Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

roshnak

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    1130

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Posts posted by roshnak

  1. Posted

    Try firing 30 rounds in semi-auto slowly without adding any other input to the mouse

    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.

  2. Posted · Edited by roshnak

    First of all, thank you to the devs for all the hard work and opening up to the community to hear what we have to say. Its nice to know that the people who are making the game/sim are making a genuine effort to please the players.

    My firearms background is in competitive shooting and I'm also a certified firearms instructor. In my opinion, as a gamer and firearms "expert" I'm not a fan of the recoil in Arma driving the firearm into the sky under sustained fire and having it just stay there once you're done firing. In real life, a rifle or handgun will naturally return to roughly the same point form which it left without much conscious effort. I can hammer out 30 rounds as fast as I can pull the trigger with say a 5.56 rifle and even without actively trying to fight the recoil I will never gain more than a few degrees of muzzle climb, most of the recoil impulse is rearwards. I want to be clear that I don't have a problem with the magnitude of the recoil, I think its great and very true to life which is what we all love about Arma in the first place....I only have an issue with the way the firearm gains elevation and stays there causing the player to constantly move their mouse downwards with each shot until he/she either runs out of space to keep moving their mouse downwards or the run out of ammunition. The player should absolutely strain to keep control of the firearm under rapid fire, no doubt about it, I just don't feel that we should have to actively compensate for the upwards movement of a gun which gets compensated for naturally in real life. For what its worth I've swapped back between the dev branch/stable and run a few quick tests, it seems like the dev branch weapons have even more "permanent" upward movement.

    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.

  7. Posted

    not sure if it was a thing in Arma 2 or not, i may be delusional, but with Anti-Material rifles, it put holes through thin metal and i think trees? But then again, having played Arma for so long, i doubt that the Engine can handle that, so no.

    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.

  8. Posted · Edited by roshnak

    My Equipment:

    ...

    With this I can run 300 meters and then be forced to go slowly. This is not much equipment and the character should be able to run at least twice as far.

    You didn't say how many magazines you were carrying. Also, are you jogging or sprinting?

    Just for the sake of realism, players should not be allowed to configure loadouts, either with VA or VAS.

    Does not make sense to have hardcore servers intended for professional soldiers with stamina/fatigue (and all realistic stuff) enabled and at same time having a nice VA (or VAS) full of shiny gear for everyone to chose as they please.

    Loadouts should be given by default accordingly to role and mission.

    That's realism.

    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.

  9. Posted

    For once because you cannot change your weapon on the move. That is to say that what looks like very simple and obvious feature might not be that.

    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.

  13. Posted · Edited by roshnak

    Something that myself and others have noticed is that the weapon resting stabilizes the weapon much too quick. Take for example when you are in cover behind a sandbag or half wall. Currently you can pop up and in about 1 second be firing highly accurate shots over the wall. This is a bit strange. I certainly can't do this with such speed, and in a tense combat situation I don't think normal people can. This goes for vertical walls as well. It should take at least 2 seconds to rest the weapon (maybe 1.5, I don't know exactly) and there should be some sway or "weapon inertia" sight misalignment to simulate having to aim correctly. It shouldn't be too bad but you shouldn't be able to pop up and shoot with high accuracy immediately when the weapon is over an obstacle. Otherwise it's looking great, thanks for your hard work! :D

    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.

  16. Posted · Edited by roshnak

    I am pretty confident BIS is going to put in some form of optional indicators based on the overwhelming feedback.

    Now I know I am probably the only one, but I think there is some flaws in the current resting system that make it somewhat "arcadey". Mainly the instant speed at which resting takes place and the unlimited range of motion you have while resting your weapon. I made a video to better explain/demonstrate:

    What do you guys think?

    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 get the concept of the reset that you mentioned (when turning) but reading the discussion about the icon i have to say that that would complicate things even more. "am i resting again, yet?".

    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.

    no friend, that's also how weapon resting works in the real world. and why it's non intuitive to tell if the gun is supported becuase it doesnt act like you'd expect. No one expects to have a table to support your gun if you dont actually put the gun on it .

    now i know BIS may not be planning to do it this way (certainly doesnt seem so) but really the best implementation would mimic how its done out in the field rather, than with force fields and proximity values. maybe when deployemnts come then deploying a weapon would be possible actually on objects without bipods, aka place part of weapon on wall and you can pivot around that part, but that's not been announced yet so it's worth discussing.

    PS - madly excited for bipods. and reallly like the effects of weapon resting right now, just question the way it gets activated is all.

    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.

  18. Posted · Edited by roshnak

    Then there is this practical issue of constantly moving the mouse down to counter. What do you do if you aim down a hill and let go of 200 shots in one go? When will the mouse pad end..?

    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.

    For me a RL equivalent of that mouse movement would be to counter the initial jump and then slowly pushing the weapon lower all the time.

    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.

    Recoil control, auto or single, will become an unconscious act. After you see the sight lift due to recoil the body will automatically put the sight on what you are looking at. Sure in the beginning or if you don't shoot regularly you need to consciously move the sights back on target, but when you shoot more it's all natural.

    This same thing will happen if you shoot a lot in Arma.

  19. Posted

    I think actually what the original post was talking about was a rating system to ban people for being dicks and the possible implementation of that, not detecting whether someone meant to park a helicopter on a roof or not. Though that was used as an example of griefing, this is more about addressing the issue as a whole, not just that one example...

    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?

  20. Posted · Edited by roshnak

    Is parking a helicopter (meant for use by the whole server) in an inaccessible place (such as on top of a building) and then abandoning it, ever an acceptable thing to do?

    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.

  21. Posted · Edited by roshnak

    A lot of 'stupid shit' is entirely detectable by code. I illustrated on page 1, code to entirely prevent the crap that OP is encountering. Troll thinks he's cheeky by hiding all the vehicles? If the script detects the vehicle is in an anomalous position for no apparent reason, reset it. Problem gone.

    What is an anomalous location? Who decides what an anomalous location is?

    A lot of 'stupid shit' is entirely detectable by code.

    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.

    The problem with associating a rating with the player UID/GUID, is that as someone mentioned earlier, what is acceptable in one gamemode is unacceptable in another.

    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.

  22. Posted · Edited by roshnak

    Rosnak, no disrespect, but do you even know what an algorithm is or how it works? Parking a helicopter on "inaccessible rooftops" is only a minute factor of how an algorithm works.

    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.

  23. Posted · Edited by roshnak

    Because with the mouse ingame you never "adapt" as you must keep moving the mouse, while in RL you need to overcome the first shots until the muscles have adapted to the recoil and naturally keep it stationary down. Yes I have shot 7.62x39, 7.62x51 and 5.56 in full auto. It's the same with a fire hose, when you open up the water you get that first sway until the body adjust itself, you don't need to put any conscious effort into holding the hose down. And yes I have worked alot with fire hoses too. For sure, the body is still working to counteracting the recoil but it goes all natural.

    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.

    Pulling the mouse down to counteract recoil isn't exactly the same thing. With the mouse, it's one constant motion. Once you get the feeling for it, you can get the two first shots almost on the same spot. There's no time delay involved, like it is when handling the real thing, where your whole body has to adapt.

    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.

  24. Posted

    So, the question is would it be fair for BIS to implement a system where a player's publically 'voted on' behaviour would incur a time limited sanction for their malicious/disruptive behaviour that would limit/restrict the offending player from joining certain public servers, who's admins have set a point system threshold to who or whom they do not deem suitable to join their server.

    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?

    The bottom line is if BE can accurately hand out life time bans, then a profile rating system can be implemented and potentially hand out temporary sanctions based on an algorithm against players depending on the severity of their behaviour. At the end of the day, if you're not doing stupid sh*t then there would be nothing to fear.

    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.

  25. Posted

    What Das was pointing out is that hacks could potentially corrupt a player's rating system by creating a false-positive.

    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.

×