vegeta897
-
Content Count
696 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
-
Medals
-
Posts posted by vegeta897
-
-
I really dont understand this sort of mentality. It SHOULDN'T be part of the process, especially since these sort o f things have been flagged since this came under discussion, before A3 alpha.It absolutely shouldn't. Like I said, there should be a much better system (or rather, a team of people in place) for preventing stolen work being distributed. My point was that, without that team, we all saw this coming. Keep in mind this point was just in response to the snarky comment, which was like saying "I told you so" when it was really just stating the obvious.
No community made tool will get the friction of an official tool, just as the vanilla should be stable and feature full, addons being there just to improve and complement instead of fixing. But that goes for their SDK tools as well, vs the community made tools
That just doesn't justify the population of steam no matter of the means used for the sake of creating that library..
An creator should be able to choose if and when he wants to host his work. Even without the existing eula, it should be his prerogative, and no one else to choose to skip/ignore Steam or any other service for whatever reason and without giving anyone an explanation.
I think you're missing the context of what I said. It's not my position to say whether these issues are too little or too big of a price to pay for getting BIS's game launcher off the ground. I was responding directly to the assertion that the launcher was unnecessary, and that PW6 could do anything it could do.
I do understand it. I create things, and I've had my work stolen (without credit, even) before. When I said it could be worse, I was referring to the above linked instance, in which full credit was given to the authors. It could be worse if the uploader claimed ownership.I also think this is a bit of an exageration, but that being said you cannot understand it unless you are the creator of original content/asset.
I think this has been said before, but acording to existing EULA, dezkit planes (no offense meant here, i like his work) should not be there unless he has written permission from their original mesh/testure creators, since now the IP is shared.
How could it be worse? Monetazing on other's ppl work you mean?
While it is true that this can happen anywhere, the particular problem with Steam is that there is little the original author can do to get it removed.Agreed, this needs to be improved.
From what I read there : http://steamcommunity.com/id/eltyranos/myworkshopfiles/?section=collections&appid=107410 it's an upload from the NoFrag community to have the addons they use on their server in one package for their players. Apparently it got removed from SWS and should probably be hosted somewhere by themselves. Good luck having it removed from their server. They wanted to use the benefits of SWS, but that's apparently infringing some IP (I don't know, I don't see the hosted files anymore). Now the IP infringement is hosted on a third party. Ie : "problem" (if there is any in the first hand) NOT resolved.The issue with stolen content being uploaded on the workshop is that it's an official portal, and thus receives much more exposure than any community site would. I could host a mod on my personal website despite the author prohibiting distribution of said mod, but nobody would really care. Either way, it existing on their servers is leaving the topic of this thread.
-
Just going to repeat this since it keeps being ignored.
It takes effort in real life to hold a weapon steady.
It does not take effort to not move your mouse.
If shooting is to be reasonably challenging in the game, as it is in life, there must be movement that you have to work against. The alternative is adding artificial random dispersion to the weapon like other shooters do, which results in an incredibly frustrating experience at medium and long ranges.
Despite there being weapon sway, you remain in control of your weapon. Learn to work with it and manage your stamina. Adapt.
-
If you want to play a game that plays like Arma 2, you already know what to do. To suggest that anyone who likes this update doesn't play the game absurd. It's nice that you have a group of people to play with that all agree with your views. Good cohesion. But that doesn't mean everyone agrees.
-
Even when your weapon is resting/stabilized, that's only a pivot point. Your right hand holding the grip can still move the rifle in any direction (though probably more up/down than side to side) or else you wouldn't even be able to aim. Since you can't hold your hand perfectly still, there's going to be some sway, and with high magnification, it will appear significant.
-
Not everyone wants to play a minigame when they are trying to shoot at someone which would be easily remedied had they made it optional..Calling it a minigame is a bit silly. There was always weapon sway. How does making it more pronounced turn it into a minigame? Should shooting not be difficult at all?
-
Guys, can we please stop trying to relate how real life weapon handling is with how it is in the game? It's a comparison that is fundamentally flawed.
In a game, you do not have to do anything to not move your weapon. In real life, it requires muscle power to steady a weapon. That right there is why there needs to be movement forced onto the weapon in the game. The energy you expend steadying your weapon in real life is supposed to be compensated by the need to counter the weapon sway, or work with it in some way (like Coulum suggested, you can take your own approach to this).
If you don't like the way the weapon sway is, that's fine, but please stop using reality as a reason for that argument. It would not make sense for me to have my weapon be as steady as I could hold one in real life (which takes actual effort) by not even touching my mouse. What I'm trying to say is that shooting in the game should be as challenging as in real life, but the way that challenge is created is required to be different, since holding a rifle and using a mouse are completely different things.
-
I don't think anybody denied that these things would happen, since it was obvious there'd be nothing stopping them, at least not yet. But the opinion of pro-SWS is that these problems are part of the process, and that it will be worth it in the end.I stated it that way because 2 of the 3 "nightmare situations" that addon makers have been preaching would happen, addon theft and unauthorized third party uploading, did happen and on the first two days of the main branch release no less...I think if they were to add better (faster) moderation and/or a approval process/review done by someone in the know, then most of these issues would be null.Totally agreed.
But I disagree on the benefits, or lack thereof, that you claim. Play withSIX will never be adopted by the entire player base, but the new launcher will be, because it's right there in everybody's game, automatically. The launcher will be able to do what PWS can't because it can be genuinely integrated into the game, not just outputting a launch options string. This integration isn't complete yet, but establishing a mod library on the workshop is part of that.
I think you might be slightly exaggerating the situation by calling it a nightmare or saying people are being thrown to the wolves. Even the uploader you linked to was giving credit to the original creators, which means the only real issue is that the mods aren't uploaded under the creator's steam account, which is somewhat arbitrary. It's not like the uploader is getting any actual benefit from this. He doesn't make money from it. As far as the EULA, does it really apply to content that is submitted from one who doesn't own the content? I can't believe it would be, since that would be kind of ridiculous from a legal standpoint. A person who does not own something cannot actually grant rights to anyone, no matter what the EULA says.
Don't get me wrong, it's not acceptable, but the above instance could be far worse (and I'm sure there will be other cases that are worse). If something I created was uploaded without my permission, I'd be pretty upset, even if they gave me credit. But the end result would still just be more people playing my mod. 99% of them wouldn't care who made it.
But like you said, there needs to be a more serious approach to content submission and approval for these situations to be avoided. I think it's worth striving for this than just giving up and resigning to the fact that a significant portion of Arma players are never going to know about PWS or can't be bothered, and continue to play vanilla, unknowingly limiting the amazing potential this game offers. It's easy for people like you and me to forget about those people, because we're already sitting pretty with our mods set up. But there is a large portion of people out there that can and will benefit from this official launcher bridging that gap.
-
So playing around with the game so more i am finding that you need to take this game very very slow. Something that took me 15 min to clear a town before is now taking me 30. I do like the concept, but damn talk about a waste of time :)A waste of time? If I had a choice between spending 15 minutes having fun and 30 minutes having fun, I'd pick the latter.
-
Sarcastic and snarky, perhaps, but unhelpful, no... Maybe just to your cause. :)On the contrary, I think it is rather helpful to let people know what abuses are going on especially when, as you say, these people need to be reported.
My cause of wanting stolen content to be removed, and the SWS venture to be successful, because it can be tremendously helpful to the platform and community?
I didn't have a problem with you posting about the stolen content here, I had a problem with your sarcastic remark, as if you're happy to see things go wrong with SWS (and also as if there were some people who didn't know there'd stolen content). The sarcastic remark doesn't help the situation, posting the link here does, so we can get more reports.
-
Before patch i was hitting 1.8 k + kills with sniper on koth =/His point was that current marksmanship difficulty is reasonable, not that it isn't harder than it was.
-
Calling this game realistic...I think you would have a hard time even convincing a five year old of that. Moon buggy-physics for vehicles. Grenades/mortars do next to no damage unless they land on your head. 10 shots to kill anything. 2 modes of everything. Undamaged car/destroyed car. Undamaged building, destroyed building. Weapon sway/fatigue are just the next comical additions to the list.I'm missing the Benny Hill-music here.
Let's call it what it is, COD-spinoff.
Calling this post factual... Nope.
Vehicle physics when it comes to collisions is lacking, but handling is wonderful. Driving the trucks especially is great, you can really feel the weight of them when lumbering over hills.
10 shots? That's simply ridiculous, unless you're shooting an armored target with small calibre rounds. Not unrealistic.
More damage modelling for vehicles would be cool, but not really essential. How are there only 2 modes? Wheels can be individually damaged and destroyed. Windows can be shot out. Engine can be damaged and this affects performance.
Most buildings have undamaged, damaged, and destroyed states. This is usually satisfactory. Are you expecting dynamic destruction? The game would still not be out yet if they had to take that gargantuan task on. Most games don't have this level of fidelity, and none of them do in a map as large as Altis. Just because it exists in some other games, Arma 3 is unrealistic because it doesn't have it?
It's ironic that you call Arma a COD-spinoff immediately after mentioning the fatigue and weapon sway changes. This patch has made the COD playstyle unfeasible.
-
Additional unhelpful sarcastic remark :rolleyes:
This can and does happen with every content submission site in existence. Either be part of the solution and report them, or keep your snarky comments to yourself.
-
-
I had this same problem the last time I closed DayZ, a couple days ago. Not sure if related.
-
I do like how subtle it is, as far as UI clutter. Still, it feels so "gamey" to me in concept that I think I'd rather keep trying to achieve an intuitive feel for the new stamina system.
-
That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that if a report is submitted, reviewed, and deemed to have an actual case, then yes, the download should be disabled.In this case, it was flagged not because of an automated report system, but because someone got ahold of Dwarden and had him take action as an Arma 3 SWS moderator.
Again I'm not suggesting that at all, you're just assuming I am. What I want is for the download to be disabled after it's been flagged by a moderator...
Currently, even though Dwarden flagged the addon, the page is still public, and if you subscribe to it, the addon downloads.
Ok, then I've misunderstood you, or perhaps you misunderstood my original post that you replied to. Either way, we appear to be on the same page. An addon reported by users should not be disabled, but one flagged by someone of authority, such as Dwarden, should be. This is not currently the case, so I agree it should be changed.
-
Thank you for being more reasonable.
If what you said about the technology being "bollocks" was indeed just exaggeration, then I begin to find your posts easier to digest :P
I don't think you work for Roccat. I 100% take your opinion of those cans you own in good faith. I believe you when you say they're better for surround than VS. I've considered buying headphones with multiple drivers in the past, but was too satisfied with my virtual solution to bother risking the sacrifice of audio quality for other applications such as music, and bass response.
Your TrackIR analogy makes sense and definitely applies to this situation.
I never argued that real 5.1, be it headphones or speakers, wasn't more accurate. At the very least, it sounds less muddy than the side effects of virtual surround processing.
What you're saying about lower volume for rear sounds in VS algorithms may be true for some, but I'm not sure it's true for all of them. There are at least half a dozen different algorithms out there. You can look up comparison videos on youtube, like I said. But again, if I could buy a headset that had real 5.1 and also good overall soundquality, I would. I'm sure they're better than my Creative SBX software. I'm pretty finnicky about headphone comfort though, and I love my current Sennheisers.
My main problem with your post was the claim that people who find VS to be good enough are lying to themselves, or buying into marketing. Some VS is better than others, and some people's experience are better than others. It's a totally viable path for a gamer though, who either doesn't want the limited selection of 5.1 headphones or the problems of using speakers when gaming. Your dismissive post I felt was harmful to anyone reading this thread and looking for an affordable surround sound gaming solution.
-
The dispersion in CS isn't really random. Each weapon in CS has a defined pattern that bullets recoil in, which can be learned and corrected for, allowing players to fire in full auto and land most of their shots in the same place. dsiOne is somewhat correct in comparing correcting for the recoil pattern in CS to the weapon sway in Arma.
I wasn't talking about recoil, I was talking about single shot accuracy. In CS, aiming at a single point in the distance and firing a single shot, you do not know where exactly your bullet is going to hit. The circle of potential hit area gets smaller when crouched, or bigger if you are moving. This is the game's way of emulating weapon instability. In Arma, the dispersion is constant, but your weapon sways. You actually see the instability, and you can fight it, or wait until your weapon is on target. If you can manage to fire your weapon from the exact same orientation each time, the only dispersion you have is from the weapon's config, regardless of what stance you are in.
-
This is getting pretty tiresome. You continue to misunderstand almost everything I'm saying, and put words in my mouth.
Your talking about ears.. The receiver.. I'm talking about the source... The speakers.I explained why virtual surround is capable of producing a genuine impression of surround sound that your brain interprets as such. This was in direct response to your claim that it was "bollocks". Not a claim that it didn't work well for you, but that the entire technology was marketing and bollocks.
I never said virtual 5.1 doesn't work for me, i said it does but it's shite...So then it doesn't work for you as well as it seems to work for others, because many people do not have the complaints you have. To assume that every one of those people, including me, are fooling themselves or buying into marketing hype is incredibly insulting.
Lastly i can 'claim' what i want on the basis of first hand experience... You're welcome to dispute that... that's the nature of discussion.I did not dispute your claim that your 5.1 headphones didn't give you a good surround experience, or a better surround experience than virtual. I'm sure it does. I wouldn't doubt something that I haven't tried myself. What you cannot do is give faulty reasoning as to why VS is bollocks, and that's where I'm challenging you.
Though i don't understand why you think on one hand you can claim: 'i have experienced working virtual 5.1 therefore that invalidates any criticism you have of the technology'whilst at the sametime claiming that a 'real' 5.1 speakers setup is objectively indeed better.
Nice quote there, except I said nothing of the sort. I think I pretty clearly, and often, explained that virtual 5.1 doesn't work for everyone. If it sounds shit to you, I believe you. But it doesn't sound shit to everyone, so I'm not going to let you claim that it's bollocks technology, or that people are fooling themselves or are biased. Why are you incapable of understanding that I claim VS is a good emulation of surround sound, while also saying that a real 5.1 setup is better? I think 256kbit MP3s sound great, but I understand that FLAC is better. Where is the flawed logic here?
Thanks for the incredibly insulting remark. "You use this thing that I think is crap, so you're obviously delusioned and everything you say is invalid".and since you say you are actively using the technology, i'll choose to assume you're just one of those people i previously mentioned who has bought into something, and now defends it for whatever reason.... Pride?I'd love to hear from someone who's bought actual 5.1 headphones, put them on and then thought " Wow - no difference over those 'virtual 5.1 headphones' i'm going to refund these ..."Another instance of you misunderstanding me. I never said 5.1 headphones had no difference over virtual. I even said in my first reply to you that I believed you in that your 5.1 headphones sound better than the virtual algorithms you've tried.
-
I think we should be cautious about the parallels we draw between the game and reality. Using a mouse to aim a weapon is never going to be the same as real life. The real question is, is it challenging enough without being frustrating? In my opinion, it is. Arma's weapon sway is what separates its shooting mechanics from almost every other game I can think of. CS was mentioned. In that game, your crosshair and weapon are always pointed exactly center. But random dispersion is added to your cone of fire based on your movement/stance. This is fine for more arcade/fast paced shooters, but in Arma it would be a disaster. When the crosshair is enabled in Arma, it may appear to be still, but going into ironsights shows you where your weapon is actually swaying. And firing with that sway is not rolling the dice hoping for a low dispersion (aside from the weapon's barrel dispersion of course) but actually based on your ability to control the sway or fire at the right instant when you're lined up on the enemy.
-
Yes, I know it's a work in progress. I hope for great things to come. But even simply existing on the workshop gives a great deal exposure to players who don't even know what Armaholic is.
-
All the more reason to trust in the Foxhound instead :)I don't think anyone ever made the claim that the workshop was a better place to upload mods than a dedicated, trusted, human-curated community site. But it does offer advantages that Armaholic does not, namely game integration. That's really the only reason BIS wants to use it.
-
Your post ignores large parts of what I'm saying.
Your comparison to having 2 eyes makes no sense at all. What do eyes have to do with my explanation of how our ears can differentiate forward and rear sound sources?
I'm not a "proponent" of the technology, I'm an informer of simple facts. I already said several times that VS doesn't work for everyone, and if you think all the algorithms you've tried are shite, then you can choose not to use them. But that doesn't permit you to claim that it's bollocks, or that people who claim it works are fooling themselves because they spent money on it. What if I claimed the same thing about your 5.1 headphones? You certainly spent money on them, whereas virtual surround can be heard for free. But I would not be so presumptuous and insulting.
I'm not sure what point the last part of your post is trying to make. This isn't a case of lowering volume or some other arbitrary factor. There is genuine perception of surround. I and many others can vouch for this. I guess I'll repeat myself again. Lots of people find virtual 5.1 to be both realistic and enjoyable. You are not one of those people, so kindly accept that and stop attacking the technology simply because it doesn't work for you. It's a good solution for many people who don't want to compromise on headphone quality by buying phones with multiple drivers, or severely limit their buying selection.
-
Umm... no.Crying about how few mods are available and how he should be allowed to revive "dead" mods without permission does not give him legal permission to steal someone else's work, especially when the original author complains (Opticalsnare's comment was deleted by the thief). And for the record, Blastcore is not dead. Opticalsnare has repeatedly stated he is still working on it.
I was just bringing the comments to attention, I don't know the full story. I especially didn't know he deleted comments from the rightful owner.
I'm sorry, but as long as there is an IP dispute in progress, further downloads of the infringing content should not be allowed. That's pretty basic common courtesy.
But anyone can submit a report. Are you saying we should give literally everyone the ability to lock any mod from being downloaded?
I believe foxhound already does do this. For instance, this was taken down until the mlods were released...
It was taken down because FH made an informed decision. My point was that it wasn't automated. I can't cause something on Armaholic to be removed simply by reporting it. FH has to actually respond to the report. What you're suggesting is that Steam have an automated system that locks people from downloading until it's resolved, which effectively means anyone can cause a mod to lock down simply by reporting it (and maybe getting some friends to do it as well)
General Discussion (dev branch)
in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
Posted
I think the problem with those videos is that the stereo separation is far too drastic. Turning your head causes it to go almost instantly from left to right instead of a more linear sweep.