Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

-Coulum-

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    1790

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by -Coulum-

  1. Posted

    Fatigue has tremendous effects on the AI.

    Try to give an AI squad a few waypoints and observe how they are getting slower and slower as fatigue is increasing, up to a point where they're barely faster than walking (still using the running animation and therefor making it look really weird)

    Curious about the changes on devbranch, because right now commanding AI on stable is a nightmare, soldiers can't run for more than 400m before coming to a crawl, making missions involving travel on longer distances unplayable (tested with a rather lightly equipped blufor squad leader)

    Yeah I was aware of that, I was just talking about shooting specifically. I know injury will make the ai aim worse, but I didn't know fatigue does as well. I will have to do some tests on it. It felt like fatigue doesn't effeect the ai aiming (at all/enough) but maybe that is just my ignorance. Thats why I need to test it. To see if they are legitimately too good or its just my own inability to manage stance and fatigue that makes them feel so good.

  2. Posted · Edited by -Coulum-

    The new system is actually pretty easy, especially in Dev Branch. I can accurately engage targets at almost over 1 kilometer with a mid - range scope (MRCO, the AAF one). Almost over 1 kilometer. Almost. Over. 1. Kilometer. Yes, I was laying down but I had been running around. When I'm in a crouched position I can accurately engage targets at like 700 meters. Standing is like 400 if I'm lucky, but that's pretty good.

    Yep, that's pretty much my feelings. I personally want it to be harder to achieve more realistic results. But I guess if a compromise had to be made, it would be good enough how it is now. I hope BI doesn't compromise.The difficulty 1.24 brought was great and it really changed the way you had to engage in combat. The devbranch, meh, it makes combat a bit longer and harder, but it isn't the same game changer that makes an entirely new and unique form of FPS combat.

    Echo38, I am sorry, but I don't consider any arguments that include your hand as a reason why XYZ should change are valid.

    not everyone likes to play the game the same way.

    Correct. But since when is BI obligated to make changes for every single persons desires. I know we all want that to be the case (me included), but you must understand when so many people disagree with you because your preference is based on reasoning very personal to you. Its why we have mods. There are at least one that can help you in your current situation. Use it. Sorry if I come across as overly curt.

  3. Posted · Edited by -Coulum-

    You have a very weird interpretation of what sprinting actually is. Bohemia clearly sees sprinting as an activity that is maximum exertion at full pace for short durations used to move quickly when exposed under fire or moving from cover to cover etc. Add a large gear loadout ontop of that and you will quickly run out of stamina and with good reason.

    Exactly what I was going to say. When you sprint you are exerting maximum effort to go as fast as possible. Your going anearobic when you sprint. No matter how fit you are your muscles will fill with lactic acid and tire quickly. Smoker or non smoker. Expecting someone to be able to do it for more than a couple hundred metres with gear on is kind of unreasonable. Olympic athletes don't even sprint more than 400m (And even then not all of them can keep it up the whole race). And they are trained specifically for sprinting (last time I checked militaries were concerned about long distance endurance of its soldiers more than how well they can sprint). And they don't have gear on.

    I think what you are referring to Blackthorne556 is running/jogging, and in arma you can do that much longer than a couple hundred metres.

    The problem I have with this argument is that it implies people who do like the new fatigue system enjoy walking 3 kilometers. Sorry, but we don't like it anymore than you do. What we do like is how the fatigue system forces us to think tactically. If a mission forces me to walk 3 kilometers, I find a new mission. That's a poorly designed mission, and I'm not going to waste my time with it. Or, perhaps I made mistakes that lead me to be stranded 3km out without transport. That's called good gameplay. If you remove or soften the consequences in Arma, then you degrade the experience. There are plenty of missions out there that don't make me walk that distance, and I can enjoy the dynamic gameplay the fatigue system brings to Arma, where my loadout choices make a real difference. What if the mission made you walk 10km? Should we increase sprint speed and remove fatigue all together so that you don't have to get bored trekking that distance on foot? There's a line to be drawn here. Missions could put you in any sort of inconvenient situation, they don't make for valid reasons in an argument. Arma lets you get yourself into shit situations by design. You could end up facing a tank with zero AT or explosives to do anything about it. Arma is never going to be the forgiving game that gives you a second chance there. All of your actions have consequences that you are forced to deal with.

    Well said, I agree completely.

  5. Posted

    Yea, as is in devbranch it's sort of at a decent middle ground. Easy enough not to offend people, but hard enough to not make 1000 metre shots when fatigued. I could use some more, but I won't die if it stays like this.

    I wonder how all this is going to tie in with the inertia, and when it's coming

    Pretty much how I feel. I want it to be harder, but I guess it can't be "too" hardcore (leave that to the mods) and you do have to give people a break for lack of weapon resting. I think the current devbranch achieves that adequately enough in terms of difficulty.

  6. Posted · Edited by -Coulum-

    It is (even though it may not visually seem so when looking thru AI's eyes). It is affected by injuries and fatigue in (almost) the same way as the player. Issue might be that AI is rather good at compensating the sway. There are adjustments in progress. Ideally it should be more dependable on the AI skill.

    Sweet. I didn't know that fatigue effected the ai. Unfortunately it doesn't really come through in the game play, for either... though I haven't done any specific testing. Maybe I am just being ignorant of how much they actually are handicapped.

  7. Posted

    However -- and I feel this merits a separate post -- after a stop by the virtual shooting range today, I must concede that my character is, in fact, a significantly better shot in Arma 3 than I am in real life. Even with the current ridiculous cursor-chasing minigame. The problem isn't hitting the targets -- it's hitting them & their full-body-coverage armor enough times to take them down, before they one-shot you with their aimbots. : /

    So perhaps the drunken wave isn't the big problem here. It's the armor-protecting-things-it-shouldn't and the A.I. not being affected by the weapon wave. Primarily the first one

    I am glad you realized that. I tend to agree. But its for a separate thread.

    Among other things, the ai give the people the idea that they should be able to engage and kill targets from so far away and so quickly. Because if you don't you yourself are often killed. You say that it takes 6 seconds to kill a moving CSAT (I am guessing at in and around 200m) which in game easily get you killed. Well, from a real life perspective that's pretty damn fast. Firefights can go on for hours, with thousands of shots fired and produce only a couple walking wounded at times.

    Like you say the big problem is the ai and the way the handle getting hit/suppressed that makes it overly unbalanced. But that will become fixed soon enough as well I am confident.

  8. Posted

    Yes, but it's automatic, like standing up. Technically, you have to spend effort to keep yourself from falling over, IRL, but it's pretty automatic for anyone past the toddler stage of life. It's the same with holding a weapon still. Just like with standing still, all I have to do is intend to hold the rifle still, and it happens "automatically." There's always a tremble that you can't get rid of, but there really isn't much you can do about it -- no amount of concentration is going to make a significant impact on this tremble, which has exclusively to do with your heartbeat and how good your muscles are.

    Really, this insisting on having a mouse-chasing minigame to try to simulate the fact that you have to exert nominal force to keep your weapon reasonably steady IRL is along the same line of saying we should have a key-mashing minigame to keep our characters from falling over while standing upright. "It's too easy to stand upright in the game -- in real life, you have to exert effort, while in the game, you don't have to do anything at all!" Same deal. Both take primarily muscle strength to do well, and concentrating & putting hard effort into trying to do it better isn't going to make a significant difference.

    Its not the same as walking. At all. Are you going to tell me that having more time and concentrating on your aim more doesn't help one shoot more accurately because "its automatic any-ways - all he needs to do is think about it and a moment later he is holding as steady as he ever will be."

    And regarding the tremble, I think that martlin_lee described it very well why the sway system recreates it better.

    Just want to chime in and say that's what I feel as well. And that tremble in real life, while random, you can kind of feel where it's going to go. Compare to ArmA 2's "tremble", it is much easier in real life to seize the moment the reticle is on target because you can feel it. Predictability is the key here I think.

    So no, the sway in and of itself is not realistic, but when the player counters the sway, the end result is. (or at least a close representation)

    What you get is kind of that tremble, some difficulty in shooting at longer range, and less stability when you are putting less effort into countering it (eg in the heat of battle)

    And since when did this "mouse minigame" get so damn hard. Its not at all an impossible task as numerously demonstrated throughout this thread. I would even go as far to say that to some players, it is automatic. Like Roshnak says, you don't have to neccesarily fight the sway either.

    You can just as easily (although probably not as quickly) predict the sway pattern and fire when your sights align with the target. That's the more realistic way to do it, anyway.

    Thats what I do when I want a really accurate shot and have some time to take it.

    Yes when bullets are whipping by you and your tired and can barely get a glimpse of the enemy it can be a challenge to prioritize controlling your weapon to get off accurate shots. Do you think its any different for a real infantry man in the same situation? Just like helicopter and tab lock, when certain tasks are too easy to do ingame, it creates an unrealistic balance which creates unrealistic gameplay. Thus the need for sway to add a wee bit more effort on the players part.

  9. Posted

    Well sway, drift, whatever you want to call it, fact is to keep on target you actively have to aim - and that is not just a matter of holding the rifle correctly.

    Regardless, bringing things back to game, when people say that in real life they can hold their aim on target they must realize that they are actually doing something to maintain that steadiness. Thus it isn't exactly a fair comparison to expect to be able to hold your reticule on target without doing anything in game. Which is one of the reasons why we have mechanics like sway. Its really just more of a theory if anything. Overall what I am after is the results that it produces. And Arma 3 has generally been going in the right direction.

    I do wonder how hold breath can be changed though. I don't really like its current functionality.

  10. Posted

    It is also a matter of reflexes of a person being hit.

    This. The bullet itself is not much of a force to knock you back. Momentum of recoil isn't any ddifferent than that of the projectile. Its not going to knock you on your ass. However your reaction to the hit might do crazy stuff. Its like when you electrocute yourself (assuming you have had the pleasure of doing so), most times you will jump back. I box recreationally and when I get hit in the ring it usually doesn't physically push my body in any direction. Once I got sucker punched from behind while just walking and I sprung forward and dropped like a rock. Its not about the force of the bullet, its about how one reacts to it. That's why I wish that there would be a random bit of push on the ragdoll in a random direction to make it less boring and have more realistic variety. But it doesn't have to be a push from the bullet itself. Just random push to represent the guys reaction to getting hit. Having a quick "startup death animation" as well would be great too. Right now its seems like the moment the guy is hit he instantly dies which is kind of unimerssive. Too clean.

  12. Posted

    This really depends on how you're defining the process of steadying a rifle in reality. Actual shooting isn't about countering sway. What you're actually doing is just holding the weapon correctly, such that you have the maximum amount of bone support possible. There isn't a whole lot of muscle work involved. So would the process of not putting any effort into steadying your weapon just be making a conscious decision to not hold it correctly?

    Well yes its about proper positioning of the rifle and your body, but when it comes down to it what is holding all those bones up? Muscles. Not saying you get a workout holding a rifle on target but you do have to use fine muscle control to compensate for breathing and involuntary muscle movement. Holding the rifle right doesn't give you steady aim. It just helps. So when I say "steady the rifle", I guess what I actually mean is compensating when the reticle inevitably moves off target. To test this: how stable do you think you can hold a rifle with your eyes closed. This is how much sway you would have with minimum input from the shooter. Not saying this is what should be ingame in any way, but I am trying to point out that in real life more concentration and work goes into holding a rifle steady than one might think.

    Why do all of you that are against the sway realize that no matter how well you hold a rifle your body still moves, trembles, and sways? It's just fact. And when you have this small weapon pointed at something hundreds of meters away a small tremble makes a huge difference. It's simple math and physics, it doesn't matter if you 'don't like it,' I don't like how my body trembles when I target shoot but I counter it through trigger and breath control. That's what you do in real life and that's what you do in game. The whole everyone-wins 'it should be an option' argument makes no sense either, how about we have an option to sprint forever? Or carry infinite amounts of gear? Or do X? The options argument only goes so far, but something as fundamental and mechanical as weapon sway needs to be constant.

    Some people as you say don't realize this. But then there are others who do, but don't feel it is properly represented with sway. Or don't feel like sway is as natural as it is in reality. Or that its looks weird and unimmersive. Or some just don't give a fuck about realism. Not everyone is ignorant of what goes into hitting a target a couple hundred metres away. Of course, still some are.

    Generally I do agree that two many options is not ideal. But maybe for lower difficulties it is reasonable to help people get into the game. Games like Red Orchestra had this and it didn't seem to hurt anybody. In the end most people end up flocking to the regular difficulty anyhow. If not difficulty options, people can pretty much always find/build their ideal with mods.

  13. Posted

    That can be true, but you can add wind deflection and improve that situation the proper way. But You said is not enough.

    Yes. As you can see in arma 2 with ace (I know, I know its not 100% correctly simulated there either) adding wind doesn't really make shooting that much harder for those that are aware of its presence and how to compensate. With wind in arma 3, you would still have people making the same shots with ease, just they will have to press a few extra buttons first. So lack of wind is not the only thing making shooting so easy if you ask me (though I do very much hope to see it added.)

    You seem worried about those very long range engagements, and the fact is that those are a very,very small fraction of gameplay situations, and you are asking to make worse the vast mayority of spots to improve a few in an unnatural way, without properly implementing the other complementary features (wind, weapon resting, AI, damage model).

    But you must understand that this is not just about the long range shots. I merely use these as examples to try to demonstrate how easy shooting in general is in arma. At ranges of 300m you will also be able to see that shooting is very quick and effective compared to reality. A 300m shot might take 5 seconds for a good shooter to line up in reality while in arma it takes just over one while prone. You might not think its much of a difference but it vastly effects the way a firefight plays out and what tactics can be used. At 300 metres that few extra seconds might give the target the time he needs to duck down into cover. Or it might be more than the shooter is willing to expose himself. A few seconds extra to aim accurately can drastically change the length of a firefight, the tactics that are available and the range at which these firefights occur which brings me to my next point:

    Like roshnak explains, the definition of "long range engagements" in arma and reality isn't in sync. In reality 800 metres would be long range. In and around 300 might be mid range. Yet in arma for a guy with optics, 800 metres is just a regular engagement. Earlier in the thread someone was saying that long range shots are difficult - it took him tons of effort to line up a shot at 2300 metres... But what he didn't realize is that in reality that isn't long range shooting! That's just ridiculous!

    The point I am trying to make is that long range shooting actually does make up the majority of arma firefights (outside of urban combat). It just it isn't recognized as long range because ranges in arma aren't matched up with that of reality - due to the ease at which you can shoot at any range. I hope you kinda catch my drift, I know I tend to ramble.

    In summary: Arma 3 firefights take place at unrealistic ranges in unrealistic duration because the shooting is so easy compared to reality. Thus the need for a sway system to achieve realistic firefights and make realistic tactics more viable

    Agree/Disagree?

    From a realistic standpoint you have some guys with real life weapon experience telling that the sway is overdone,and the breath mechanic broken. From a gameplay perspective is annoying and boring.

    You have alot of guys with experience on both sides of the argument. In the end it comes down to what they are basing their judgements on: the look and feel of the sway, or the results it produces.

    For me shooting now in Arma 3 feels hard but not good.
    Being hard is how it should be. Not being "good" is another matter which I can sympathize with you on. There was a discussion on exactly that in this thread: how to make the sway system hard/require a realistic amount of time and concentration to aim, but also not come across as annoying and gimmicky. 1.24 did the difficulty part well, but the method was obviously not to everybody's likings. The suggestions I came up with that may or may not help are here:

    Okay guys I've spent some time to analyse what is actually happening with the sway in 1.24 stable. Picture is worth a thousand words so here are my general findings:

    The shaded area represents the vertical and horizontal axis of sway, while the line represents the actual sway pattern (Yes sway isn't actually something random, each stance has path that the weapon follows). Basically the axis of sway manipulates the sway pattern by stretching or compressing it.

    This is sway while standing pointing at a target 300 metres away:

    5155ec.jpg

    Sway Speed is moderate.

    This is sway while crouched pointing at a target 300 metres away:

    187f97.jpg

    Speed of the sway is about two thirds as fast as while standing.

    This is sway while prone pointing at a target 300 metres away:

    93bdfb.jpg

    Speed of the sway is about one tenth as fast as while standing.

    This is the sway while prone pointing at a target 1000 metres away:

    95202c.jpg

    You can see that higher power optics magnify the sway.

    And Lastly a comparison of the 3 stances

    c3204c.jpg

    Basically when you are fatigued or injured it stretches the vertical and horizontal axis of sway as well as increasing the sway speed. Injury general causes a horizontal stretch in the sway pattern, while fatigue general causes a vertical stretch in the sway pattern.

    Based on this I have several suggestions that I think might help players find the system more intuitive and immersive/believable/aesthetically realistic and less frustrating/annoying, while also retaining the more realistic challenge that 1.24 stable brought. Here are a few key points:

    • Sway should be much more vertical and much less horizontal - stance will change vertical sway not as drastically but will almost nullify horizontal sway the lower you go.
    • Sway speed should not be effected by stance as much. Standing speed should be slightly slower (than in 1.24), while prone speed should be slightly faster (than in 1.24). Your breathing rate doesn't change when you change stance.
    • Fatigue will not increase the vertical axis of sway as much, but will effect sway speed drastically, since your respiratory rate is increasing.
    • Injury is fine as it is. It is pretty damn hard to shoot with an arm injury now but I don't think anyone really knows what its like to aim with a bullet in your arm. We can assume it is very hard. The current achieves this. If anyone has better ideas/experience feel free to share.

    So basically this is somewhat like what the new sway system would look like...

    Standing 300m:

    89736d.jpg

    Compared to 1.24

    Much less horizontal with a slightly slower sway speed than 1.24 currently has, and a longer vertical axis.

    Crouched 300m:

    d00254.jpg

    Compared to 1.24

    Less horizontal with the same sway speed as 1.24 and a longer vertical axis.

    Prone 300m:

    e81cbe.jpg

    Compared to 1.24

    A bit less horizontal with a slightly faster sway speed than 1.24 currently has, and a longer vertical axis.

    Prone 1000m:

    6e99c9.jpg

    Compared to 1.24

    You will notice that prone still has a considerable range of motion when targeting long range targets. This is intentional. The hope is that the much more vertical and thus predictable sway pattern will make it feel more natural and smooth, and less jerky and frustrating. I don't want 1km sniping to be a cakewalk, but at the same time I don't want it to be a painful experience that can't be mastered. With the hold breath I suggest below, I think that this system will achieve this far better than what we currently have.

    Basically the goal here is to keep the challenge while changing the sway such that it is more intuitive and less gimmicky. The more vertical movement will allow players to better predict and thus compensate for sway. Meanwhile, the speed change (standing slower than 1.24, prone faster than 1.24) will make shooting standing a bit more viable while still keeping prone shooting engaging despite the predictable weapon sway.

    Hold breath feature would ideally not change the sway pattern as it does now in devbranch - it is confusing when you hold breath and your sway basically changes direction. Instead hold breath should merely slow down the speed of sway equally in both the vertical and horizontal direction (maybe by 75%) while keeping in the same motion. This will allow players to have more time to line up their shots or train their aim, while steadying their weapon.

    Interested to know what you guys think... Does this seem like it might look and feel more believable? Could it be a step in the right direction?

    Do you have any ideas to add that might "keep the challenge but ditch the annoyance"?

    So no, the sway in and of itself is not realistic, but when the player counters the sway, the end result is. (or at least a close representation)

    What you get is kind of that tremble, some difficulty in shooting at longer range, and less stability when you are putting less effort into countering it (eg in the heat of battle)

    Precisely.

    I do wonder though: how one's rifle would sway in reality if they weren't to put any effort to steadying it. Its hard to really know because by default when you raise a rifle to your eye you're going to try to steady it to some degree. But what if you didn't. How steady is a rifle when one just shoulders it and doesn't look through the sights? I bet it is actually alot closer to the sway we see in arma than one might think. Just food for thought. People must remember that in reality you are putting effort into steadying your aim. When you just sit and watch the sway ingame you are not putting in the same effort, so you shouldn't expect the same level of steadiness.

    The devbranch sway right after 1.24 was imo far to easy. But later they did change the the "sway formula", whatever that might mean. Although it is still a bit easy, it is much better. Far better than before 1.24. Given the lack of bipods/weapon resting, I think it is a fair balance for now. But I do hope if those features are ever introduced they will up the default sway some more, since we will have realistic ways of countering it.

    Either way I think BI aren't touching sway until they have also gotten inertia out, which I am looking forward to.

  14. Posted

    Funny, because I switched between stable and dev and it had to download over 700 MB each time...

    Same here. Not really an option for those who have slow bandwith or limited data usage (Luckily no longer me though:))

    As for the fatigue system: I like it but there are two things I personally am not particularly fond of:

    1. Carrying heavier loads seems not to have that much effect on how fast you initially fatigue. I know this is a difficult one to balance with enjoyable gameplay but the immediate effects of carrying heavy stuff doesn't seem as nearly as bad as it should be. Perhaps even just making sprinting alone much more taxing for heavily loaded players would get that "immediately tiring feeling" without making it totally "unplayable" to carry a lot of stuff and keep pace with a jogging unit. Its a tough one to balance out but right now the immediate effects of being heavily loaded are pretty nonexistant.
    2. This one is the most important to me - Recovery from fatigue is extremely fast when prone. You can sprint 50 metres, go prone for a few moments, sprint 50 metres, go prone for a few seconds forever and ever. In my opinion that isn't right and from a realism perspective its also off. Prone is basically an instant fatigue recovery button as it stands now. Its kind of a cheap cheat to bypass a really awesome system. I really hope the devs might realize this and make it less so. It should take a while to fully 100% recover in any stance, in my opinion at least.

    Something I was really impressed to find out is that even getting up from prone fatigues you. Dropping down as well, though not as much. Awesome attention to detail BIS! Keep it up!

  15. Posted

    My performance did decrease a bit with 1.24. Maybe 5 fps when just alone on altis. Of course I can't do any tests to compare, but before on devbranch I was really impressed with my fps - was getting in and around 53-55 fps with standard+ settings on a laptop. But then after switching to stable and updating I was getting 48-49 fps. Still nothing to whine about, but not as good. That's the first time I have noticed any performance loss due to an update however.

  16. Posted · Edited by -Coulum-

    Some "hardcore" folks in here do the very common misstake of mixing up hard with realistic. Its the same in all simulation communitys.

    Try hitting a target in arma at 1500m. Even with 1.24 sway it is realtively easy. With the devbranch sway it is childsplay. Takes about 5 seconds to line up the shot.

    Now try doing that in real life. If you can even do it, I doubt it would be so quick.

    Reality is harder than ingame

    Yes sometimes people get hard and realistic messed up, but in this case the results of ingame shooting speak for themselves. Shooting is to efficient, and it often makes real world tactics far less useful ingame, which is my main gripe.

    And I know that arma lacks wind and what not but that is definitely not the only reason that shooting is harder in reality. It is because there is alot more to weapon handling than point and click.

    Don't get me wrong, I don't think that the sway system is by any means perfect, and I doubt it will ever be, because of the limitations of a mouse and keyboard, but I do think the difficulty of shooting brought with 1.24 is realistic. Here are my thoughts on how it I think it should be changed.

    The correct solution, I think, to the "too easy" versus "too hard" problem is to simulate it as accurately as possible. That would mean removing the unrealistic drunken sway and adding a realistic tremble. One wouldn't be able to significantly counter the tremble -- just like reality, it'd always be there and it'd always keep your aim from being 100% precise while not resting the weapon, but it would be fairly slight. Enough to make shooting progressively difficult at longer ranges (again, like real life), but not exaggerated beyond realism to the point where one is forced to unrealistically wrestle the mouse with far greater difficulty than the real deal in order to get a fraction of the steadiness of the real deal.

    I disagree that this is the right solution because although it may look more realistic, you are taking all the human interaction out of it. There is no skill, it is just mainly luck as you hope that your weapon trembles onto target as you hit the trigger. Pretty much as bad as random dispersion. Like Roshnak says the sway actually requires some skill and more importantly concentration and time on the players part:

    This comes down to a difference in game design philosophy. Some people want the sway to be exaggerated, but counterable in order to stand in for the skill involved in accurately aiming and shooting a rifle. It's just a different way of looking at the game. I don't want it to be impossible to be precise while shooting the gun. I want it to possible to be very precise if I practice, in a different, but analogous way to practicing with a real rifle.

    Another thing that one might notice is when you compensate for the sway you actually end up with that "tremble". Just like in reality when you try to compesate for gravity and breathing you get that "tremble".

    Echo38 I am sorry to hear about your hand, but you must understand that is pretty much a problem specific to you. I don't see it as a good reason why the whole sway system should be toned down. Maybe you should look up the sway mods to help you better enjoy the game. And as a tip, I find its actually good practice to not fight the sway too much. Instead guide it. Make a small adjustment so that the weapon sways onto the target, rather than constantly trying to pull it onto target. At least that really helps me make the long range shots accurately. When I am sniping in arma the moment I shoot I am never actually fighting the mouse, I am just letting the sway line up the reticule and timing my shot accordingly. I don't know, maybe that might help you experience less pain. Hope you can still find a way to enjoy the game mate.

  17. Posted

    My hand is literally hurting from trying to get my rifle to be steady in Arma 3. It doesn't while holding a real life weapon steady (and that's steadier than I can get in Arma 3, I might add). It isn't even half as difficult in real life to keep a rifle steady. So, that isn't what I'd call balancing itself out. The game is, as I said earlier, wrong. It isn't "fine," and it isn't "balancing itself out."
    your hand is hurting? Really? Maybe you are doing something wrong. Anyone else's hand hurting because they have to move a 5 ounce mouse?

    I don't mean to come across as rude, but maybe you just need a bit more practice to get accustomed to the weapon sway. Because logically you shouldn't have more trouble controlling the mouse while sitting in the comfort of your home than an 8lb rifle while standing up with full gear on.

    Bascially sway is a neccesary evil to present realistic limitations to ones shooting abilities in game. Is it a 1:1 representation of how your weapon moves in your hands in reality? No. But it does produce more realistic shooting results than if it were not their or toned down. As far as I know it is the best way to achieve this. If you have any better ideas I am all ears.

    Arma is never going to recreate the real life conditions and skills required to shoot a weapon, so focusing on a single aspect of that (the weapon's sway) and calling it unrealistic isn't going to get us anywhere. What should matter most is the end result.

    That's where I'm coming from.

  19. Posted · Edited by -Coulum-

    So yeah, go mad in the dev branch but i'd use caution on the main branch.

    I agree that the devs don't seem to take much advantage of the dev branch for thorough testing. But I guess at the same time the dev branch users have slightly different views than the stable branch. Alot of dev users were perfectly fine with the fatigue already, me being one of them. So sometimes it is necessary to release it on stable to get the full spectrum of feedback.

    Onto your friend however...

    Yup he has more FPS but he rage quit the game in less than 15 minutes because he couldn't hit anything that was moving because of the extreme sway of the reticle.

    When someone rage quits after 15 minutes of playing you must ask yourself if it is really the game or the player that is the problem. Arma isn't a game you can get the hang of in 15 minutes. Thats why we have the bootcamp, a host of showcases and the campaign. It is a game that takes a fair bit of adapting. Its honestly one the best thing about the game. Unlike other games its not ridiculously easy for just any idot with two hands to master. Its also why it is/used to be a very niche game. So maybe he should take another crack at it, but with a bit more patience, or maybe this isn't the game for him.

  20. Posted

    To clarify, this was more like a bug fix than a relaxation: due to some nasty old code, it turned out that when a soldier was heavily encumbered, the fatigue decay approached 0; i.e. the time it would take to recover was, ahem, exponential. This was clearly undesired and we apologise that this sort of error made it through unchecked. There are some additional tweaks in effect, but I can pass on from Sandbox Design that these changes should be rather less noticeable: changes to parameters should, essentially, balance out the fixes to the underlying calculation. Tweaks lean towards taking longer to gain fatigue, and longer to recover from this.

    More significant tweaks will need to be made as we approach the introduction of Weapon Inertia. This feature was planned for 1.24 (Bootcamp Update), but was cut late in the day (indeed, we cut this after announcing it in the Bootcamp Blog - an error that we work hard to avoid these days). Ultimately, Weapon Inertia should mean that smaller weapons will be easier to handle, while larger ones will remain more of a challenge to wield effectively. On reflection, I believe that the (unavoidable) exclusion of this feature led to some (avoidable) oversights in terms of Weapon Sway itself: the mechanics (Fatigue, Sway, Inertia) are closely interlinked; removing one aspect and re-adjusting the values of the others led to some undesired effects (such as the overly-pronounced lateral sway).

    However, we also recognise that much of the feedback is simply a desire to play a different way. We're not afraid of the idea of 'The Platform' (indeed, we encourage it); however, our designers do believe that the core mechanics should represent a clear vision of the way we want to play. Consequently, while we're still keen to avoid a game option/difficulty switch, we are pursuing a Weapon Sway script command equivalent to enableFatigue; furthermore, we'd like to not only enable a binary switch, but offer scenario designers more options by introducing a multiplier parameters (i.e. a value 0 to n that increases or decreases the basic effect) to each of the features.

    Any further feedback to these points is, as usual, welcomed.

    Best,

    RiE

    Thanks for the info, it all sounds very good!

  22. Posted · Edited by -Coulum-

    I think you might be misunderstanding my suggestion about this. The way I saw it was that if you combine your system of slowing down the sway while holding your breath with my system of a natural pause at the top and bottom of each breath, it would naturally create a lengthened pause if you hold breath at those times. Otherwise, it would behave exactly like you suggested. Technically, it would always behave like you suggested, there would just be a natural pause at the end of each breath cycle.

    Ah I see. So at the top of each breath you might have a second of steadiness, but if you hold breath at that time (which might slow sway to maybe by a factor of 5) you would actually have 5 six seconds of complete steadiness. Meanwhile if you hold breath during the middle of a sway it will slow the sway making it easier to aim but not with the perfect steadiness. Love that idea.

    I wonder if it is possible for the devs to make a pause in the sway cycle or if it has to be continuous sway. Because thats a really cool idea roshnak

    Wind deflection, like in ACE mod. Realistic, challenging and funny way.
    ]Imho this is not enough. If the technicities consist of reading the wind from some sensor, entering it in some way into your sight calibration, and then be back exactly in the situation seen before (ie, easy shot @extreme ranges), I don't consider that particularly fine.

    My opinion as well. Wind and environmental effects will add more technical difficulty, but once you learn to adjust to those shooting will remain far too easy a task. Ace shows this, as the wind really only adds a couple extra button presses to the first shot. After that it is once again dead easy to shoot.

    Glad to see that generally seem to think my ideas are in the right direction. I am confident the devs already have a clear idea of how they want the mechanics to function, but I hope maybe they can take a thing or two out of the suggestions, which I tried to compose by combining the feedback of everyone.

    In dev branch the "weapon sway formula was tweaked". I don't know what that really means, but the effect I see is the sway pattern's are different. there is alot more up and down motion and side to side motion is much slower. However the actual extent of horizontal sway is still relatively high, and the extent of the vertical sway is pretty much equal. Overall it is better than what devbranch had. But I still feel it doesn't have that same effect as the 1.24 sway. Its still a relatively mindless task to counter the sway and line up shots at extreme range. I am hoping that horizontal reach of sway will be further decreased and the vertical extent will be increased. And sway speed should be a bit faster on prone and crouched stance. The ideal changelog to me would be something like:

    • Decreased horizontal sway by another 30% (ontop of the previous 20% we just had chopped off)
    • Increased vertical sway by 30%
    • Sped up crouched sway speed by 10%
    • Sped up prone sway speed by 25%
    • Hold breath now decreases not only vertical sway speed but also horizontal sway speed by 50% (To avoid the reticule suddenly veering left or right when you hold breath, as it does currently)

    At least that's the direction I would take. Looking forward to seeing what happens next. And it sounds like Inertia is something that may change the dynamics of sway even more. Can't wait to see it.

  23. Posted

    A lot of the negative feedback about the new fatigue system seems to come from people who are simply uninformed. They mostly didn't bother to read up on the changes and don't know about certain things (like that you get tired faster if you run with your weapon raised)

    Yes, informing them of and showing them how to deal with the new challenges would be great. But I think the other cause for complaint is simply that people come into the game with unrealistic expectations, that they believe are realistic. Ie. they expect a soldier with a 40 pound rucksack to jog for an hour. Or they expect to be able to down and enemy at 800m within 5 seconds of spotting him. It leads to frustration and disappointment and generally the word "unplayable" is included within this type of feedback.

    The game has changed and people will need a bit of help learning to adapt. I know I certainly had to change the way I played. But in the end it was for the better.

×