weapon will be rested. Actually, no part of your gun or body even has to be touching the wall for this to work.

Here:

That's interesting. Since weapon resting already adds so much stability, and I'm assuming that deployment will add even more, I'm wondering how much more stability could be added by bipods.

I don't really have a problem with the unlimited range of motion while weapon resting, although I don't think I would mind if there were still inertia penalties, either. I think the second issue could be solved with some proper weapon collision. I would really love if BIS stole Infiltration's weapon collision model, but since that's almost certainly not going to happen, I think resetting the weapon resting after stance changes would work well enough. I don't know if increased sway is really necessary, though. I don't know if it would really be confusing at all with an icon, though. Icon disappears: You're not rested anymore. Icon reappears: You're rested again. You appear to have misunderstood me. I didn't say anything about how things work in the real world. I said that you were describing the way BIS intends for bipods to work. Weapon resting vs. bipod deployment is supposed to be a tradeoff between mobility and stability. BIS has stated that it is their intention to differentiate the way these two systems work, so I very much doubt if they intend to allow you to deploy your weapon without a bipod. Edit: As for your table example, I could argue that the act of walking up to a table such that my gun is positioned a short distance above the surface of the table signifies my intention to rest the weapon on it. Why shouldn't I expect the game to know that this was my intention and rest my weapon for me? Why add an extra button to lower my weapon by two inches? I mean, Red Orchestra was a pretty well regarded tactical shooter that featured automatic weapon resting similar to current system in Arma 3 and people didn't seem to find it all that unintuitive.

You guys are describing they way bipods are going to work.

This would obviously depend on your mouse sensitivity and the size of your mousepad, but in my experience, no, although it does get close: I use a medium-low sensitivity. Okay, but, again, that would make it harder to counter the recoil in the game. Not easier. It would still be perfectly doable, but it would certainly take more practice to master. This same thing will happen if you shoot a lot in Arma.

Okay. Again. I understand that this is not about that one example, as I stated in the first line of a previous post. My problem is that it is not possible to create a system that can automatically detect when someone is "being a dick" and downrate them for it. This is my problem with the core of the "automated system" argument. Whether or not someone is being a dick is dependent on context, especially in a sandbox game. I also have problems with the idea of letting other players rate each other and the whole concept of an "Arma Permanent Record," which I have written about previously. Why is it that Arma would need a system like this but every other game seems to get by just fine without it?

Almost certainly. There are several scenarios I can think of that would cause a person to leave a helicopter in an inaccessible place. And you're also assuming that the helicopter was meant for use by the whole server. What if it wasn't? What if the scenario called for it to be left there or at the least meant that it was acceptable to leave it there? What if the player died or fell off the roof or had to jump off for some reason? Remember, we aren't talking about specific missions here. We're talking about a global detection system. Edit: Again, I don't have a problem with people running these scripts on their own servers or having rules and enforcing them. Yeah, if you don't like what someone is doing on your server, kick them, ban them, whatever. I don't even care if you have a good reason. If the players don't like what's going on, they can vote kick people (although I do think that this system should be made more accessible). Also, I don't think outright cheating is the same thing as griefing, and thus I don't think comparisons with anti-cheat programs are valid.

What is an anomalous location? Who decides what an anomalous location is? I guess I really wasn't clear about this. My problem isn't with being able to detect that something is happening. It's with being able to tell whether or not it's stupid, since in many cases it comes down to personal opinion, or the context of the mission, or whether or not you're having a bad day. Yeah, it was me. I was the one who said that. And it's the most important part of my post. I don't care if people run scripts on their individual servers or in their missions that move vehicles or punish teamkillers or anything else. I care that people are trying to create a global standard for the "right way" to play Arma and punish people for not conforming to their views.

Why are you singling out one thing from that post when you yourself stated that there is a list of behaviors you don't like so long it would take all day to write it out? (To be clear, I do not think that you literally have a list this long.) I know that there is genuinely no way for a computer to detect whether or not it is okay for a player to park a helicopter on an inaccessible rooftop (as an example), especially given that I bet you and I already have different ideas of when it would be okay to do so. I do not think that detecting whether a helicopter was parked on an inaccessible rooftop is hard, I think it's silly to want to detect it in the first place, and I would likely feel similarly about any other issue you have with the way people play Arma in public servers. This is a sandbox game, and behaviors that you do not like are not disapproved of by everyone or in every situation. And even if they were, they still shouldn't incur a global ban from playing the game in multiplayer, temporary or otherwise. Again, what you are essentially saying is that you want to give players an "Arma Worthiness Rating" (whether it's assigned by other players or the game itself doesn't really matter) and then allow people to say "No playes with less than a 60% Worthiness Rating allowed to play in my server." This is a bad idea. You're trying to turn a open community into a exclusive one.

You may not be putting conscious effort into it, but you are most definitely putting effort into it. You are using your muscles and muscle memory to counteract the force of the object is pushing on you. Now, you could obviously argue that there are differences involved - countering force pushing directly back at you is not the same as a force pushing up, down, or side-to-side - but it's roughly analogous to what currently happens in the game. As for not being able to "adapt" to the recoil because of a need for constant mouse input, as I said before, changing the amount of recoil during the course of a burst will only make it more difficult to adapt. It will make it more difficult to develop the required muscle memory to counter the recoil. The only way the proposed system could possibly be better is if you assume that players don't know how to use a mouse to counter recoil, and instead everyone is currently just holding mouse 1, watching their aim rise until they are looking at the sky, letting go of the mouse button, readjusting their aim, and repeating. So how exactly would tapering the amount of recoil over time solve this problem? Unless you plan to somehow prevent players from countering those first two shots, maybe take away mouse control during a burst? Or dramatically increase the recoil on the first two shots so that it is almost uncontrollable? I don't understand, is your argument that it is too easy to counter the current recoil or too hard? Because you originally said that recoil felt like an artificial penalty.

And the answer to that question is no. It's a bad idea that is open to abuse and designed to solve a problem that it is relatively easily handled utilizing the tools that already exist in the game. No other game needs a special tool to globally police players' behavior. Why does this one? Again, no. First of all, unless you work for BE you can't say whether or not the lifetime bans it hands out are accurate. Secondly, even if we assume that false positives are impossible, false negatives are definitely not. Anti-cheat programs fail to catch cheats all the time. The consequence of this under the current system is that a guilty person doesn't get punished. As Das Attorney already pointed out, the consequence under your proposed system is that innocent people are wrongly punished. And even if your proposed system was infallible (it can't be), it's still not possible since it's designed to prevent "stupid shit," as you put it, which apparently comprises a list so long that it would take a whole day to list it all, including such actions as parking helicopters on inaccessible rooftops. This is clearly not the type of thing that can be detected by an algorithm, since it really just amounts to behaviors that you personally don't approve of. At the end of the day, you're just mad that people aren't playing the game the way you want them to.

Right, and no anti-cheat system is foolproof, so whether or not Battleye is fit for the purpose isn't the right question to ask, since no anti-cheat is. And a rating system is potentially corruptible and open to abuse by any number of things. And this whole system would serve what purpose, exactly? Making it so you don't have to be annoyed by people who aren't playing the game the way you want them to? There are already systems in place for dealing with players that are breaking the rules. Those systems could easily be improved without creating a permanent record of a player's behavior that follows them from server to server.