Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by dnk

  1. /Sign, I just want them to "Nerf" trees with their epic FPS drops!
    Yeah, this is the only real FPS issue I have that's clearly caused by the engine/art. Trees just don't scale performance-wise like all other parts of the engine. I can turn everything to its lowest setting and get 40-50 FPS, but if there's a forest - bam, 20FPS or lower. The low-LOD models don't look that demanding either, so I don't get it.

  2. Connected to this we would also need some indication for the force we use, because atm it feels like you have no control about how far or near you throw that ugly little thing.
    So long as it isn't based on how long you wait to throw (because I want to be able to hold my throw to wait without making it a super throw). Like, use the mouse wheel to increase/decrease distance while holding the grenade with the pin out.

    That said I never had issues in AmsArm getting the throws accurate. Their system was just so damned good. And there were two modes: light (underhand) and hard (overhand). That really was sufficient 90% of the time, though those maps were mostly CQC (so we might need more control for the more open Arma maps).

    And you had to take a bit to take out a grenade in that game. It was excellent. It was still a fun, fast-paced game. Fact was if you took out a grenade, you were vulnerable, so you were careful about when you slung your rifle for that. I think you could switch/sling weapons on the move there, though, it definitely wasn't as clunky as A3's approach.

  3. How do you know any of that? Why won't you provide stats to back up your claims?

    The only stats of any kind that give dry numbers are available are on a feedback tracker.

    I think you missed my point. The person making the initial claim (that the forums are somehow representative) needs to substantiate that. It's easy to simply come in and say "no, the opposite" (what I've done). Neither side is really verified without statistics, and there are none. Note that I'm primarily casting doubt on this other position. The fact that the other side cannot respond in a manner that doesn't equally undermine its own position is basically proof that its position is at least as garbage as my own (so what's your opinion of mine?).

    Except that it's far more unrealistic to claim that a given forum's active user base is close to an ideal representation of the total user base, especially when most people don't use forums (even as lurkers, certainly as active commenters), and I think typical forum users as a general population are more slanted towards non-casual gamers, particularly in a forum such as this which serves a niche customer base (traditionally), but now is increasingly serving a more mainstream (and more casual) one. A casual community that simply doesn't care about a lot of this minutiae and technicalities and whatnot. Casual users aren't going to rant or really care about not having bipods or wrong calibers. They're just out to have fun and shoot things, perhaps with teammates, and to socialize. I would think their primary concern right now would be MP performance.

    The closest statistics are MP players: how many are playing casual/gamey/arcadey missions and how many are playing COOP? That's at least representative of the MP community, which is the closest you're going to get to representative stats. Currently, major servers (20+ players) have 704 casual mission players and just 122 COOPers. I wonder how much the Breaking Point and KOTH players care about grass rendering techniques and vehicle model copy-pastaing...

    Do they? I don't see Russia or China using exactly the same drones as NATO, exactly the same ammo as NATO, exactly the same turrets as NATO etc. Even closest US allies use vastly different weapons.

    But in ArmA3 Iran is armed exactly with the same things US is.

    This is a cheap way of balancing and has nothing to do with reality.

    Except when the US is friends with someone first, exports arms to them equal to their own army's, then the other country has some sort of revolution, say a religious leader comes into power, and then the two countries are enemies all of a sudden. That has never happened, though, and certainly you didn't quote such an example from my last post below... /s
    Are you seriously comparing a country the size of a very small island to Iran/Argentina? As for Vietnam - they had direct support from USSR/China for years incl. russians actually flying those planes.

    Even then no country will give away its top-notch stuff. And AAF is nobody.

    How do you know these things are top-notch; are you an expert on BI's fictitious 2035 military technology? How do you know this island was isolated for a long time as an independent country; are you expert on this island's fictitious history? How do you know they haven't been receiving lots of direct support since they're a "flashpoint"? I may be wrong, perhaps this is all explained in the campaign (I didn't get into it much), but this is like complaining that the houses don't all have solar panels or the cars are all still gas-based. Come on...

  4. Suppose the game isn't really optimized/designed for people with highly exotic top-end hardware? It seems the vast majority of performance complaints come from this crowd, while the budget gaming crowd has far fewer issues. I have a $400 rig, and the game plays as expected most of the time (unless there's lots of trees).

    Yeah, I'd love to see an MP-specific performance patch; though MP generally runs fine for me, it does have some issues, but those could also be simply due to poorly scripted missions.

    Do note that unlike most games, here the MP missions are developed by amateurs that may or may not know how to properly and optimally code an MP mission. No disrespect, but you can't expect amateur modders to produce something as streamlined and efficient as professionals. A lot of issues come down to that more than the netcode or engine itself.

    Also note that there are devs working on MP right now. They've set up servers for people to join so they can monitor things and get a better idea of the issues involved with certain missions. I would expect such a patch is going to happen sooner or later, once they have the data they need. So, if you want to help, populate those servers.

    So, yeah, this is kinda moot.

  5. So you test AI only in multiplayer COOP scenarios? Have you ever heavily played with an AI squad? Leading the squad etc? That is important too. The heat of a multiplayer game can drastically bias your AI behaviour observations.
    I imagine it's not hard to remove certain features (like having squads try to flank or take cover) when under the player's control. This should not be a serious impediment for implementation.
    Can you please post a link where I can download the ASR_AI3? I could not find it. Thank you.
    I can't find it either now.

  6. ^ heh, yeah but I'm nerfing the supersoldier behind the rifle, not the rifle itself.

    Look, obviously your idea didn't gain the traction you thought it would. Time to let it rest?
    I believe I've mentioned a few times now that I agree that the consensus is against the idea and that I agree with your statement that it hasn't gained traction. I also told him he won the thread. Such is my way of bowing out.

    Keep dragging it out for me, though, I appreciate that antoine...

  7. If it's just animations, I'd prefer we got something clunky and realistic now than waiting months for pretty and realistic. I would really love an America's Army type deal, with multiple throw modes, and the ability to take the pin out, even cook it (even if that's technically unrealistic by training standards).

    I'd also like a UI element that lets you know where the grenade is going to land/hit - like a circle that displays on the terrain/object where the point of impact is calculated. It's a bit gamey, but in real life I have a pretty decent idea of where something I throw will land, while in this game it takes a lot of practice just to get it within 10 feet.

  8. First, I find the idea of options totally reasonable. As much as I prefer realism, if the game can be both I don't mind, so long as that realism isn't sacrificed constantly (as an option).

    For example the lobby is about as boring and uneventful as it gets. You join...pick a faction from a column, pick a slot from a column and go. In terms of game interface sexiness its a zero out of ten. Functional yes but it's the microsoft excel of game lobbies. Who gets excited about that? If you do then check your shirt for a pocket protector. Just kidding. Sort of.
    I've never been excited by a game lobby. They're usually the least important part of the experience, as well as the shortest. Being purely utilitarian is reasonable then.
    Another example is the score board. Lets be honest. Its so lack luster it almost shouldn't even exist in the game. Its an afterthought on BIS's part that looks more like Egyptian symbols on the side of a pyramid than a scoreboard. Problem is that scoring , like it or not, is the nature of competition and at least for me competition is a big part of why I game. Its part of what makes us want to play better and it gives us a gauge of how we did vs the rest of the players.
    I don't get this - it seems fine to me. Provide pictures of better scoreboards.
    You can also throw into the discussion player loadouts. Bulky menus. Digging through crates to swap stuff in and out. Bad HUD designs get in the way of getting right into the game. Some people may get into clicking, mouse wheeling, drag and dripping, shuffling gear around but I'd rather just game than play "Lets accessorize GI Joe" for 10 minutes.
    VAS. You can create presets one time and then apply them quickly on any mission with VAS. It's a huge improvement over A2's system, though it's not quite as responsive as I'd like yet (3sec pauses for sort commands).

  9. Actually, I prefer standing to prone, too :) Prone is too restrictive. I most likely have poor form outside of standing. Whatever, I'm accurate enough standing, and I'm likely to never be in combat, so it's not terribly important. Standing is most comfortable, so I'm sticking with that.

  10. SO, why are you still here in the forum posting about Arma 3 when you don't care ?
    I do not understand the logic behind this response at all. "Most" doesn't imply "all"...
    Please give me your source of these stats. No way you are basing it all on your own assumptions, right?
    It's as based on assumptions as the claim that the forums are representative of the whole game-playing community. However, it has the addition of common sense, which states that typically the more involved/dedicated fans participate on forums, while the more casual fans don't. That's human nature. You're free to substantively counter that or provide your own stats. Or you can disagree with human nature. Your call.
    The problem is that BIS wastes time on a yet another copy-pasta instead of replacing ArmA3 stuff with something unique for once.
    What do you want exactly? I think I've subtly made the point in this thread that real-world militaries "copy-pasta" all the time. We're still using "copy-pastad" F-16s from the 70s, B-52s from the 40s, and an updated "copy-pastad" M16 from the 60s/70s. Fast forward just 22 years into the future, and there's going to still be a lot of "copy-pastad" things from the current 2013 military, updated a bit. BI's filling out their futuretech with updated currenttech, which is more realistic than all armies being 100% futuretech.
    And AAF totally needed a tank and IFV (which most likely will follow all other assets into a BF-like balance land) instead of being unique / worse than superpowers. All AAF has is a small island to call home but somehow they have enough finances to hold a top notch hi-tech army? Is BIS kidding?
    And somehow the Iranians had F-14s in Iran-Iraq despite being a pissant 3rd-rate power. And somehow the Argentinians had weaponry to sink British warships in the Falklands. And somehow North Vietnam had recent jet fighters, Mi-8s, and up-to-date Chinese tanks during the US-VN war despite being a country of mired-in-poverty mud-farmers. That "somehow" is what's not explained, but it doesn't mean there can't be an explanation.

  11. ASR_AI3 is much better at getting cover and not acting like idiots under fire (save they don't throw smoke). I don't care about picking up weapons, but after testing that, tpwcas, some other A3 mod, and vanilla, the current ASR is miles ahead of the lot. It's not perfect by a long shot, but it's a big step forward for the typical scenario in COOP of "shooting fish in a barrel". Now the fish run out of the barrel, do a decent job of returning fire, and in general act less like fish and more like sharks. I love it, and just wish at least more servers used it.

    Why is this typical scenario important? Because it's how most players online know the AI through COOP, either Annex, Insurgency, Domi, or BECTI. That's the most public face of the AI outside of heavily scripted small missions.

  12. If it's so clear that its not a feature-requester, then why are ideas like this one being worked on: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=3505

    Remember when BIS switched to 3d scopes? Yeah, that was a feature request.

    One thing. Out of dozens. One thing that might have been on their to-do list before the tracker went up. Also note it was a model/art asset thing, which they've mostly had a much easier time releasing. I'm just guessing they've got an art-heavy development team. Perhaps a lot of the underlying engine and coding gets done by the other VBS side of the company, and the Arma side works mostly on polishing the engine for mass consumption (read: graphics, detailed models and art, godrays, etc). This is getting into pure conjecture, though.

    I'm fairly sure the devs have said nothing about that grass feature, as I've been keeping close track of it, as I've been one of the most vocal supporters of it on the forums. Have you read its related thread? Do people keep posting this particular issue to me ironically? Do link if you've got any real evidence of this claim, as I'd be very interested.

    You should pay more attention DNK before you put out such condescending posts.
    Yeah, okay. You and a bunch of other posters are convinced that this feedback tracker was intended as some great democratic method of getting new features added to the game, and that these features could be added months after release. After months and months of this supposed system not materializing, you're still convinced it's just one patch around the corner and complain when it continues to not materialize as though BI is supposed to be following through. Just keep waiting and complain every week that "BI doesn't care about its fans". Tiresome.

    Other posters said the rest already.

  13. Hey, does anyone know how to get in contact with the people running the Seattle server for this? A lot of players have been having issues with some exploiters/hackers/aholes for a few days, and their website's down... I know OmonXR was a very solid admin in A2, but the current state of the A3 server is near-unplayable due to a few individuals (one a so-called admin).

  14. I can't wait for the million random ports of varying quality that will drown out every other mod on the forums.

    ---------- Post added at 02:26 ---------- Previous post was at 02:17 ----------

    We need one central community group to focus on only porting them and making them work with the new applicable features. Then mods like ACE or others could use these ported assets in their own mods.

    This is solid. It also prevents a lot of duplicate projects and wasted time. The community should talk together prior to release so modders/teams don't step all over each other needlessly.

    Not sure we need everything ported either. I mean, there are already a bunch of weapon mods available that seem pretty damn good to me. What I'm really looking forward to are:

    - vehicles

    - soldiers

    - packs/rigs

  15. I don't see what everybodies problem is with the sway? There is none when you are prone, and when you are crouching and standing, its significantly less then I've ever experienced in real life. There's a reason why almost all infantry combat takes place at sub 300m in real life, and it because shooting people is really hard. Take for example, the current British Army rifle marksmanship test. At 400m, you only need to get 3 hits from 9 shots, and that's from prone. And the most commonly failed range is 200m because there is shooting from kneeling and standing. In game, if you hold your breath, its entirely possible to hit targets at 200m, the sway drops enough. Add onto that, that this is not range shooting, but battlefield shooting and the amount of sway is entirely reasonable.
    Yes. Too little, actually.
    Anyone who's ran up and down a terrain laden with a Bergen, webbing and a rifle will know that unless you've led down in the prone position and got your breath back your weapon will be all over the place. If you fire without regaining your breath and composure you won't be able to hit a farm door.

    The weapon sway is in my opinion very forgiving, as the development team have given us super fit soldiers who's heart rate normalises in record time. In the real world if you had physically done what your character has done you wouldn't even be able to focus on the target through the adenine pumping through your system and the sweat pouring down your brow into your eyes.

    Yes. Too forgiving, really.
    Crouching, in my experience, doesn't make for a steadier weapon by all that much, unless you really hunker down and settle into a stance.

    The biggest issue is that the AI doesn't have to deal with the same stuff, and as a result tends to be a much better shot than most if not all players are really capable of being.

    Personally, I find standing to be easiest for aim; if I tuck my right arm in hard, it's a very solid base. I usually wobble a ton crouching because my legs have to work a lot more to keep me in such an unnatural position. Seems to be my own quirk, though. Maybe I need to do more lunges or something or I've just never found my optimal crouched body position...

  16. Nope, thanks. Modding isn't a popularity contest.
    Pretty much. I don't want to discourage members because, X sound mod ends up outvoting Y sound mod and then everyone stops using Y or Y's creator gets upset, even though maybe thousands of players enjoy Y more.

  17. Sooo, days passed, new Updates, new SITREP and still:

    No word about any of the highly requested features from the feedbacktracker.

    You're going to keep being disappointed and upset for quite some time. I'm not sure why you keep expecting anything, since I'm unaware of anything really coming from feedbacktracker feature requests to date.
    if we can await any new featuers in vanilla game, or if u just focus on easing the way for addons.
    Well, they've not mentioned any new features, so there's your answer. Wait for the expansion. Maybe some will be included, and maybe a few smaller ones will be added with patches over time.
    Agree with the original poster...Why BIS does not even attempt to implement some of the top voted features is beyond me.
    Because it's a bugtracker now, and those aren't bugs. Seems clear it never was meant to be a feature-requester. I mean, it's a feedback tracker, not a "vote for new features" tracker. Some people have yet, after almost a full year, to understand this. You are one of them.

    It may be that they consider new features for the expansion, and they take them from the tracker, but it's not clear that they ever intended to take community suggestions and implement them once they hit mid-alpha. Indeed, that would be a bit hard to pull off when they've been quite far behind schedule as is.

  18. Recoil should affect time between each shot - large recoil should make the AI taking more time between each shot, that's it.
    Well, except if they're suppressing, specifically with SAWs/etc.
    What bothers me the most is that BI made the AI accuracy DECREASE as the AI shoots a target instead of exactly the other way around.
    This definitely.

    Take a look at mods that introduce AI supression.

    Why stop there? Basically, ASR_AI3 should be a part of vanilla. A decent number of the TPW stuff would help add immersion also (falling, but also LOS). I'm guessing you guys can't just copy and paste their code, but it's clearly possible to make the AI look and feel a lot smarter in a number of situations, and it's clearly possible for the AI to use buildings.

    The biggest issues (imo) are that the AI sucks under fire, the AI are superhuman in accuracy, and the AI can't use buildings. All 3 things clearly can be significantly improved upon. If it's an issue of worrying about breaking some missions or campaigns, make certain behaviors toggleable (like entering buildings and running far for cover) through scripts.

    I'm just tired of the "supersniper-fish-in-a-barrel" AI. Their only challenge is their most frustrating "feature": superaim.

  19. To call me a troll you'll have to give something more than what you've written so far...
    Yeah, clearly I've not written substantive replies, unlike yours. Here, let me try to raise myself to your level.

    ORLY :D

    No artificial dispersion... no way in hell :P.
    Heh, seems to be the consensus.

  20. 1) editor should have 2 skill sliders: "skill" and "accuracy". These need to be decoupled since most skills need to be high for AI to be effective yet accuracy at those heights becomes "terminator"-esque.

    My biggest issue regarding AI skills (other than most missions/servers having them way too high for accuracy) is that it's in no way clear how an accuracy skill relates to actual %age hits at range. After much testing at 250m, anything above 0.35 is over 50% hits on a crouching target. That's a bizarrely high hit rate for a "1/3rd skilled" soldier. I'd like to see any combat statistics or experience that mirrors this. I think a lot of mission makers never bother to gauge skill settings to performance, and they think "1/3rd is really low, must be too easy" and set it to half or something. In reality, 0.50 is basically superhuman already, nevermind 0.75 or 1.00.

    Why is the AI skill set so high in general anyway? Anything above 0.50 is one-shot-one-hit almost always under 500m. This seems unbalanced in the sense that half the subskill range is basically redundant.