Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Posts posted by roshnak

  1. Oh cmon... it's Arma, you can change a lot of other things already. Players always need to adapt, a custom difficulty setting wouldn't make a lot more difference. If you go on a new server -> new mission -> new gamemode, new rules, new everything.


    This is not really true. Difficulty settings do not dramatically affect core gameplay mechanics in Arma 3. The closest they come is the Extended Armor setting or the AFM for helicopters (which honestly feels like a bonus feature). Almost every one of the difficulty settings in Arma either changes AI difficulty or what HUD elements are visible or whether certain things are displayed on the map. 


    And gamemodes usually just change what you do, not how you do it. Bullets always drop the same amount, penetrate the same materials, etc. The basic rules of interacting with the game are almost always the same.


    Edit: Like, sure Life, KOTH, and a huge scale co-op mission may provide very different experiences, but the basic rules for interacting with the game are the same in each of them.

  2. Every mod used on a server will change the rules. See RHS and their modified armor perversion system.


    Mods are their own thing. Changing gameplay is pretty much what mods are all about.


    Demanding consistency means demanding everyone plays the same. I find that presumptuous. So assume we go for a consistent model. Which one should it be? The one we already have? Find with me. However, not find with a lot of other players.


    Nearly every game ever made has consistent core mechanics. You almost never have changing jump heights, run speeds, aiming mechanics, etc. within a single game.


    You make it sound like you are going from one server to another on a minute basis.


    You don't have to rapidly jump from server to server for differing mechanics to interfere with your ability to develop an intuitive understanding of game mechanics (because there is no standard which you can develop an intuitive understanding of).


    I'm not saying there shouldn't be options in Arma 3. I just think that certain things, player movement being one of them, should remain consistent in an unmodded setting so that players don't have to potentially relearn core aspects of the game if they join random public servers.


    Put bluntly, if you haven't tried the latest iteration of the stamina system. Your opinion carries little weight beyond scare tactics.


    Why would you assume that people posting in the dev branch subforum haven't tried the dev branch?

  3. Not much to "learn". Just a single number.


    If fatigue were as simple as that we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. As I mentioned in my previous post, fatigue impacts many aspects of the game. There would be no consistency for what kind of loadouts you could get away with from server to server. Or how much you could maneuever with each loadout. Or what kinds of terrain it was okay to traverse in combat or for how long.


    I know "just making it an option" seems like a good compromise, but, as someone else mentioned earlier in the thread, these kinds of core gameplay mechanics (movement, aiming) should be consistent. It allows players to become familiar with their limitations within the game. I want to know whether or not I can safely sprint from one piece of cover to another and still fight effectively with a given loadout. I want to know how quickly I can get from point A to point B and whether I will need to distribute ammunition amongst my team to do so. I want to know whether I can jog up a hill or if I will need to walk up it if I am expecting contact on the other side. I don't want to have to guess or try to remember whether I joined a "hardcore" server. I want to know these things without even thinking about it. That becomes much more difficult without consistent settings to become familiar with.


    Edit: Of course many of these things are no longer even a concern with the new stamina system.

  4. The worst thing about the change to the stamina system is that it ruined loadout balance. Under the fatigue system, you could take excessively heavy loadouts, but would be punished in the form of reduced mobility and more rapidly building weapon sway. That's no longer the case with the stamina system, so BIS has to mess with weapon weights so some weapons are unreasonably heavy and it's not even possible to take certain combinations of equipment.


    Fatigue had some pretty far reaching gameplay consequences and the change to stamina had a big impact on those.


    Easiest fix would have been the introduction of a "stamina effect" slider. Leave it at 1.0 to get the current fatigue, move it to 0.5 to fatigue at half the rate, set it to anything higher to make it more punishing. Set it to 0.1 for ten time the running capabilities. Would have served EVERYONE for all game types/play styles.


    It would certainly be easier, but I don't think it would be a good idea. Under this system, players would have to potentially learn new fatigue limitations every time they joined a server.

    • Like 1

  5. xDDD



    To answer all:


    The entire community -even the milsim- arent you or this post.


    To me is crytal clear that some kind of "radical" posters are inside this thread using the weapon of "ranting/lobbying" to gain more attention, but to me if a system dont work, the people - if they can - dont use it or remove it.


    If the devs need add more and more aggrevise sway/fatigue I see using my cristal ball a pletora of new mods with new "fatigue-removal" feature.


    I post before the right anwers to this and to me is very obvious that devs has is own vision about his own game.


    I suggest to all that instead trying impose his own vision about "right game" make a game for himself with his likes and preferences to play (I think a mod is better suitable for his programs skills but who knows).


    Uh, weren't you one of the people that was "ranting/lobbying" about not liking the new weapon sway when it was first introduced?


    Also, everything you have said could be said about not liking the original fatigue system in the first place. If this was just about the devs' vision, then we wouldn't have this change to the stamina system based partly on "community feedback."

    • Like 3

  6. Those helmets wouldn't go amiss, in Space Engineers..


    I'm not sure they would work well in a vacuum. My point was that there seem to be more complaints about the aesthetic of Arma 3 than the balance issues caused by a prevalence of FLIR, simplified lock-on system (although this was always a thing in Arma) and magnified optics.

  7. Honestly, I don't think to many people had a issue with the futuristic stuff. I just think that was just a side effect when complaining that everything and their mother had thermal/NV and lock on abilities. 


    If that's the case why does everyone complain about bug helmets?

  8. I don't expect you to understand that, you're obviously more for playing the run-and-gun game modes. We that prefer tactical and/or coop gameplay think differently.


    I'm not sure if it's really helpful or necessary to make assumptions about the kind of gameplay people prefer or to attack them for their prefered gameplay styles.


    So yeah, you can run forever without slowing down, nothing will ever FORCE you to rest UNLESS you want to shoot.


    I think this is a valid point. The stamina system penalizes players by impeding their ability to attack, but does little or nothing to impede players' ability to escape being attacked. Basically, taking an improper loadout might make it more difficult to shoot people, but you can still run away almost as well as everyone else. 


    The fatigue system penalizes players who take bad loadouts by impeding their ability to both attack and evade by lowering their movement speed. In Arma, I prefer this option.

    • Like 2

  9. Yes, but only being able to jog a 150 meters before becoming so exhausted that you can barely move, (even while taking fire) is equally unrealistic.


    This was never a thing that happened in Arma. With the default AT Specialist loadout at 89% maximum load you can jog with your weapon up for approximately 210 meters before you start to slow down. It takes roughly 530 meters before you are forced to a walking pace of 7 km/h, which still quicker than the default walk speed.


    Rangers are required to do road march for 12-miles with rucksack filled to 1/3 of your body weight, or 60 lbs, whichever is greater, in 3 hours. That's 4 mph, for 3 hours straight, and still expected to be to be combat effective.


    There's got to be some middle ground, where it's somewhat realistic, and still fun at the same time.


    4 miles per hour is a little under 6.5 km/h, which is only 1.5 km/h faster than the default Arma walk speed of 5 km/h, which still accomplishes a 12 mile run in just under 4 hours. You can walk in Arma forever at any load and actually lower your fatigue value while doing it. While I acknowledge that it would be pretty annoying to have to continually switch movement speeds, it should be no problem to (probably significantly) outpace 12 miles in 3 hours in Arma 3, and be fully rested at the end of it, under the fatigue system.


    Edit: Actually, I just did a quick test,  just jogging until you start to slow down and then walking until your fatigue level drops back down to zero, it should be possible to cover 12 miles in about 2 hours at 99% load.


    Basically even stuff that seems like it would be hard for actual soldiers to do in real life has a tendency to feel slow and unimpressive in video games.

    • Like 9


    People keep making that claim. Surely that only means that the display needs to update at 90 FPS (reacting to head movement), while the game itself could update at a far lower rate with no ill-effect. The two framerates are decoupled in the same way that monitor refresh rate and game FPS are.


    As long as the head movement is smooth and reactive, the game framerate should be no more important than normal, right? If I can smoothly look around at a static scene, how can that cause motion sickness? Sure - the rendered FOV would need to be much higher in each frame to allow for me to turn my head before the next frame's rendered, but that's within Arma's existing capabilities.


    Or can someone explain to me how I've got this horribly wrong?


    I'm not an expert in VR or anything, but, as I understand it, you're still going to need a high game frame rate because the display is just showing you pictures that the game is sending it. When you move your head, it changes the view and you need to see a bunch of new pictures to make that movement look smooth. If the game isn't sending enough pictures, the display can't do that much to fill in.


    75FPS is the recommended minimum for a silky smooth DK2 experience BTW, not 90FPS. ;)


    CV1 is 90.

  11. that would be bad game design, movement is a delicate factor to the gameplay balancing of a specific gamemode, what can be good for one gamemode can kill the next one, arma should deliver a framework of moderately penalizing fatigue that should be easily tweakable, mission/mod wise.



    I think you might be confused, because that is actually very good game design. The last thing you want is for players to be able to sprint further in a KOTH mission than in a co-op mission with all other factors being equal. You wouldn't want ballistics to change from mission to mission, why would you want your movement capability to change from mission to mission?


    yes, thank you, with no official gamemode as the basis, mechanics generally tend to be inconsistent  :)


    Ok, for what other mechanic is this true?


    So how do we get there? Here’s my suggestion:


    These are all good ideas, but I think it's unlikely that BIS decides to return to the old fatigue mechanic at this point (although I thought it was unlikely they would completely ditch it in the first place, too).

  12. Arma 3 doesnt have an official gamemode, does it make any sense to create a hyper specific fatigue system if there is no gamemode according to which gameplay it can be ballanced to?


    You could make this argument about literally any mechanic in the game.


    Yeah, fatigue is definitely on the simulation side of things - a thing that shouldn't depend on game mode (and even difficulty settings are questionable in this regard). I'm not saying that such things shouldn't ever be tweaked, but the proper place is rather a (total conversion) mod. The Arma gameworld/simulation should be consistent across game modes.


    Also this.


    To be honest that's the only good way to nerf those heavy guns and loadouts tho ...


    Actually it's one of the worst ways to do it. It's not a good idea to mess with players' mouse control. It makes playing the game feel bad. There are plenty of good ways to balance heavy weapons against lighter ones, several of which have already been mentioned.


    Dynamic speeds


    How would this affect the ability of AI and players to move together in groups, though?

    • Like 2

  14. I think it's pretty funny how many people in this thread are acting like most users don't care about authors' rights or something when in reality those users probably just see Steam Workshop as a convenient way to get mods and in all likelihood haven't even read the EULA for Steam Workshop, Steam, or even Arma (because no one reads EULAs).

  15. Hi Folks,


    Sorry - total newb to Arma - I was pointed in your direction and I like what I see... I read the pages on your forum and it mentioned the "Updater" was the preferred vehicle to install RHS - however - I couldn't find a README or install instructions on your site... I unpacked the "updater" file to their own respective directory on my desktop - then clicked the executable... Nothing happened - I'm assuming they might have to be placed in a specifuc directory to work properly ??? Any help - much appreciated...








    Under "setting up the updaters."

  16. But what do you mean by "functions under those keys won't work when the menu is open"? Of course they don't because they're bound to the same keys. Just change the weapons to ctrl+1/2/3 or whatever with modifier.


    But the point is that you shouldn't need modifers or separate keys for selecting weapons and navigating the command menu. It should be contextual like every other shooter. Number keys should select weapons by default, but when the command menu is open (either by pressing a key or by selecting squad members) the number keys should stop selecting weapons and instead be used for navigating the command menu. No one is going to be switching weapons while their command menu is open, anyway, so why make things more complicated than they have to be?

  17. Heck if the OFP / Arma series are an online first person shooter, then BI devs have really strange priorities. If for more than a year after the release of Arma 3 the MP part was practically unplayable.

    BTW that would also mean that all the magazine and web reviews lie about it's genre. Even BI lies about it:

    I can't even tell where the goal posts are anymore.