Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

squirrel0311

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    202

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by squirrel0311

  1. Posted

    Personally I’m more about functional gameplay rather than full blown immersion.

    Because of this I don’t really care to see new stances added however I do think the current stances should be fixed.

    “LOW READY†should be the default “Tactical Pace†position since the actual “READY†stance is already achieved when you click or hold Right Mouse button. (Depending on your settings.)

    What I mean by this is when you’re moving to contact (Coming into an immediate threat area.) your weapons should always be up at the “LOW READYâ€. (Weapon up in shoulder or short stocked if needed, pointed towards enemy, line of sight scanning directly over the top of the scope. Sight alignment and sight picture are gained when a target appears and the weapon is fired.)

    Please note that this is the newer teaching as the old teaching (manual) defines the Ready position as what I just described above. If I remember correctly, low ready was introduced as a way to distinguish between the two positions due to the implementation of low magnification combat optics.

    Currently in the game, when in Tactical Pace, it looks like your holding your face against the side of your weapon instead of looking over the top of your scope. Because of this your scope blocks a good portion of your vision.

    I have my settings set so that my view always zooms in when I use my reflex scope. I know there is a way to walk, zoomed out and looking down the reflex sight but I think you have to hold the scope button….

    If I could have anything stance related changed it would be the view for tactical pace FIRST.

  2. Posted

    Ok so let me make this clear from the beginning, I have no knowledge of how the internal things of video games work so before anyone waste mine or anyone else’s time with stupid comments, it’s already been stated.

    After playing a bit of GTA 5, a few questions once again popped into my head that I don’t think were answered very clearly before…

    Now before I begin I’d like for those who answer to focus on the main foundation of my question and leave out stuff about how

    • GTA is a kids game

    • It’s not realistic.

    And unless it pertains to the answer….

    • The graphics are terrible. (I actually think the graphics look pretty dang good despite the sometimes cartoonish look.).

    • Multiplayer only supports 16 players and not very well.

    • The buildings aren’t destructible. (As far as I know.)

    • The map is smaller

    I googled GTA 5 and apparently it does use multiple cores so I guess that part is a plus.

    What I’ve been wondering is… How hard would it be to take something like GTA 5 and add realistic features?

    • Ballistics (External, Terminal, and internal if it’s still running well.)

    • Damage (People, vehicles, maybe even buildings if it could handle it.)

    • Military content (Weapons, Vehicles, AI)

    • Realism (Medical system, inertia…other junk)

    Keep in mind I’m not talking man hours/ power, I just mean, could the engine not handle this type of stuff? The reason I ask is because of what others have stated about VR’s limitations, stopping things like shooting from vehicles and helos, changing weapons while moving and other stuff.

    Now I’ve seen in this thread that some people have said the VR engine is the only one that can do what it does and that it’s so…revolutionary? O_o Because everything on the map is happening in real time.

    I understand that this could be good in some cases but I don’t see how it is any benefit to a lot of other situations. If my force of 30 something players is clashing with the Opposing force on one side of the map, I don’t need to know that a rabbit is pooping in a field 10 klicks away or some turd bird is building a pyramid out HEMTTs on the other side of the map.

    Because of that, would it be possible to build a feature that gave users the option to turn that off for certain types of gameplay?

  3. Posted

    Except being able to move over obstacles higher than your ankle with reasonable speed. Jumping may not be the answer, and it's certainly not the only answer, but something really should be done to allow players to get over waist high fences without stopping dead in their tracks first. The current vault system is just really unpolished and bad.

    Edit: Squirrel, I think it's almost always better to allow the player to decide when they want to climb over something like that. There's just too much potential for the game making the wrong judgement for you, and pressing or holding a key is a pretty simple way to avoid that problem.

    Yeah that would work fine as long as it's quick like you and I said before. My controls are also different from the default so it doesn't effect me as much but it's still annoying to have to stop.

  4. Posted

    However the idea about auto vault is awful -- imagine the game making you automatically leap over objects just as you run behind them to take cover. I recall a similar design, maybe Ghost Recon Future Soldier, and it had an auto cover feature that made you stick to walls when you don't want to. As far as movement goes I think it should be one hundred percent player controlled.

    Not sure if you took the auto vault thing from my post or not but just to be clear... I don't mean auto step over as in as soon as you come to an object you automatically start into an animation to step over.... I just mean that somethings on the ground level shouldn't stop you or slow you down.

    This stems from the little shin high stone walls that are scattered all over the fields. In some places they're only one stone high but they still stop you like a full sized wall.

    Those stone walls are the ones that I think you should simply step over automatically, if it was just a quick, lift your leg high animation instead of the (stop, step, raise and swing leg, swing second leg, place, take off..) I think that would be better.. nothing that locks you in and makes you a sitting duck while you're trying to negotiate a stupid foot high ledge.

    I think that would be very easy to counter from stepping over because it would just mean stopping before you passed the wall. Maybe if you stop before it... when you hit it there should be a slight delay or something that makes if feel like you bumped it...if you continued to push forward again you'd step over it..

    ...or just make the step over animation quicker. It's fine for casual patrols.. not so much for combat...unless you're moving over a barbwire fence.

  5. Posted

    I can agree with jumping over gaps no bigger than eh…2 meters wide if it’s done sensibly

    By that I mean that each jump should cut your stamina in half and you need to jog at least a few feet to clear that 1.5 meter gap.

    On top of that I think it should be a three button function: Hold forward and right control, tap v twice to jump. Seems like an effective way to slaughter the bunnies…in my brain at least.

    (I’ve jumped many irrigation ditches with a combat load in my time so I know that it is feasible.)

    In addition, this is from my wish list….

    Step Over/Climb: I shouldn't have to hit a button for anything under...eh… I say thigh high… unless it's railing along a cliff or the edge of a roof. (That’s so you don’t fall off without meaning to.) If I'm moving forward and I come to a knee high ledge or step I'm simply going to raise my leg and go... Another thing... CLIMBING! This doesn't pertain to ladders… I'm talking about walls… You know the walls in Agia Marina that surround some of the houses? A motivated warfighter should be able to go up to one of those walls hit "step over" and leap, pulling himself up onto the wall… it should take away his stamina...more or less depending on gear... but he should be able to first stay on his starting side of the wall, come to a forearm hang and peak over (If you take too long he should get tired and drop back down)... hitting forward brings you prone on the top of the wall and then doing so again would send you over the other side or you could hit back and go back from whence you came.

    ….Maybe you should also be able to stand up by hitting the crouch or prone to standing key so that you could walk along the top of the wall and do the same climbing function to get onto the roof of a house?

  6. Posted

    Waiting for a lockable backpack(or even just one backpack that locks) :icon_rolleyes: There are thieves out there or didn't you know that? I love it how that when I'm concentrating with the launcher...some arsehole steals my gun and ammo because they are too lazy to get their own! I'm losing my hair in Multiplayer :mad: and there is not much left!

    http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=7577#bugnotes

    85% of players want a lockable backpack!!QUOTE]

    I agree! Or at least a little window that pops up in the bottom corner and says something like... "Player is trying to take something from your backpack. Allow? Yes or no" (hit arrow keys or something)

  7. Posted · Edited by Squirrel0311

    There's quite a few things... they can do to improve it. Collision detection, automatic movement of weapon to 'fit' inside a door, buildings modelled for better geometry therefore less clipping/character getting stuck, less of a lean on not such a big angle, ability to swap weapon hands, smooth transition and reload animations, ability to transition while moving, fluid animations, ability to get closer to each other or objects for a stack, vaulting through windows or over walls, smaller destructable parts of a building for breach points, multiple buildings with different shaped rooms and interconnecting rooms, basements and attics, improved and accurate grenade system quite like AA2/3, AI scripts such as mixed stances not just instant prone upon CQB, the AI using lean, waiting in door ambush (CQB module teehee), etc.

    HERE HERE!

    Pretty much everything that you mentioned is something I’ve had in my wish list. http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?125819-ArmA-3-Community-wishes-amp-ideas-NO-DISCUSSION/page213

    The thing about everything being smooth is why I (at this point and time) disagree with the people who complain about inertia being removed from the game. Yes I know that in real life weight takes a toll on motion and responsiveness and I know people don’t want an FPS twitch shooter because it’s not “super ultra realism†but neither is not being able to move your arms, twist your body or figure out how to fit your body and your moderate length weapon through a doorway and still pie a corner.

    I’ve read the complaint that a person with a sniper rifle shouldn’t be able to spin around as fast as someone with a pistol and to an extent I agree…but I also think that if those people have ever done any reaction drills in real life they’d be surprised at just how fast someone armed with a long rifle can turn around and become an immediate threat. I’d much rather die in a game from being stupid and trying to get in close behind someone for a silly troll move than trying to move through a door or along a wall and getting stuck long enough to have them turn around and shoot me.

    For prone it’s different…I think for prone you should only be able to aim freely to about a…eh 45-60 degree range? Any more than that and you would have to press down and left or right arrow at the same time to spin in increments of 90 or so degrees. The animation should look something similar to shifting left or right while in the prone since you need to raise up high enough to clear your chest rig to some extent.

    I’ve also read the complaint that having such smooth fluid movement takes away from the tactical thinking involved because players can just run and gun and no longer have to “think smartâ€. I disagree with this entirely because I believe fluid movement and quick responsiveness only up the stakes, thereby increasing the need for smart, tactical decision making because if you don’t take the time to plan and execute properly you’ll simply get shot on entry.

    I explain most of this more in-depth in my wish list but basically…We’re supposed to be trained soldiers, we should know how to short stock our weapons, switch shoulders (Lean left – weapon in left shoulder, lean right – weapon in right shoulder) and do quick weapons transitions. (Which is why I want my number keys back…it may be arcade to use number keys to select weapons but if you think about it…In real life…. All the tactical gear that people buy is designed for one purpose… to make your gear easier to wear, access, and use. This same concept could be applied to the use of number keys.)

    On top of all that, you should be able to climb up and turkey peek over walls and then climb over and when climbing up a ladder you should automatically stay prone or low crouching/sitting, not the crappy standing animation on the very last rung. Like you said making holes in walls with rockets or explosives, climbing through windows if they’re big enough (Don’t use a door if you don’t have to.) and also muzzle thumps or something to break out windows (clear firing space) or if they do something with locked doors… knock them down.

    I feel that smoothness should be the foundation first and foremost, upon which everything else is built on. No getting stuck on walls or doors, unable to step over ledges, sinking into floors.

    Now I should go ahead and make it known that I don’t really play with AI anymore, to me they’ve already grown stale. I like playing against other people who think and do something different besides, go prone, engage, flank, or flee. Someone who knows the difference between harassing fire and suppression, breaking contact and simple fleeing, yes I like to play against people…to kill them and wear their skins. Hahaha (I’m listening to Goodbye Horses right now.)

    For the AI bit, I typed out a little question about CQB AI a while ago but I couldn’t find the thread I wanted to post it in so I just deleted it.

    Basically I’d like to know if we could just sort of have some kind of specialty AI… The current AI would be used for outdoors engagements and vehicles while an indoors AI could be better suited for operating in buildings. Posting on strong points, keeping those footholds, pairing up and making sure each entry and avenue was covered while remaining AI stand in supplementary positions looking out but standing away from windows to keep situational awareness on what’s going on outside. If they were placed outside they could be assigned buildings of responsibility so that in the event something happens they stack up and enter, maybe break up in teams of two to clear rooms if the threat level is low and restack when they get to where the greatest probability of a threat is. Oh and one thing that I try to stress while playing online but it rarely gets through…. They would set security on buildings before they entered!

    Does anyone remember the AI from F.E.A.R.? If all the above things were implemented I think it would be cool (if we had furniture) to see them bust into a room and kick over tables and cabinets to use as cover to help slow or stop bullets… of if they knew you were about to enter… kick over cabinets, tables, and chairs in an effort to block your path and slow you down or create a hasty barricade.

    I suppose though that if someone went through all the trouble to make CQB AI they could just ad that code to the original AI… I don’t know much about that stuff though so maybe not.

  8. Posted

    Stuff.

    [\QUOTE]

    So make them more into generic faction 1, 2 and 3? So tell BI to say STFU to Arma 2 fans? But hey it's the future so they should be balanced, boring and copy each other... It's a niche being realistic and should stay that way. Or else people will jump ship first chance they get when a competitor appears.

    People are upset because they seem like they've been balanced for PvP. With ends up being a badly optimized battlefield without being realistic.

    A lot of the "creative freedom" seems really lazy.

    These forums were so much better before Arma 3's release... :(. Or modders should fix the game...

    Not at all, I'm just saying that having balanced factions isn't that bad. In my list, I suggested upgraded vehicles with crew's of three but even still I don't see that as taking away from the realism that much especially not if it's plausible.

    I also don't see the vehicles as boring and generic either, almost all of them are based off of or closely resemble something in the real world. What would you have given them instead?

    As far as copying each other..if you're talking about how they took the hull of the tanks and slapped Howitzers on top then yes I agree. But if you're talking about each faction getting wheeled and tracked vehicles with similar capabilities then no. That's just what militaries do, they find what other people have, investigate and try to beat or match that threat. In arma, could a lot of the vehicles do the same job as the others? Yes...but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be there.

    And don't get me wrong I don't mean flat out that the old vehicles shouldn't be in the game, just that we shouldn't take the new stuff out just to replace it with the old.

    About the realism, I'm all for it! (Ballistics:Internal, external, terminal, physics, graphics, medical, procedures:CAS/9 line, etc...) But there is a limit to how much realism is fun. I would much rather realism focus on the working parts of the game rather than worrying about what color letters are on the Merkava light switch. Is it cool and immersive, Yes! Is it necessary? No. What good does it do to have windshield wipers that swing the right way when you drive a cross a bridge and sink 4 feet into the ground? Or when your weapon safety clicks the right way but you have to stop dead in your tracks, and sling your rifle on your back before pulling your pistol.

    I'm not quite sure what you mean about balanced for PVP either. If you're not playing the single player campaign and you're not in the editor ( Player vs AI or Player vs Player) ...What are you doing? o_O This goes back to the part about options, if you want one side to be the underdog then give them technicals instead of APC's or provide your side with air power, something...

    I just can't help but think that maybe if they did gear Arma more towards PVP (Smooth running, Optimized *No rubber banding*, maybe a better server lobby where you can create a squad with your friends first then pick a server and join as a team together...stuff like that.) Maybe they'd have more money and more manpower to produce an overall better game. After all if I buy a really awesome Multiplayer game then I'm going to do everything I can to try and make sure my friends all buy it too.

    When an even slightly better competitor comes along that offers just a few of the key features that Arma does and doesn't. (Editor, Optimized to run online, dedicated servers, aimed towards realism) I'd be willing to bet they'd jump ship anyway. It doesn't mean they won't be back but still. The modding community is the only thing that has kept ARMA alive for as long as it has been. If another game comes along and offers that too...it's all over.

  9. Posted · Edited by Squirrel0311

    Well I've been putting this off for some time now but since I've found this thread, here it goes... I know this isn't necessarily a wish list thread but too bad... :P

    This is both a weapons and vehicle list of what I would like to see in the vanilla game but also how I would have done it or would do it to use most of the work that has already been done without throwing it all out.

    You'll notice that some things don't match up with how they are in the game and I explain why I would do it that way at the bottom. If I ever get filthy rich enough to pay someone to build me a game, you can expect to see a game like this from me!

    For the most part I believe that only the most modern variations and common military variations of classic weapons should be added as standard. (14â€/20†AR platform, 13â€/8-10†for AK) However, later on I think it would be neat to have dl content packs like WWII collectors and civilian weapons to give a better feel to armed uprising scenarios. I didn’t bother with pistols because since there are no speedy weapons transitions I see them to be almost completely useless. As far as SMGs I see those as having limited use as well and the ones already in game seem to be able to do a fairly good job.

    ASSAULT RIFLES:

    BlueFor - M16/M4 (5.56mm)

    OpFor - AEK-972 (5.56mm)

    IndFor - F2000 (5.56mm)

    Anyone - Tavor (5.56mm)

    BlueFor - MX Series (6.5mm)

    OpFor - KH2002 (6.5mm)

    IndFor - Beretta ARX (6.5mm)

    UNDERWATER: (Underwater weapons should use two different ammo types. Underwater USPEC rounds or standard 6.5mm rounds.)

    BlueFor - Steyr AUG / F90(6.5mm) - Could also just make it the Tavor but I see the AUG as revolutionary and worthy of mention in game.

    OpFor - KPB ADS (6.5mm) - http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4EMBM8CWVOQ/UVi_qWEliTI/AAAAAAAAA_M/3ymYzSiS9JQ/s1600/DSA-SA-58-OSW.jpg

    IndFor - VHS 2 - http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/834/vhsd220620copy.jpg/

    (Since I doubt they'd want to go back and change the ballistics between 7.62x39 and 7.62x51 I only listed two rifles.)

    Blue/IndFor - Galil ACE 32 (7.62x39mm)

    OpFor - AK-12 (7.62x39mm)

    BATTLE RIFLES:

    BlueFor - Keltec RFB 18"(7.62x51mm) (Yes I changed this from the SDAR 5.56mm)

    Opfor - Vepr (modernized) (7.62x51mm) - http://www.onesourcetactical.com/images/products/detail/DSC_0643.jpg (Not 308, picture box mag instead.)

    IndFor - FN FAL (Modernized) (7.62x51mm) -

    Anyone - HK G3 (modernized) (7.62x51mm) - http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/data/532/HK_G31.jpg

    DMR:

    BlueFor - MK 14 (7.62x51mm)

    OpFor - VS-121 (7.62x51mm)

    IndFor - L129A1 (7.62x51mm)

    Anyone - RFB 24" w/ rail (7.62x51mm) - http://olegvolk.net/gallery/d/42742-2/RFB_24in_prone_8921wallpaper.jpg

    SNIPER RIFLES: (Make them all one standard sniper caliber...338 or something...maybe 416?

    BlueFor - Remington M2010

    Opfor - ORSIS T-5000

    IndFor - Accuracy International AX338

    ANTI MATERIAL:

    BlueFor - M107A1 w/ Hornady AMAX .50 Or SLAP rounds :D

    OPFOR - OSV-96 - 12.7 OR Arash - 20mm (Haha :P )

    GreenFor - Gepard GM6 Lynx - 12.7

    MACHINE GUNS:

    BlueFor - LSAT (6.5mm) - (Don't really care if they add another LMG or not but it's an option I guess.)

    OpFor - Ulitimax 100 (6.5mm) - (Same as above but I think the OpFor should have one before Bluefor.)

    IndFor - KA LMG (6.5mm)

    BlueFor - M60E (7.62mm)

    OpFor - PKM (7.62mm)

    IndFor - IMI Negev (7.62mm)

    sHOTGUNS:

    BlueFor - MKA 1919 (12Ga) - (Licensed by...someone else?)

    OpFor - VEPR 12 (12Ga)

    IndFor - M1014 (12Ga)

    Anyone - KSG (12Ga)

    Underwater – I took out the RFB because in reality it would make an excellent battle rifle (18â€) and an ok DMR (24â€) as long as the reliability issues were taken care of. On the other hand I added the Steyr AUG or F90 since the bullpup is a classic but they don’t really add much to the 5.56 category anyway…the same goes with the VHS 2. Not to mention if you took out the DP ammo and made separate underwater ammo and standard ammo you wouldn’t have the weak on land situation. The ADS rifle is the only REAL underwater rifle, in which case the two ammo types are also accurate. (Yes I changed the AUG to 6.5mm caseless. See rant at bottom)

    7.62x39: I didn’t mess with this much because at the time I was trying to stick with what was in the game and I highly doubt the devs would want to go back and add all the ballistics and other junk just for 7.62x39.(This includes sniper rifles though as well.) Plus, with 7.62x39, although it’s a good cartridge it doesn’t do anything that 7.62x51 can’t.

    Vehicles - ( AAV = Anti-Air vehicle, LAV = Light Amphibious Vehicle)

    Civilian:

    Offroad truck

    Hatchback car

    SUV (Armored/unarmored)

    Sedan (Armored/unarmored)

    Tractor

    mini truck

    ATV

    IndFor Armed truck (HMG and maybe a recoiless rifle version?)

    Armored Dump Truck - http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/06/07/Foreign/Images/Mexico%20Drug%20War.JPEG-0a521.jpg

    BlueFor:

    MLRS: M5 Sandstorm

    ARTY: XM1203 NLOS-c

    MBT: M1A1 Abrams (Upgraded - crew 3, autoloader, caseless ammo)

    IFV: CV90 (Upgraded - crew 3, autoloader, caseless ammo, 8 passengers)

    Supp: CV90 variant (Chasis only fitted with a plow, tow arm and remote turret medium machine gun.)

    AAV: Marshall variant

    LAV: AMV-7 Marshall

    MRAP: Hunter

    Tran: HEMTT

    OpFor:

    MLRS: Astro II MLRS - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Avibras_ASTROS-II_SS-30.JPEG

    ARTY: 2S9 Sochor

    MBT: T-100 Varsuk

    IFV: BTR-K Kamysh

    Supp: T100 variant (Chasis only fitted with a plow, tow arm and remote turret medium machine gun.)

    AAV: ZSU-39 Tigris

    LAV: MSE-3 Marid

    MRAP: Ifrit

    Tran: URAL-63095 6x6 - http://warfare.be/0702ey70/update/november2013/ural99-2.jpg

    GreenFor:

    MLRS: (Not Needed)

    ARTY: M4 Scorcher

    MBT: M2A1 Slammer

    IFV: IFV-6c Panther

    Supp: CRV-6e Bobcat

    AAV: IFV-6a Cheetah

    LAV: AFV-4 Gorgan

    MRAP: Strider

    Tran: Zamak

    You’ll notice that I took away most of the NATO vehicles and gave them to the Independent. I feel it would have been better to make up a story such as …The Altis defense force purchased them from Israel before they war started or maybe they were able to secure a large collection of Israeli equipment in an attempt to keep it from falling into enemy hands and adding more fuel to their fire.

    As for NATO I put mostly American looking equipment in. I know a lot of people had a big problem with NATO forces seemingly being American but let’s face it…If a war started with Iran whom wiped Israel off the map, which country do you think would be first to jump in. :/ As for the CV90 being on the American equipment list…we’ll say that it won the revamped contract for the new Ground Combat Vehicle Program (Yes I know it was canceled but this is a game, besides who’s to say the government won’t pick it up again?)

    However if it was my game then the NATO Forces would look something like this….

    NatoFor:

    MLRS: M5 Sandstorm

    ARTY: XM1203 NLOS-C

    MBT: Leopard 2 or Challenger 2

    IFV: British FRES or Puma

    Supp: FRES variant or Puma variant

    AAV: Marshal variant

    LAV: Marshal

    MRAP: Hunter

    Tran: HEMTT

    .......with additional NATO equipment being released as DL content later on. (E.G. Challenger 2, Puma, ect...) And Independent forces would look like this…

    Alternate INDFor:

    MLRS: (Not Needed)

    ARTY: Archer Artillery sys

    MBT: M-95 Degman (Although using a Leopard 2 is actually pretty accurate and plausable.)

    IFV: KOC Tulpar IFV

    Supp: Tulpar variant

    AAV: Tulpar variant

    LAV: AFV-4 Gorgan

    MRAP: Strider or Cobra

    Tran: zamak

    *Begin Rant*

    THE FUTURE AND A BALANCED GAME – Yes I know a lot of people are probably crying and shaking their head right now or their head has already exploded but let’s take a deep breath and relax… There are a few arguments I’d like to take on for a moment.

    The future – Arma 3 is set in 2035, I’ve seen a lot of the “Hardcore, Diehard, Ultra realism I’ve been here since day one.†Arma fans become really upset by this. I suppose they were expecting Arma 3 to be Arma 2 2013 but still…that’s not what we got. So when I

    see people calling for, “Throw out all the future crap and bring back the old stuff.†I think it’s kind of dumb. To be honest I think the old stuff is…well…OLD! I think the future is exactly what Arma needs, not lasers and phasers but modern and upcoming technology. Why waste time adding all the old content again when you can just play Arma 2 still with more content and more maps than what we’ll have for Arma 3 probably even by the end of this year. The old stuff has already been done enough, not to mention I’m sure there will be 100+ mods for each and every weapon and vehicle. I say it’s time to stop driving around in 30year old vehicles. (Keep the HEMTT though, I like it. :P)

    A balanced game – Now Arma has been called many things from Dirty Sally poop pants to THE MOST REALISTIC MILITARY SIMULATOR SHOOTER OF ALL TIME! I think it’s a mix of both, though I don’t consider it a simulator I do consider it a reasonably realistic game, more so than most anything else out there. After reading the “What is Arma to you?†Thread and seeing people say that Arma was never aimed towards online multiplayer gameplay…I think most can at least agree that one of the biggest bread and butter features of Arma is the editor – The ability to make your own missions and play them how you want….That’s why I always have to shake my head when I see people crying about factions that are balanced.. Mainly that IndFor has tanks and aircraft instead of being the underpowered weakling. If we’re talking about the single player campaign storyline then yes maybe…(I haven’t played it so I don’t know how much mechanized might the IndFor guys have in game.) However, if we’re just talking about content then I say every faction should be nearly equal unless they make specific non recognized military factions. (E.G. Insurgents, Police, and some PMCs.) Why? Because if I’m in the editor I might not want to make missions based only on the storyline of the single player campaign. I might want to have NATO and CSAT in an equally matched armored skirmish and then have them both get steamrolled by IndFor.

    Oh and because it’s a game, it’s ok to have in some degree, rifles and vehicles that don’t exist or were canceled especially not if it’s a plausible fit. What’s the point of having artistic freedom if you’re only going to put things in the game that are currently in service in real life? Not to mention, who says those companies won’t decide to pick up those canceled projects instead of scrapping millions of dollars in research? And like before…you don’t have to use them. *END RANT* …For now…

    Oh yeah and I do think the lack of the coxial or commander machine guns and interiors sucks on the tanks but I'm not getting into that.

    As always I’d like to add that before any new content I wish that theyâ€ll focus on optimization instead. I’ve already developed an unhealthy distaste for rubber bands.

  10. Posted · Edited by Squirrel0311

    Well I might be mistaken in what you mean exactly but if you're just talking about designated slots for players, then this something that is already possible depending on the user who made the mission. Just like how on some COOP multiplayer games you have designated open slots: Pilot, Gunner, Driver, Gunner, Commander, Squad Leader, Team Leader, AutoRifleman, Assistant, Grenadier, Rifleman, and Explosive specialist.

    I was hoping this thread was talking about making a way for groups to find and join games together and fight on the same team. That's what I think the multiplayer section really needs.

    From my wishlist on page 213 of the Wishes and Ideas - No Discussion...

    2. Parties, Squads, SOMETHING!: PARTIES- There should be some way you can link up with friends in the server list and all join a game together with the assurance that you’ll all be in the same squad…WITHOUT having to join an empty server! (Like how WARFRAME does it.) Perhaps in the actual game lobby there could also be a little box next to your name that you could click if you don’t mind being moved to a different squad and position when a party wishes to join your team and play together. Maybe a little box would pop up in the corner and say something like, “A party has joined your team. You have been moved to Delta Squad – Grenadier.†SQUADS – I really think that creating squads should be left up to the players in game since only about a quarter of players on public servers actually stay and work together with the squad they’re in. Allowing players to create squads would also eliminate the notorious headless squad…Plenty of Indians but no chief… If you create a squad you are the squad leader. Now I know some are going to be up in arms and screaming that is isn’t BF3 or COD but that’s not a valid argument in this case. Creating squads lets players choose to work together and it gives the Squad leader a good idea of who he can count on, none of this wasting time hoping your squad mate won’t go off and do his own thing never to return again. We need to weed out the faint hearted by realistic gameplay, not forcing groups who work well together to split up.

  11. Posted · Edited by Squirrel0311

    Yeah I really like the way they did this. It’s a lot like what I had in mind for the driver however not so much for the commander or gunner.

    Here is what I wrote in my wish list on page 213 of the NO DISCUSSION thread about Driver optics and also optics vulnerability.

    Better visibility and DETAIL for armored drivers Turned In: This is supposed to be the future...No one would make an armored vehicle with only one available view port unless they have absolutely no idea what they're doing and didn't learn from WWII. You can even see 3 distinct view ports on the driver hatches of the vehicles in Arma 3 right now, you should at least able to turn your head and look diagonally. Ideally the view ports would have...eh 135 degrees field of view? Also again, this is supposed to be the future… the drivers should have a dashboard with a screen that shows at least a rear facing camera that is Night Vision capable (ideally it would have a forward facing camera as well). And if you really want to get fancy... the driver's front facing camera should be connected to a slave system on their helmet like an Apache gunner... where ever he turns his head is where the camera looks, so that it would be just like if he was turned out. It doesn’t need thermal or anything super fancy just give him the tools to see where he’s going. (Night vision and a little bit of zoom to identify IED’s and mines.) We have web cams that can zoom, pan left, right, up, down, rotate 360, and track faces…I can’t see why we couldn’t mount a camera on a tank under the turret for the driver.

    Armor Optics Vulnerable to Small Arms Fire: Any mounted weapon with a remote viewer SHOULD be vulnerable to small arms fire IF YOU CAN HIT IT. For tanks and APC’s at least, they should have a redundancy system. The periscope view ports (the 3 slots on the driver’s hatches) should be used only as a last resort after their good optics have been destroyed, but even the view ports should be able to get shot up so bad that you can’t see out. Obviously I know that 3rd person will make this feature useless but it should still be added. It’s too bad that the devs didn’t think of this before the models were made. I would have given the gunner a primitive periscope sight mounted next to and looking down along the bore of the main gun so it and his coaxial machine gun would still be somewhat effective. The gunner sight would be receded inside the armor of the turret, requiring a nearly straight on shot to hit it. The down side is that it wouldn’t be thermal or night vision, it wouldn’t have zoom and it would have a severely limited field of view. (Scenario) You’re hiding in a building and a tank pulls up beside you and stops in the street with no infantry support, you should be able to shoot out the optics of the tank partially or completely blinding it if you can hit all the cameras and view ports.

    Ideally I’d like to see two different (inside) view options for crews especially if they implemented the Optics damage system I talked about.

    Default view would look just like a turret camera that has been mounted next to the drivers hatch. You could pan left and right, up and down and press + or – to zoom in and out. (Night Vision too)

    Right clicking would pull you from the driver camera and place you in the (Free Look) cockpit view.

    Here’s a sweet picture I drew. 33esfb7.png (No it's not proportionate... I realize the view ports I drew give too much visibility to be realistic based on how much you can see of the hull and what not.)

    Because you’re in free look, you could look around the cockpit and place the white crosshair on certain buttons to turn things on or off. E.G. Lights, Engine, GPS

    (This isn’t something I’d like them to work on now and I know it probably wouldn’t run very well because of all the picture in picture stuff but I think it would be cool if they could optimize it and implement it….maybe a few years down the road.)

  12. Posted

    Well I don't know if it's dying...that's because I'm not sure it was really that alive. It could have been that it was just a bad time (low point in activity) or it could be that many are facing the same thing I am...Burnout. I personally play Arma 3 almost strictly for the multiplayer, King of the Hill is my favorite game mode so far, but even I can only play so much before it turns kind of stale. I bet it will pick up again once more stuff is released and implemented.

    It's also important to note that there seems to be a rather sizable group of the community who don't consider ArmA as a multiplayer game but simply as a sandbox for single player/coop only. So I think that could contribute to why you still see more activity for other games vs. ArmA 3.

  13. Posted

    Yep! Two totally different games working for different customers. Like others have stated one is a standard FPS, the other is a sandbox. One focuses on convienence and fast paced action, the other focuses on freedom of choice and a more realistic representation.

    Have you even checked out some of the larger cities on Altis? Myrina is pretty good. While I agree I'd like to see more content of all different kinds...it's just not what we have right now and not what the team is capable of handling right now.

    Instead of flooding the forum with threads all relating to the same thing or complaining about having to wait for the game you payed for because it hasn't gone in the direction you wanted it to go...How about learning to map and mod so you can build us some epic maps!? ...We'll be here waiting...

  15. Posted · Edited by Squirrel0311

    It depends on what type of rocket or missle is being fired. Some rockets have booster charges which basically is just big enough to kick it out of the tube and a safe enough distance away, then the actual propellant motor starts. (RPG-7 and Javelin) Other rockets or missles burn up the motor completely in the tube. (RPG-29) Since most...if not ALL rockets are fin stabalized in some form or another, they all make noise. However, like it has already been said.. normally, unless it's passing by you normally don't hear it or...it's too late. And sometimes if the fins are bent they might even make a whirrring buzzing noise as was my experience in Iraq.

    As for the game - I have already covered this topic pretty in depth in a different depth. The in game rocket noise sounds as if it has just been fired (seemingly next to you) no matter where you are in relation to it, making it extremely difficult to locate.

    Here's another example.

    And this one is for giggles. (THE TITLE IS WRONG) This is a hellfire missile being called in by 3/6 Marines in Marjah Afghanistan 2010. The video was taken from the tower surveillance cameras, observing the insurgents placing an IED.

    If you watch closely... they hear the missle and look up.. realizing they're about to get minced and charred they quickly stand and RUN!.....right into each other. (Three Stooges style.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-s2KdE4-84

    You're kidding right? Not every missile is like a cruise missile that has wings to keep it in the air. Most fire until the last second making plenty of noise.

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d5d_1368615191

    I can't watch the first video because I'm at work but I'd like to point out that on the SECOND video from Syria....it was actually a bombing run not a missle. If you listen closely you can still hear the engine roaring as he flies away.

  17. Posted

    Were you knealing or standing? I will say that the sway while standing especially just after moving is a bit overkill. I've gotten used to it but it's still extremely strong. I've pretty much made it a rule of thumb for myself that I never fire in a stance higher than the HIGH CROUCH. In fact I broke that rule today in King of the Hill and got wasted for it twice. Although for some reason my game was running like crap too.... :/

    Anyway, yes I partially agree but just keep working at it and you'll get used to it.

    On another note, there is already a thread about this on the exact same page so in the future use the search feature to try and find threads related to your topic.

  18. Posted

    It just comes down to the fact that modded-in vehicles not vanilla so they'll only be available for offline play, or for online play on servers and missions that allow or require those specific mods.
    Oh yeah well I knew that, I guess I just kind of expected it as the normal thanks to Arma 2. That would be nice to have them as vanilla then because I really don't like having to run a ton of mods.

    I don't know much about modding but would it be possible for the community to make the necessary "All included" Vehicle mod and then send that information to BIS for them to tweak and release as a patch that adds the content in to the Vanilla?

  20. Posted

    I know for fact that the Ghost Hawk and Hunter are not modeled accurately so they would not be able to fall under that rule that EA used. You guys want real names thats understandable I just don't see it being possible. Especially considering the sensitive nature of some of those vehicles.

    Well I doubt either of us have any experience with the ghosthawk so yeah that one is clearly speculation but what is so off about the M-ATV? Are you speaking in regards to performance and internal technology or what?

    Also I've been wondering lately, besides the fact that the full game should have been a "Full Game" with full content.. What is the problem again with waiting for new vehicles or having them modded in from the community? Are modded vehicles generally speaking not as smooth running or good in some way? If this is the case I've never experienced it....

  22. Posted

    It takes only 1 suggestion from 1 person to rally more people behind it.

    That being said, we already have the wishlist thread for posting such things.

    And with that being said... Is there anyway we can get the Community Wishes and Ideas - DISCUSSION thread made into a sticky so it doesn't get buried.. Maybe it will cut down on people making one line threads of something they'd like to see.

    I know we have the NO DISCUSSION thread stickied but people like to discuss their ideas, why their good and bad.. they like feedback. What's the point of posting your idea if there's no discussion?

  23. Posted · Edited by Squirrel0311

    Oh dear... FPDR

    What? That was good music! .... It may not fit the Mediterranean scene or the story at all, but still! It's a good'n! :D That's what I am reminded of when startingt he campaign though I haven't actually got to play more than 5 minutes of it. Maybe tomorrow though.

    I'd personally trade the entire campaign for intresting and original vehicles and gear, because right now Sochor reminds me of Scorcher, Tigris reminds me of Cheetah, Blackfoot looks like closed project from 1995, not to mention all content that was simply copy-pasted from Arma 2.

    It's cool that BIS finally managed to make a intresting campaign, but it's one-shot thing, complete-and-forget, while vehicles are used in many community missions, so IMHO improving quality of content should be priority over creating new episodes of campaign.

    Well in real life a lot of armor tends to mimic other designs, especially self-propelled artillery. Just look at say... the older M109 Paladin and the new PzH2000. Now I will say that the Crusader looks different and would have been better choice for the Scorcher and even the base models of the support vehicles and what not......Anyway, yeah that's all off topic.

×