JCDBionicman

I don't know why it's even still a debate in politics right now. If a woman meets the physical and mental tests that come with infantry training, there's no reason that woman should be denied. If a woman cannot handle the training, don't kiss her ass, kick her out.

It'd be really really great to know just what a developer thought of my idea for controls. I'm perfectly fine with multiple presets being designed with multiple different player types in mind as well, just, it'd be nice if I was put in mind as well. ---------- Post added at 02:12 ---------- Previous post was at 02:07 ---------- Exactly. There's nothing wrong with taking pointers from the industry so long as they are doing so with the best interests of everybody in mind.

@PuFu You're on a thread with people discussing ideas for control schemes with the expressed purpose of saving useful keys for more useful inputs and combining commands onto same keys where necessary for that purpose. As said, having to hold a key for the duration of a commands use is not desirable next to having to just press it once. What you're suggesting for movement speed provides less functionality, while wasting the use of an additional key. You have two people that just admitted they end up just redundantly holding the right clicker after pressing it, 90% of the time, and with some common sense it becomes apparent most people including yourself end up doing this (perhaps you don't want to admit it). For the 10% of the time that one needs extra peripheral while aiming they can zoom out using the mouse wheel. It makes no sense to make zoom not the default when 90% of the time people don't need to zoom out but in. My resolution is 1680x1050, and I always find it necessary to zoom with optics, and even in CQB it helps aim. If its super CQB then you don't need to zoom or use optics in the first place. Even CQB in ArmA is pretty long range compared to other games, and zooming is not unnecessary. I'm not new to PC games, I've been playing for years. Out of all the horrible configurations I've encountered, the ones where browsing your f or number keys is mandatory have been the worst for me. Having to take your eyes off the screen and your hand off of movement and/or aiming is factually undesirable if we're talking about the player's ability to perform at his fastest and most tactical in a first person shooter. And your wrong that most FPS games use number keys over the mouse wheel. If they use number keys at all, it's in addition to a more reliable method such as mouse wheel. Moving them to the num pad might help a bit, but It's still undesirable as it runs into the same problems. I don't understand why you prefer q and e over pressing 'lean modifier' + 'wasd'. What I'm suggesting provides more functionality while accomplishing the same thing. You can double tap a movement key so that you can lean while moving. Also, stance modification doesn't require more than on key. Hold to toggle prone, and press to toggle crouch works just fine. Yes, sprint is a speed of it's own, and also the most immediately needed and useful movement speed in any given situation. What your referring to is not sprint becoming slower than jog, but actually your character becoming so fatigued that his sprint becomes the same speed as jog, in which case the jog command would provide slower movement than sprint. If you're currently at tactical pace or sprint, just a quick flick of the mouse wheel down or up while holding shift and you have jog. Jog is a pretty miscellaneous movement speed. If you want to get somewhere fast you might as well go as fast as you can, and then as you approach you can walk or move at tactical pace to get your stamina back up and be prepared for engagement. So overall jog is pretty useless right now, and unless they made sprint consume exponentially more stamina than jog like in real life it will remain as such. I just tried to press zxc with my thumb. The way you have to lean your hand and twist your thumb to avoid pressing space is just not comfortable or natural. X is the easiest to press because as your pointer finger on d goes back it does so naturally. To press c with your pointer requires you to lean your hand slightly, which isn't too bad. Z needs to be pressed with your ring finger and I find it pulls my wrist if I force my other fingers to remain on the wasd. Tell you what, place your fingers on wasd and try to press each number key up to 4 and describe to me what it requires you to do, how long it takes you to do it, and whether it feels as comfortable or natural as scrolling the mouse wheel. An underslung weapon is a secondary function of a selectable weapon, so it would be accessed through F. As for the gadgets, you would access those by holding G and then using mouse wheel. Disastrous? When you want to throw something high in real life typically you arch up, and when you want to roll it across the floor you arch down. Pretty simple. In the future, refrain from vague one word responses like these. In a discussion you have to come up with reasons to support your ideas.

What I'm suggesting with leaning is that the wasd keys act just like q and e. Double tapping one of the wasd keys would also similarly toggle lean, so then upon letting go of the lean modifier you can move while leaning. Regarding double tap, you're right there's a delay either way, but briefly holding down a key takes just a little bit less effort than double tapping it. Similarly, briefly pressing a key to activate a command is also easier than having to hold it throughout the duration of the command's use. Briefly pressing shift to toggle between probably the two most important and commonly used (I would imagine) commands of tactical pace and sprint is simply easier and more practical We agree jog and slow walk are simply not movements that are used often enough, as you indicated that slower movement would only really be useful for stealth. Simultaneously, while stealth might be a somewhat miscellaneous tactic it does have a place. Like all the macros, pressing the button briefly activates the most useful function while holding it down allows you to access the more miscellaneous functions. The same is such for the movement modifier. An onscreen indicator would probably be necessary for analog movement to let you know just how fast you're going, as with an analog stick you can constantly sense the context of your given input whereas with a keyboard and mouse wheel you can't. But what happens when you want to get to tactical pace or sprint quickly and your currently in between both or at the slowest walk? If you're jogging, pressing shift would bring you to tactical pace because naturally pressing shift goes to the opposite movement type. For those that find analog movement awkward even with a smooth scroll, it can be changed to simply digital inputs. Also, it should be slow walk (half the speed of walk for the purpose of sneaking) normal walk, tactical pace, jog and sprint. Speed shouldn't be an issue here either, ideally one should be able to easily flick the mouse wheel all the down quickly to get to "sneak" and if necessary all the way up for sprint. Also, this would be very nice thrust modifier for piloting. More realistic as well as easier. You agree that the majority of the time you just end up, like me and everyone else, just holding down the button to quick zoom anyways. I've played CQB myself and I don't believe it would affect my peripherals enough to become an issue. Even in CQB i find zooming still helpful. If I need peripheral vision I just disengage the optics, what's the big deal? Either way I guess it doesn't affect me if they keep it the way it is, because I can still just make it how I like. Agree about middle mouse click. Also, in the same sense that it's sometimes necessary to need to move while leaned to make small adjustments, perhaps also it's necessary to be able to aim while zooming in. Perhaps mouse wheel should by default zoom in and out without needing to press another key. Then again, that you can't aim while adjusting zoom would be realistic at least in the case of using long range scopes. Out of zxc, x is the easiest to press and even that requires you to take a finger off of d. This is not ideal when your trying to make quick precise movements and might need to press d in conjunction with jump. What input might be better put to use on space? The map for example easily suits c or z. Also, part of my reason for suggesting jump was actually to replace and improve upon vaulting. While vaulting might look fancier, it's too slow. Vaulting should be regulated to the action menu, as a miscellaneous command. True that something will never please everybody, but control presets can be designed in such a way that it pleases most. And the reason I disagree about the number keys is because they're hard to reach, and awkward to press. I can see how pressing them instead of scrolling through a menu might seem faster, but even in half life and other multi-weapon games I found it to be of little issue. In ArmA it's even less an issue, seeing as you can only carry a sidearm, rifle and heavy weapon, usually just the former two. And what did you think of using lean as a modifier for grenade throwing? ---------- Post added at 10:07 ---------- Previous post was at 10:05 ---------- Eh, yeah pretty much.

Ironically, it's not, because the majority of gamers agree. Games like Counter Strike and BF2 and whatever else have had such successful multiplayer communities because they are PVP focused. I'm not discounting coop. If BI put more focus onto PVP I don't see how that would affect the current quality of coop we have now. I don't see any reason why coop would be any worse off in ArmA 3. Yes Warfare has enormous potential, and the only thing wrong with it is actually that it's so dependent on AI. If non-AI Warfare had been an option in ArmA 2 for vanilla games, or even if they just made controlling them less of a chore by giving them some common sense and improving the methods used to control them Warfare would have been just fine. Yes, they should focus on both, just saying which one is more important to focus on if BI is interested in their financial future. Also, you shouldn't have to go to a fan made website to download user missions, there should be some sort of system ingame. I actually wouldn't mind how heavily dependent ArmA 2 was on mods and user made content to be fun if there was just some way to access that stuff ingame.

PuFu pointed out that using the mouse to lean was a bit awkward and slow since you wouldn't be able to aim simultaneously while leaning, until you let go of the lean modifier that was. I then changed it so that wasd can be used. It's no different than q and e in this regard other than the fact that it gives more functionality (up and down) while taking up one less key. And I would imagine it wouldn't replace q and e, and that it would still be in control options somewhere. After all, why not? Then again, I don't see why needing to move while leaned is absolutely necessary. I think at best it's a small sacrifice for a overall superior system, and actually less complex. Currently you hold shift for temporary movement change and double tap for permanent movement change. You double tap w for sprint. Having to tap a key twice as opposed to briefly pressing it simply isn't as desirable. Ironically I'll also suggest that having to hold down shift to run is awkward, because you'd usually just be holding it down for a long time. I end up just mapping the "permanently modify movement" to "briefly press shift." There's a slight delay in having to double tap, and it's just simply annoying to have to do. My method is better because it adds at the least slightly better functionality. Briefly pressed shift toggles between tactical pace or sprint. The mouse wheel is then used for those more miscellaneous but still potentially useful infantry speeds. It might not be necessary, but it certainly is better than the current system. It adds at the least slightly better functionality and saved key space with no loss of functionality or ease of use. Perhaps it wouldn't be analog, but just scroll through all the different basic movement speeds (in response to what you said about keeping formation). Honestly though, formations are a dated military tactic, not really necessary or helpful in modern combat anymore. It's for organization and tidyness solely, not really for when you're in the heat of battle and taking cover and stuff. Also, if it were analog I wouldn't imagine that it would make keeping formation too difficult, perhaps just a little bit more work than before. I just thought of something related to zoom. How about pressing the optics button by default zooms in as well? That's what most people end up doing anyways when they're using optics. So how about pressing the optics button also zooms in while you have the option of zooming out by holding alt and using mousewheel? Being totally honest, there's never been a time I've used optics where I haven't also zoomed in, and in fact I was just thinking today that I would map toggle zoom to the optics key if I played ArmA 2 today. Quick zoom simply isn't needed. It's kind of redundant when all your going to do is hold down the button 99% of the time. A quick way to revert to zoom, yes good point. Perhaps pressing alt and right clicking could be used to revert zoom. Although, unless the zoom speed was slow I don't think such a command is absolutely necessary. If they're smart, they aren't going to get too comfortable with the default zoom/fov anyways amount because they should be constantly altering it based on their situation. Regarding space, yeah perhaps it's not a command you would use often enough to assign it to a key all on it's own. On the contrary, if you ever did need jumping you would need it immediately so scrolling through a list of commands simply wouldn't do. It would also need to be in an easily accessible location. So while jumping might not be an often used or needed command, when you do need mobility you need it right then and there. Mobility related keys should always be accessible and easy to use, as they mean the difference between life and death in a shooter. I suppose it can always be remapped for those who disagree. Perhaps the suggested commands for x and stance modification should trade places? X is accessible enough, and stance modification is something being used constantly. I'm sorry that I have to disagree on number keys. I hate number keys, or anything I have to browse my keyboard for. You should never have to take your eyes off the screen. I always find the number keys awkward to press too. For those that disagree, I think they should be given the option to remap their commands for that, but I think using the mouse wheel to scroll through weapons is simply the easier and faster method. Perhaps leaning up and down would be the modifier for how you throw your grenade.

Not a double tap, but X held down to go prone. Much like on a console game. When I used to play battlefield 3 on PS3, I found I could react just fine in situations I needed to move and get down quickly to avoid fire. I'm interested in which things you disagree with in particular. I've edited my idea a couple of times already, once even overhauling everything when I've found something wrong. One thing I found wrong with my idea is that it actually doesn't utilize enough keys. Space, ctrl, z and c, I didn't bother coming up with functions for them. I considered splitting the command button into two different buttons, one for miscellaneous functions and behaviors, the other for commonly used commands for example. Space might be used for jumping, and no not vaulting. I know your thinking Quake and COD, but you likely wouldn't be able to aim your weapon and it would fatigue you greatly.

I don't know if you've noticed, but I generally spend more time formulating counters to arguments and focusing on the actual issues at hand rather than coming up with... "golden" comments like yours. Again, your comment benefits nobody, and I invite you to instead engage in discussion and correct me where you think I'm wrong. The user did in fact ignore the issues I brought up and similarly to you succeeded in only in creating "gold." That's why I called him closed.

There's no need to act like that, it benefits nobody. Instead you could either not comment at all, or as I plainly requested you could correct me where I'm wrong.

Yeah, I think I prefer my own suggestion from that method. Using one key like X for stance modification is simply the more intuitive method. I don't see how z x c is superior. If I'm wrong then tell me why.

PVP should be the focus of any multiplayer development, as it is the most dynamic, fun, and therefore the most attractive mode. DayZ is popular because it is PVP central, the zombies might as well not be there. What I'm saying is, coop and otherwise AI focused games have their limits, whereas PVP is always interesting and generally never ceases to be fun. I pointed out in another thread that BF2 is from 2006 yet still has over 700 servers up to date. ArmA 2 has less than 40 overall vanilla servers, and less than 300 with DayZ servers. That noone plays CTF or TDM doesn't mean they aren't interested in PVP. I would never play those modes either, not because there is something fundamentally wrong with the idea behind them, but because BI poorly designed them. They don't have vehicles, the playing space is too small, in short it's not the kind of game mode you should play if you bought ArmA 2 so you could play large open battles. That's why nobody plays them. Again, you talk down to me as if there's something wrong with my dislike of ArmA 2's multiplayer. Perhaps worshipping this game as if it's the greatest thing since the wheel is something to be looked down upon. The definition given is more indicative of your hostile closed mind.

You mean't "apparently you are." Don't understand what's vague about what I'm talking about. Those flaws I mentioned aren't addressed at all in ArmA 2. If there's something I'm missing perhaps you should fill me in and be less vague. Seeing as this is the sub forum for ArmA 3, I was of course talking about Warfare for ArmA 3. Do you know what forum you're on? I don't see where I've shown any ignorance in the industry, but it's clear you have no idea what you're talking about on any front.

Huh... didn't know. What do you make of my suggestion for better controls? It's not a very long read.

I saw that idea about regulating movement through the mouse wheel from awhile back, and I came up with an idea based around it. It's in my sig. It's overall a series of macros used in conjunction with the mousewheel, and these same macros have functions for if you press them briefly as well as if they are held down.

I don't have any significant disagreement with you, people should be able to map their controls however they want, it's just, I think I've found a pretty good setup that most people will enjoy. I keep editing it as I find things wrong with it too, and not just for that one thing. At least two control schemes should be in there by default, and then people can build off of that to create their own custom configuration.

NOOB: Somebody who is new to a competitive online video game. If you're going to insult, do it properly.

I didn't mean to bomb the thread. If people would be so kind as to offer further discussion on my ideas. It's okay, I don't bite, I can take criticism. In fact PuFu did point out something wrong with my leaning suggestion that was correct, which was that q and e are just a bit faster. The only problem with this criticism is that leaning just isn't something that is used often enough to have them take up two whole valuable keys, and that if people find it necessary they can still use the familiar q and e for leaning by changing them in controls. EDIT: Perhaps wasd could be used to lean while holding CL instead under options. That would fix the problem. I edited the wish in the wishlist.

The keyboard and mouse were never designed for gaming, so yes, I like something that was specifically designed with comfortable interfacing in mind better. Controller friendly games /= dumbed down. Where did I troll? Where didn't you?

It'd be a shame if BI decided to go steamworks. A small minority of people experiencing problems with an otherwise good-enough anti hack tool is not worth having to play a PC game from a console. Oh, I just realized I can't poke fun at steam for that anymore, because now they're literally making a console. Steam is often regarded as the savior of PC gaming. What it's actually the savior of is numerous console based multiplats and kiddie 2d platformers and "unique" indie titles.

I disagree that what I'm describing isn't in fact asking Bohemia to fix their broken multiplayer. Actually, an easy fix technically already exists in that AI can be completely disabled, but nobody seems to have the sense to create servers like that and if I create one nobody joins it. If somebody could PM me and invite me to the described server type I am asking for I would appreciate it. EDIT: Just created a game, and seems disabling AI only does so for the purposes of commanding. AI units are still core of gameplay. ---------- Post added at 07:44 ---------- Previous post was at 07:11 ---------- That you have the option to modify the game isn't the reason used. The reason used is that the game has several major gameplay design oversights, most of which should have been obvious if they had tested their own alpha/beta more extensively, and that these design oversights, in addition to some bugs, are not addressed by BI like they should have but instead have been addressed by the modding community.

If you like realistic games, why not invest in a commercial copy of VBS2? A hundred bucks (or two if I'm not remembering correctly), but you'll be set for life won't you? People don't play video games for their realism. Certain exceptions to "realism" will have to be made in ArmA 3, just like in ArmA 2, if the developers want to make the game actually fun to play to the majority of PC gamers. Proof is in that, for example, you can switch out optics on guns on the fly in ArmA 3 while in real life you would have to carefully zero the optic at a firing range before doing so. Another example would be dealing with injured. In ArmA 2 (and probably 3) you simply treat the soldier, and while this can sometimes be lengthy, regardless of the severity of his wounds he will be able to still fight, and at full capacity once he recovers after some time. While this is unrealistic it's necessary so that games can be wrapped up in a reasonable amount of time, and still it's a lot more complex and cumbersome to gameplay than "hide behind cover" or "magical healthpack." No player wants to wait something like an hour to get back into the fight, and no sane person should for the sake of a video game. Can you see how certain sacrifices should be made for the sake of it being a video game? I believe a simulation nears reality, but does not mimic it completely. It sort of tries to create metaphorically accurate substitutes for things that players of the simulation simply wouldn't normally have the luxury of taking the time to deal with. In a flight simulator for example, the time for checking the plane for takeoff can be long, as in hours. Also, if the plane needs repairs or something, that can take days. So while the simulation of medical practices may not be perfectly accurate, It's reasonably accurate as far as in how it tries to create a somewhat believable atmosphere of realism while still being playable to the consumer. I think some people misunderstand why they actually like ArmA. I think it's not necessarily it's realism, and really when you get to thinking, ArmA isn't as nearly realistic as it should be for being a game supposedly being sold to people who want realism. I mean, people say the same thing about COD, so think about that for a minute. Just because ArmA is a game marketed for it's realism doesn't necessarily mean that's why people like it I am interested in ArmA 3 for it's attention to detail, it's attention to complexity, it's attention to polish. I bought a computer recently just so I could ArmA 2. Unfortunately I found that it's much an unfinished game, and now I know why barely anybody plays it, and why there's barely any attention given to it by any media outlet. Perhaps some mods fix where the game is completely broken, but I believe that a game so heavily dependant on modders to do the developers jobs for the player to get a complete and full experience, is not a game worth 30 bucks for. This is the same reason why I stopped playing Bethesda's games, including Skyrim. I've heard comments from developers that have gotten my hopes up, such as that they are working on creating better controls. Also the footage looks really really good. The footage from ArmA 2 looked good too, so I won't just be fooled by fancy trailers. Another thing that has gotten my hopes up is that the person who was in charge during ArmA 2's development has left to give that responsibility to someone else. I don't know much about either the former lead designer or the person replacing him, I'm just saying this might be good news for ArmA 3 if ArmA 2's problems had anything to do with the former lead designer. I'll get to the point though. ArmA 2 tries so hard to be realistic that it isn't fun. It fails at both. The CTI mode only manages to be semi realistic, and that's being generous. CTI is not fun because the map is too large, and slogging from town to town performing the monotony of military logistics is not fun for obvious reasons. To fill the void that is the 166 square miles or 244 square miles of Takistan and Chernarus, AI is used. As many have said, dealing with AI is extremely frustrating. They aren't a good replacement for humans (currently) because they perform menial skills with too much perfection (shooting and aiming) while lacking any actual intelligence, ie pathfinding, taking cover. Now my point is that ArmA 3 multiplayer should be PVP focused. Currently, A2 is not focused on the group of people who want to play multiplayer to have a great time, or at least to those who know how to have a great time (none that I've noticed). What A3 should be, and what A2 should be multiplayer wise, is Battlefield but bigger and with more attention to detail. I'm going to get it out of the way firstly, that it is entirely irrelevant that ArmA is not Battlefield, and that there is nothing wrong with me suggesting that ArmA should take some pointers from it, and that even in doing so ArmA is still an original game and very different from Battlefield. I have my own criticisms with Battlefield and Battlefield 3 in particular, but the multiplayer in B3 for those that haven't played it is very very fun and engaging. Battlefield multiplayer is fun because it's slow, but not slow as in slow to a crawl like ArmA. I'll let the implications speak for themselves. I mentioned that I appreciate attention to detail, but not necessarily realism. Let's take mocapping for example. You might think mocapping is great because it's realistic, and therefore provides a greater ability to suspend disbelief. You are right, but what's more important about mocapping is that it makes animation look immensely intricate and complex, in other words, beautiful. This is either impossible or very hard to replicate with current animation technologies. Even Euphoria is used in conjunction with mocapping, not as a substitute. Let's look at Metal Gear Solid. Ridiculously unrealistic actually, but this game while heavily fictional takes everything from reality as inspiration for it's fantastical fiction. Military tactics, military weapons, history and science, all intricately detailed and explained accurately throughout the MGS series. What I'm getting at is that adhering to realism is the only way to get a level of detail that is astonishingly beautiful in it's complexity. Many praise MGS for it's story and level of emotion. Actually, when you take a closer look at MGS it's nothing but a soapbox of overacting and ridiculous cheesyness, but it's sold to the players like cake because of how convincing all the surrounding detail is to them.

I don't think my poll proves me wrong actually. You see red, but I actually see blue, a lot of blue, in fact more blue than red by a lot. I'll be less vague, and brutally honest; the kinds of people that generally join forums simply aren't very credible, and developers often discount such people's opinions. You've seen the wishlist, so you know what I'm talking about. The amount of people that agree with me is a large enough number, and actually, the results are better than I thought they would be. The numbers are enough to catch BI's attention, and that's all I care for. And though you don't think so, my arguments are also solid so as to give me credibility in the eyes of any developer that would see this thread. Also, if you can't see that it is staunch and obvious fact that people simply do not buy ArmA 2 for it's editor, then I guess you just don't see it. As said, if people want to spend money just for an editor, there are much better options for them. Nobody who has bought ArmA 2 has the luxury, or desire to learn the complex editor. I know I bought ArmA 2 with the hope of playing large PVP battles, with immense attention to detail at gameplay options and features, not to fumble around with an unfriendly editor that doesn't even have an ingame tutorial for hours.

I'll just ignore the flamebaiting. I was referring to the fact that the maps are large and the options for gameplay in ArmA 2 are many. If editors are what people want, there are games that do it so much better. You also seem to be implying that it is okay for ArmA 2 to lack content as long as it includes an editor, which maybe a few people believe but, it's generally not a good practice as a game designer to throw responsibility onto modders that should be their own. Also, for people that want just development tools, there are much better options than ArmA 2. Word of developers is that "most people don't bother to learn the editor" which I don't blame them for, when one plays a video game the idea is to experience content made by the developers, not to create a game all by yourself.

You couldn't possibly be serious. Wow, I guess you are. Furthermore, nobody should buy a game for it's modding capabilities. People should buy video games that have rich, original, varied content. I also agree that it's stupid for developers to not release their source code since it doesn't benefit anybody to do so, but that's beside the point. If you want art, buy a painting. If you want to draw a painting, buy a paintbrush.

Nobody buys ArmA 2 for it's editor, they buy it for the promise of being a unique and open first person shooter.