-Coulum-
-
Content Count
1790 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
Posts posted by -Coulum-
-
-
@GrumpyOldMan
Thanks for the nice tests and demo. Where exactly is spine1?
Haven't been able to play in awhile, but don't remember headshots being overly ridiculous. A bit frustrating, but not outside the realm of believability.
Not at the same ranges, but while airsofting, most hits are chest, head and arms. Rarely shot anywhere below nipples. And if I am, its often while crouched. Arms are hit because i'm holding the gun infront of me. Head is shot probably 30-40% of the time because its often only the head and a bit of the weapon/arm I am exposing.
Though I can't find it now, read an article years back, about troops being accused of executing taliban due to overwhelming number of head wounds amongst the dead. Turns out troops were just good at popping skulls. Article said the main reason was increasing number of magnified optics being used.
So, based on that, i'd expect headshots to occur more often than the head's relative size might suggest.
That being said, with untrained shooters, or shooters under a bit of stress, I wouldn't be expecting every other hit to be a head/centre of mass.
Good shooting there. But how often is it that you take that time to aim so precisely in firefights. Time increases odds of getting hit, and targets could move or take cover. Unless I have a big advantage or the fight hasn't kicked off yet, I am shooting more rapidly with less precision. Potentially where Ai could improve - they do good at starting inaccurate and zeroing in on you if you don't move/hide and they aren't under fire - Devs have done a great job there. But, when they start to line up accurate shots, their rate of fire remains the same. Think they should shoot slower like you did, as they get more accurate. Might help prevent the "miss, miss, miss, miss, BLAMBLAMinstantdeath" that people find off putting.
Just an idea. Honestly if you use cover and react sensibly to incoming fire immediately the ai have a really hard time killing you. -
Do you think the actual system well reward a careful choice of the weapon as well as loadout? I think the aim with an Mk200 without prone with bipod should be almost impossible.
Heavier weapons are definitely more difficult to handle than in stable, while moving, rotating quick or shortly after moving. Not impossible, but you really have to move slow and minimize quick changes in aim. It is good. I don't think this is an effect of stamina though. Seem to have upped inertia and then combined that with the new "sway due to movement" to get this. Stamina doesn't really play a role.
-
1
-
-
Tweaked: Running / jogging forward now slowly exhaust stamina in all stances. Rolling to the sides in prone now exhaust stamina like sprinting.
Well awesome. Any possibility that it could be made so weight has an impact - totally buck naked guy actually regains stamina, light loadoat, stagnant, full loadoat, extremely small loss, heavy loadout guy, steady loss. Or something like that. I think that would go along way to stifling the"what this is a soldier he should run forever" because "well he can, just drop a bit of gear". It would also actually make light loadouts a much more viable and interesting option. It might be worth it to drop the armour and extra ammo (to my mind it has never been the case, even with the old fatigue system).
Was not expecting this. I thought BI were going to make all rates of stamina loss equal. Either lose at x rate, or don't lose at all. Glad I was wrong. Any chance different hills steepness could have different rates of stamina loss?
-
1
-
-
this articulates a key issue I'm having with stamina. Running is mostly penalized in an intuitive way, but jogging is ironically penalized more than what'd be expected, especially since its not linked to the bar that is supposed to represent tiredness.
Indeed. System is actually harder to manage, despite stamina bar - only tells half the story. No breathing, screen effect or slow down. Unaware I am "tired" until I try to shoot and, holy fuck tonnes of sway. Not "transparent".
Know my whining is probably useless and annoying but compare "transparency":
- Old system: simple. Go up hill, sprint, crouch, jog, tactical pace, carry alot of weight, or wounded - you tire faster. When tired sway increases, speed decreases. Become untired by stopping and resting.
- Now: jogging, crouching, tactical pace,walking don't deplete your stamina, BUT don't be fooled they'll sneak in and add tonnes of sway with zero warning. Sprinting depletes your stamina and adds another type of sway. And terrain will not do anything... until you reach a certain gradient. Degree above and depletes your stamina fast. Degree under and zero effect. Don't forget weight. It actually has no effect on stamina or sway at all, BUT it limits your maximum stamina :confused: .
You tell me, which is easier to remember, understand and manage? Which one is more logical?
Where is the transparency? Stamina bar? Why not add that to old system? Frustrates me so much. Not going to please anti-fatigue players. They will still disable it. Their issue isn't with transparency, its with limitation of ability. My ignorant perspective: Better off with stamina bar, nerfed version of fatigue, (normal jogging = 0 fatigue) enabled for recruit to regular difficulty and old fatigue for veteran and elite. Work movement based sway (awesome addition) into inertia.
Sorry to rant. I find it hard to provide feedback - always end up just citing mechanics of fatigue. It was well done. I hear BI are making a mod of it. Glad to hear, though sad to have to play modded A3 after enjoying vanilla, from alpha to now.
imo, solving this, by lowering the rate at which sway is generated by jogging, and making support systems a lot more efficient at quickly bringing what should be moderate sway under control would help make stamina more intuitive and more viable.
Have a different suggestion. Generation of sway stays the same. Recovery rate is effected by how long you jog, walk, whatever. Jog 10 seconds, sway is high but dissipates rapidly. Pretty much gone in seconds. Jog 5 minutes. Sway builds up to the same height. Dissipates at slower rate though. Takes a full 30 seconds. This prevents people from running and gunning after jogging short distances (I believe that would be the case with your suggestion), but doesn't make every bound incapacitate a player for a half a minute (as it does now). Similar idea here. Main theme: Sway recovery needs tweaking.
You can jog up that incline without consuming stamina, I think you shouldn't be able to.
I agree... at a different rate than a steeper/gentler hill. Apparently BI only wants one rate of stamina recovery/loss... too complicated if stamina loss was dynamic and based on the degree of slope. It needs to be a Boolean all or nothing... :angry:
I would be nice if you'd get that massive sway you get now after the hold breath has "run out", but instead of just stopping abruptly when you can hold breath again, the sway would gradually become smaller and smaller and when you can hold again, it would stop as it does now.
I hope someone understands what I'm trying to say :P
Understand, and totally agree.
-
This is a really good point, and one that is understandingly unpopular among the regulars here. The opinions of most vocal here, aren't necessarily the majority, surely it is important to look for other forms of feedback. I know there are many in the community that do not care for the old fatigue system
Good game designers put less weight in verbal feedback than they do in observed feedback....
-snip-
Which feedback do you respond to? The feedback people are telling you, or what you observe?
Sorry if this is offtopic but I want to comment on it... and since there are no big changes today...
Silent majority vs. vocal majority. Loud negative vs. quiet positive. verbal vs. observed. Who's feedback do you follow? My opinion...
None. Devs shouldn't implement features content etc. because the majority told them so, or the old timers told them so, or because a certain mod is popular, or game mode is popular or there is a huge amount of whining and complaining or any other form of feedback. That would be poor game design imo.
Good game designers would try to listen, as much as possible, to all feedback equally. And only act on it if it is constructive to their vision for THEIR game. If they hear a suggestion they really like and think would make the game more like what they want it to be... act on it. Regardless of popularity. If they hear suggestions that they don't think match up to the goals of their game... don't act on it. In the end a game will only be exceptional if it is made with passion and vision. If the devs aren't passionate about a feature, or they don't see how it fits into the vision of their game, I see no reason why they should implement it - aside from money - that usually ends up in generic, shitty, overpriced games...
Hope others agree. I may misinterpret some comments, but there seems to be alot of entitlement. "We want this, we are the majority/veterans/paying customers(smh)/etc., you devs have an obligation to do as we say". That is wrong. And I hope I don't come across that way in my own posts (though I recognize how it is very possible). My goal is to sell my ideas and opinons best as possible and hope they compliment or fit in with the devs goals so they implement it. Most times they don't or can't. Oh well. I'm grateful when the devs implement suggestions purely for the sake of the community (my community of course) because I am pretty sure they do it purely for our satisfaction. Very nice of them. But I would never expect this.
Anyhow food for thought. And options are always great... but ultimately its at the devs' discretion.
-
2
-
-
You just described the old system - true in places it was a bit harsh (cmon let me crawl), but that was the old system. Wounds affected fatigue. Load affected fatigue. Stance affected fatigue. Terrain affected fatigue. And fatigue affected movement and accuracy. You feel like you can't aim at anything after hiking up a hill with a MMG? That's why the bipod is on your gun, friend. Feel too slow while carrying that HAT? Give a rocket to carry to the lighter rifleman next to you. The old system was fine, just needed fine-tuning. Not a lazy and arcadey redesign.
Bingo! Old fatigue system was far superior to what we got now. I had no problem with it. This one should take the good parts of the old system while keeping the new weapon sway build up over time (and better yet animation slowdown) to represent low intenstiy tiring, and the much quicker to deplete/replenish, stamina that we have now, to represent high intensity tiring (sprinting, lifting alot, lugging up a hill, crouch running etc.). Add in the nice new stamina bar and who knows maybe it will turn out better than the old fatigue.
Huh, that's weird. That's 0 sway comparing to what I got. And I didn't even sprint.
Im guessingthe combination of inertia and movement sway amplified one another to make it alot higher for than what you saw in the video. Also sway always looks big and ridiculous when you do nothing to compensate for it. Not saying that was the case for you, but in the video I was definitely countering or following the sway to get on target. Anyhow the sway from just moving isn't that bad from the get go IMO. It is when its combined with crazy spins and rapid change of direction that you get the crazy sway - Aand you should, because being able to 180 spin and easily land a hit on the guy who supposedly had the one up on you is kind of bad for realistic gameplay. Methodical and focused movement/aim really help, especially in close quarters. If you slow down and cover sectors it will really reward you rather than bursting in tacical pace and guns blazing. I like it!
-
4
-
-
Actually I was just trying out the SPMG and you can't really shoot it if you've just moved (doesn't matter if 5m or 1k) due to the massive sway.
Well first off, lets get it straight. You can shoot. Even effectively, after moving with the SPMG. Yes it is harder...
Sprinting 10 metres, engaging at 50.
But that is good! One positive out of this stamina business its that heavy weapons have been given a needed movement penalty. Sprinting with the SPMG and instantly trying to engage is more difficult. Way it should be. The gun is a beast and very heavy from what I gather. Sprinting with it and then raising it, shouldering it and firing it with accuracy is not going to happen with great speed. Finally this is actually true ingame. In contrast, using a SMG is opposite. Good job to the devs on that.
There is room for improvement. The magnitude of sway is good I believe. But the duration - I think it lasts too long at high intensity. After moving sway should drastically decrease in the first half a dozen seconds. And then slowly drop for the remainder of the recovery time. This represents:
- Quick, broad stabilizing of the body and gun from swinging around to shouldered and aiming - weapon handling
- Slower, finer recover as one calms breathing, muscles etc. from the movement they were doing - fatigue
End result would be... lets say for a rifleman - jog 50 metres, stop, aim. 2 or so seconds of high sway that rapidly dissipates. 20 or so seconds of low sway which slowly dissipates. Exact times subject to change. What do you guys think? I can't imagine it would be that big a change. Change the accuracy regeneration from linear to backwards exponential (I am sure there is a proper term for that). Easy Peasy!...... .... :(
Again I'd like to repeat:
Speed/Movement, Encumbrance, Terrain, Stance and Wounds need to somehow combine to determine if stamina is lost, gained or stays neutral during any action. Not just the type of movement should determine if something eats stamina, as is now.
-
2
-
The changes are better, especially sway. Still alot lacking, especially on making loadout, terrain, stance and movement speed actually factor in tandem. I gave up on suggesting mechanics in this thread a while ago... fuck it
Way I see it, stamina system represents anaerobic ability - sprinting, heavy lifting, climbing etc....As such this should be reflected in game by having all anaerobic activity (not just sprinting) eat away at stamina. What is and isn't anaerobic? depends combo of:
- Movement Speed
- Encumbrance
- Stance
- Terrain
Basically these four would act as multipliers. Multiply bigger than a certain threshold and the combo is Anaerobic:
Stamina loss/gain rate = Aerobic limit - (Movement speed multiplier x Stance multiplier x Encumbrance multiplier x Terrain multiplier)
Where Aerobic limit is equal for all players, and determines when an action becomes anaerobic. If the result of this equation is positive you regenerate stamina. If it is Negative you loose. Around zero it just stays the same. Simple. But very dynamic.
EDIT: Almost forgot. Health should be another multiplier. Want to really make people think twice about what they carry? Make weapon weight have a low weight multiplier.
Low and behold this is similar to fatigue. Difference is it was never possible to change a degenerative action to regenerative ie. jogging with little gear - increases stamina, jogging with lots of gear - decreases stamina. Above makes it possible. Contrasts the current system where all four of these factors are either: isolated from each other (movement speed and encumbrance), or have absolutely no effect anymore (stance, terrain)
CLIFFNOTES - Make it possible for any action to be fatiguing, resting or neutral based on encumbrance, stance and terrain. Not just movement speed (now).
RESULT - Jogging (or other actions) may rest or tire you based on what you are carrying, stance and terrain.
On "Encumbrance = Stamina bar size"
Stamina bar size determined by encumbrance is silly. Find it odd that after I exhaust myself all I have to do is drop a vest and boom, I have more stamina. Firefight goes on, I expend ammo and gain energy :huh: . Not how it should work. Fitness determines how much stamina a person has. Encumbrance factors into how fast the stamina is depleted. Everyone should have equal stamina. Regeneration/loss should be situational. May not be as "transparent". Make it more so by using...- Arrows in the stamina bar (as is done now)
- Rate of Fatigue bar
- Color of the stamina bar (red to green)
...to indicate how much the current combo of actions is fatiguing you.
IMO Transparency means making better indicators for the player, not simplifying mechanics so they are easier to understand. The way encumbrance determines stamina is a simplification of mechanics.
I'm not sure how much room devs have to work and how much the current system can be bent. But I think it is essential the 4 factors blend to produce rates of stamina loss/regeneration. Basing it on speed alone is far too simple to be interesting.
Also, devs, What is your stance on the slomo animations? Did you decide they didn't meet quality standards? Is that one of the reasons for the "stamina revamp"?-
4
-
Just wanted to share a quick note about this one. Part of the motivation for adding more feedback to engaging targets relates to some of the inherent limitations we face. During the Apex pre-production phase, we asked ourselves if it would be feasible to create a more advanced system, where successfully engaged target could, for example, be knocked down...
-snip-
...While I don't think it's pandering to a 'casual audience' to reach that conclusion, I also recognise it's not up to players to care about the constraints of our animation technology. We'll take that hit (*cloud of blood spawns*). I could go on about everything else happening under the hood when a target is struck (recently added dynamic aiming error, etc), but this topic is about fatigue feedback, and I've derailed things for quite long enough. :)
Hi RiE. The only reason I brought it up was because of the combination of:
- New stamina system, which closely mimicks any generic FPS's sprint bar
- The statement "These changes alone will give you the opportunity to spot if you a hit target better", which sounds like you guys just wanted hit indicators, also a standard in any generic FPS
It makes it seem as though the latest "core mechanics refinement", aside from ppe, is geared strictly towards making arma more like a COD, Battlefied etc. Thats what I was drawing attention to when I pointed out the new hit fx. Personally I don't mind them. But the motivation for them concerned me. After your explanation, not so much. But honestly my overall faith is not restored until the stamina system is changed. Alot.
Ultimately, we have to compare the performance of the system against our originally stated design goals. In my view, if our end goal is to create a mechanic that:
- Encourages players to consider their loadout
- Asks players to plan their movement
- Rewards players that make objectively better choices
- Prohibits players from selecting unrealistic loadouts
- Is transparent and comprehensible for players
Lastly, and it's Sunday, and it's late, so bear with me, I want to offer some sort of note of hope: although next week is going to be long and stressful and in large parts smothered in rage, we have some truly dedicated designers that will be doing little else than listening to feedback, making plans, and implementing improvements.
Well, like many have pointed out, it seemed like the fatigue system, plus the new stamina bar would have worked perfectly to achieve bullet points one through five. That is where the worry stems from. Why would the devs completely replace the old system, with a totally new, extremely simplified one, if the old system was already meeting the goals they themselves set? The conclusion one might come to is that their real goal was to simplify/dumb it down all along. Maybe I am ignorant of stamina's potential. But for the most part I saw little wrong with the fatigue system, and even less so that couldn't be fixed with some tweaking, all pointed out in this thread, rather than a complete revamp.
I am glad to hear stamina is in a plastic state. I apologize for any premature, unfairly harsh criticism. It sounded to me like the system had been extensively tested and tweaked. I was unaware it had much room for developing. For now my feedback is pretty simple. It should be more like fatigue. There is not much more to add at this point. Its all already been said in this 74 page thread.
You're good with words RiE and I feel more hopeful regarding this issue. But right now the new mechanic doesn't match up. I understand it will take time. But it is the end result of stamina that really speaks for the team's goals.
As always thanks for your acknowledgement and detailed explanations. I am glad there are devs like you to calm us crazy armaholics down :)
-
1
-
All movement when you press sprint key i.e. sprint & fast crawl.
And Nothing else. Regardless of what you carry.
This is pretty much what I experienced too. Since fatigue is only reduced by sprinting, loadout weight becomes almost a non-factor in my eyes: Besides from impatience (wanting to reach a place 5 seconds earlyer) there is rarely ever a real need to sprint. And in those cases where there is one, it's mostly "sprint 5 seconds to the nearest cover", so one could carry a substantial load and still achieve that. There is no more reason to go for a light loadout, medium to heavy is in all but the rarest instances the better choice. The terrain ist a non-factor too when using the new system. This reduces the amount of tactical thinking during travel time. Since traveling is low intensity anyways reducing the ammount of things players have to consider may make traveling "more boring". ("boringly long travel times" migth be one of the reasons for the overhaul of the system in the first place).
Also the new fatigue system is so much simpler than almost any other mechanic in the game that it does not fit compared to the rest of the game.
Pretty much the feeling I get when I am playing now. Your character simply doesn't get tired. Irregardless of the situation. The weapon sway due to non sprinting action is pretty much negligible. Very moderate, and can't seem to build it up to last more than 15 seconds even after 10km jog 95% encumbered, running up hills... gear, terrain, pathfinding, pace, planning etc. None of it really matters anymore. If you ever find yourself in a situation where you need to sprint more than 5 or so seconds your probably dead anyways. So the "heavy gear limits ones ability to sprint long periods" does shit all to impact gameplay.
Absolute garbage compared to fatigue. Except for the stamina bar. When did BI change from: try to make deep gameplay accessible - easy to learn difficult to master... to straight up dumbing their game down. And there is no denying that stamina is extremely dumbed down. Just compare fatigue oprep to the stamina oprep. Which one sounds more interesting with more depth? Even the less noticed addition of "more defined hit impacts" in the latest devbranch to "spot if you a hit target better". BI you're taking away the originality of Arma and turning it into another generic shooter with a big map... Is that what you want?! Before this I didn't think so. Now I see no other explanation...
-
4
-
-
oops, sorry accidental post
Still too shocked to contribute anything but pure rant at this point
-
Sorry devs, I hate to put down your hard work but
What the fuck...?
You can run in crouch stance with any gear, indefinitely. Do I even need to go further?
At least we have a stamina bar now. Not that we need it with this horseshit system.
This.Why not simply make this current system to Recruit or even Standard but add Realistic Encumbered to Veteran and above.
Sorry but I'm really, really not liking this... Just thinking about it makes me shiver. The old system wasn't perfect no doubt, but it was SO much better than what we had in arma 2. And now we are pretty much back to arma 2. But with a stamina bar and varied limitation on sprint time. Why are you going backwards?!
-
1
-
-
Ha! Picturing that I had to laugh. Exactly. Perfect example of how body armour works, and humans can be quite resilient. I don't want enemies to take 27 hits ingame, but it goes to show the wide range of reactions to be shot.I've always wondered if the Al-Qaeda guys in this complained about the lack of realism..
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2014/September/Navy-SEALs-Amazing-Survival-God-Get-Me-Home/
Well now the pistols take four shots to kill the CSAT guys. I personally think that is better. Four 9mm, two 6.5. This is kind of balanced with the other factions who can take more hits (seven from 9mm), but have less coverage. And since CSAT gear isn't real, balance is all we really have to go by.I did not experiment with 6.5 or other caliber rifles. :( As for realistic, I'm not really sure what things will change/improve(?) until 2030 (armors, bullets, weapons etc.). Anyway, I understand your concerns of the system and maybe saying that it's realistic was not the right word. Maybe I should have said it's more believable.
All I know is that emptying clips in close quarters into "unarmored" soldiers just to avoid getting shot was certainly not the right way to improve gameplay IMHO.
I hear you and feel the same. The whole hitpoints system, dead or alive, lack of bleeding etc. limits how realistic things can be. Best we can do is try for a realistic balance. Ie body armour/weapons give the correct magnitude even if the method is different.Anyhow, I think it's important to find the balance between realistic gameplay and playability and this system is another right step. Just to have the right amount of challenge so that we can all enjoy the game. I'd love if the game could more authentic (eg. states between living and dying with ragdoll) but unfortunately I'm afraid it's impossible that it'll happen in the near future. And I honestly want to think I'm wrong! :)
Agreed.mission design is an important aspect but game improvements is another thing. I want be able to outsmart a reasonable amount of enemy AI units and now, using this new armor system, it's a possibility (eg. headshots in close quarters). That's what I tried to say in my last post.
They are a bit more effective than peashooters. Still possible to use. Just harder. But yeah they aren't overly effective against armoured units. Whats wrong with that? Its outdated weaponry. Its like complaining that bow and arrows should be more effective. The 5.56, in most cases, has become an inferior round in this setting. At least that's the way I see it. Its the shitty weapons for the weaker factions (only greenback and guerrilla blufor has em).I don't play against unarmored targets.
Every soldier has armor on by default. Gameplay should reflect that.
Both sides have weapons with 5.56 ammo AFAIK. I'm actually not sure, I always use VAS for my loadouts. I would use MK20, TRG etc but they are peashooters.
Very good question. The VR dolls do seem to work more as expected. Devs?/BTW should we give feedback with the VR Training "dolls" or with normal Man because the results are different. One difference already is that I need two shots on a normal armoured man when I shoot behind the neck in the exposed area but with VR guy it need only one shot. So I wonder if the boxes are different and which one is the right one to give feedback? I like the armour with the VR Training dolls and they can take multiple shots in the leg and arms but a normal man the story is very different.
Good stuff, works much more like desired. Seven shots to the carrier rig. Could be a bit higher but as it is will do the job.Tweaked: Pistol bullet damage after an accidental rogue change
-
After a single shot most people will have a few cracked ribs and a massive goose egg where that round landed. After the second shot, you'll die of internal hemorrhaging if you don't get first aid quickly, you'll have completely fractured ribs, and you'll likely have trouble breathing. This is where you really stop being an effective soldier. After the third shot, you're either on your ass and out like a light or you're dead. Plates might stop bullets, but they don't stop you from being a fleshy sack of water that's read to burst at any moment.
I suppose you can argue that this is fake. But there are similar videos out there. It pretty much proves what you describe is incorrect. And thats point blank. I've seen tests shooting a plate 60+ times at range and it holds up (with 556).
don't stop you from being a fleshy sack of water that's read to burst at any moment.
If you want to tank four or five shots, then ArmA really isn't the game for you in the past and shouldn't be that game now nor in the future
I want the game to be realistic. You're right, in real life humans are fleshy sacks of water (though still quite difficult to kill outright). But in real life armour is also quite effective. I like lethal gameplay. One pistol shot should be capable of killing anyone. But not if its used incorrectly. If you are repeatedly shooting someone in the plate, it should not do much. If you are not hitting the fleshy sack of water it doesn't matter that its a fleshy sack of water. Know what I mean?
the deforming backside of the plate can be dangerous, but the bullet has a lot less KE than it had when it left the barrel, and the shooter's shoulder somehow managed to withstand that initial force.
I believe some padding under the armour will pretty much eliminate any serious damage from the deforming plate. And momentum (Not KE) of recoil and bullet are the same. So the bullet wouldn't do much more than give you a tiny nudge. Pretty much matches up with the video I linked.
FYI: It seem the armor rating of the CSAT fatigues have been lowered. It takes two shots with the P07 pistol to kill a soldier wearing only that. Seems much more realistic! ;)
Cheers! B)
Honestly I don't really know what properties that suit has. Is it kevlar? Or some alien material? Impossible to say what is realistic. However I find it wierd that it takes as many pistol shots as it does rifle shots...
There is no point using any gun with 5.56mm ammo. You will have to empty a clip to kill anyone.
What about against unarmoured targets? I think the idea of devs were putting forth though is that the 556 simply became an inferior round because of the advances of armour and such. Thus why it is used by guerillas and "poorly" equipped armies. I don't really have a problem with that. overtime weapons become outdated. I do however still think that big guns are way to easy to handle. But thats a different topic.
-
I think you're testing this with VR characters, right? That's wrong kind of white meat I'm afraid.
You need to try it with the real thing: https://youtu.be/QmmUbbiR42k (video 0:34 | MXM | 100m | default CSAT rifleman)
Well fuck. You're right. yeah the legs are rather fragile. most often one shot kill. doesn't seem right.
-
I know this is very much WIP, but legs are like glass currently: A single 6.5mm round to the shin is almost always lethal, even at 500m distance.
Damage to legs is really low (~0.1) but the overall damage goes through the roof.
I don't get that on my end. Usually takes three 6.5s to the leg. Sometimes two if you hit them at the right angle.
- Tweaked: Decreased total minimal hit threshold so that even pistol bullets are able to score some trivial total damage through vests
Yesterday, before this tweak, I found that a carrier rig could take twelve shots from a 9mm. I was quite pleased as I think that is a more realistic direction. Pistols are fairly useless against plate armour, from what I understand.
Today, after this tweak we are back to the four shots to the carrier rig and the guy goes down. I really hope that "trivial damage" can be decreased. alot. I think the Carrier rig should be able to take 10+ from a pistol honestly.
Also regarding the neck hitzone - I still think it should be extended even further down the body. The entire exposed patch between the neck and the vest, below the buckle, should be considered the neck hitpoint.
All three of these shots are to a pretty vulnerable area. "One shot kills". But they are counted as hits to the armoured chest plate. They shouldn't be. To fix this, the neck hitpoint should extend down more. Below you can see roughly: in red where the neck hitpoint exists, in the green where it should be extended to, and in the blue where it was extended to, but should probably be counted as the shoulder/arms instead - that area isn't vital like the neck.
AI & players should rather take the fall when hit hard by a bullet and then pick themselves up (or even better stay prone for a while, take cover and fire back if they can). system specific wounding and resultant damage is needed as well. An arm wound should screw up accuracy and even your ability to carry a rifle, a leg wound should causes limping not slowing down and eventually even affect your ability to stand. and bleeding out should be a danger. .
Yes I do agree. Especially on wounded capabilities. You should be able to take many hits to the extremities before death but you should be extremely disabled by them. More so than now. Similarly, shots to the pelvis and abdomen really shouldn't actually be one shot kills like they are now. Instead it should be multiple shots with extreme penalties. bleeding should be another possible "penalty" of nonlethal shots.
However currently I believe all of that is out of the dev's scope. Right now its best to focus on tweaking the mechanics we do have.
What are peoples thoughts on the performance of assault rifles vs the carrier rig plate?
-
Yeah Froggy I think it is the mod. All 7.62's I have tested ingame against plate carriers take two shots to kill... which is still arguably not realistic, but it is "balanced" in a "gamey" sort of way.
Haven't tested it, but really happy that the neck hitpoint was tweaked and pistols were made less effective vs armour. Thank you devs!
I still want to repeat that the 556 still performs too well vs armour IMO. Not only for realism, but for diversity in weapons. The way it consistently kills in three shots makes it boringly similar to the 6.5. And now the chest plate doesn't cover the whole torso. So making armour able to take 4+ 556's still won't prevent one shot kills. I think it would be beneficial to make 556 not as effective vs armour.
-
The new hitpoints to seem to work as described. Good job devs. Nut shots for the win.
I suggest making the neck hitpoint extend further down to just below the collar bone. Because on the character it is clear this area is not covered by any armour, but, since it is currently part of the chest hitpoint rather than the neck hitpoint, it is treated as if it were armoured.
I must agree with sniperwolf that even more hitpoints would be beneficial. I know its sounds ungrateful, but there is still the problem of exposed flanks being treated as if they were armoured. And when it comes to mods where people are making crazy armour configurations, it would be good to have separate hitpoints for the left and right sides. My suggestions: flanks (on the side, from armpit to hip), upper and lower leg, upper and lower arm and shoulder on both left and right sides...
If nothing else there really is a need for the left and right flanks of the torso to be modeled so you can get past that body armour.
And now that the armour covers more accurate regions of the body, it needs to be made more effective. Plate armour should not fail after 3 shots from a 9mm pistol!
@x3kj
Yes I agree with the general idea you have there. I, and I am sure many others throughout this thread have come up with similar ideas. I would love it if the devs implemented something so in depth, but unfortunately I think it will be left in mod territory. And fairly so.
-
1
-
-
Awesome solzenicyn! thanks for the detailed explanation. Time to start testing
-
There is indeed a difference between a helmet shot and a face shot now.
After more testing, I believe I was mistaking top of the head "glancing" hits (not dealing full damage) with helmet protection. It does seem that the helmet does offer protection to the whole face still. It would be nice if the devs could comment on the changes made/planned
In the arsenal I was able come up with these number of "shost to kill" vs the carrier rig from within 10 metres
9mm (PO7) - 4
556 (Mk20) - 3
6.5 (MX) - 3
7.62 (Mk14) - 2
I also noticed that all of these weapons are instant kills against unarmoured torsos. It seems that the 9mm and 556 especially, are much more effective nowadays.
Personally I strongly dislike this new level of lethality. A 9mm should not be effective against high rated plate. To some degree, same for 556. The plate will certainly take more than 3 shots. Of course realistically the plate doesn't cover the whole torso. So I am hoping this damage buff is a short term fix, until the proper coverage of armour is represented. More severe hit penalties/reactions would also do well to balance out the protection armour grants.
I know the devs said they were working on the issue. Any update/change in plans that you can throw at us?
@en3x
So how do your think all that info should translate in arma 3?
-
There is indeed a difference between a helmet shot and a face shot now.
After more testing, I believe I was mistaking top of the head "glancing" hits (not dealling full damage) with helmet protection. It does seem that the helmet does offer protection to the whole face still. It would be nice if the devs could comment on the progress made and what is planned. Anyhow I will move to the appropriate thread now.
-
Ahhh, finally. The Arma god's have heard the cries.
Personally, I am actually not a fan of 3 5.56 to a plate and the guy is dead. I would much prefer 5 or 6+, but the plate only covers what it actually covers (instead of the whole torso as it still seems to) and much more severe "wounded" penalties.
-
Were the updated hitboxes added in then?
Saw this in the changelog and decided to fire the game up for the first time in a long while.
There is indeed a difference between a helmet shot and a face shot now. great job devs!However that is all I could find. Couldn't really see any difference between a hit to the plate vs the unprotected sides/portions of the torso. I did notice that vests in general seem to offer less protection though. Three 556 to kill. I believe it used to be more... -
Ballistic facewear would be as HeadGear and then you could make a firegeometry with the only front face plate and it will use a material rvmat thus making it "bulletproof"
same way like tank's armor rvmat
Is that how you think it will work? Actually simulating the armour pieces as seperate materials? To me the Sitrep seemed to indicate that they were just making it so there are more hitpoints/possibility to create more hitpoints to properly represent exposed/armored places with more precision.
In technical terms, the change will let encoders define more hit points per piece of protection and configure how damage is distributed. Samples will of course be updated to reflect this.
So for example with a helmet the head would simply have two hitpoints instead of one. Top and bottom. Bottom wouldn't have any protection, top would. But the actual hemet wouldn't really block bullets. And damage calculation would be the same "dampening" effect we have now, rather than actual simulation of penetration/deflection/etc. Though that would be awesome.
Or am I misunderstanding what they said? Either way its a still a step up. Glad to see that BI is staying true to to what they said way back.
Something has to be done about AI shooting through the jungle.
in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
Posted
Haven't gotten to play on Tanoa yet, but if its anything like what was on altis i would say that a big issue is not so much whether the ai can see you or not, but rather how long it takes them. In your video 2nd ranger, the ai maybe should have eventually spotted you, because you were technically visible. But it should have taken alot longer. Like a couple of minutes
As frustrating as it is to get spotted when camoflauged and partially concealed, its pretty dumb when Ai simply never see you even though you are visible. Like the situation you mention
If you're only partially concealed they should eventually spot you. otherwise its too easy.