Arma 3: Community wishes & ideas- DISCUSSION

I'd like to see if you guys would look more seriously into the employment of the UAV/UGVs used in the game.

It would be nice to see, if maybe the UAV operator could allow anybody in his current group to see what the UAV was seeing in the little window that pops up off to the right. That way, the operator doesn't have to rely on Teamspeak or the in-game comms to relay what information he or she is seeing. They can see it for themselves.

Additionally, maybe for some things like the Greyhawk, Darter, or even other designators attached to helicopters or vehicles, if the operator could turn on a laser that would be visible to all on one side (ie BLUFOR, OPFOR, or Independent) so an they can actually point out targets or other objects of interest to troops on the ground. Some similar setup to the weapon-mountable IR laser pointer would work. I don't mean just see the dot from the laser, but the entire beam. It would effectively be the flying finger of God. Of course, important to this is to only allow the beam to be seen by members of a side, so they can't see the source of the beam, and can't tell that they are being illuminated. Worst case, allow the laser marker to create a point on the map, with a button press at it's exact location, so that team members can mark on their own maps where the point of interest is.

If people want to see what the UAV Operator sees, can they not just bring a UAV terminal of their own?

And that entire last paragraph is hardly realistic is it? Either you have some sort of target indication that is visible to everyone (fair enough if you make it IR, but if the OPFOR have NVGs etc they'd see it), but to make it side-specific is a little unrealistic, not to mention difficult/impossible given the engine.

FPDR

Edited February 26, 2015 by Jackal326

This feels like feature tailored to one men liking.I don't think it belongs in dev branch or as it's own thread.Maybe in UAV devbranch thread.

Is there a specific UAV dev branch thread? I didn't see one, which is why I made this. Strangely, other, even more specific subjects are in this particular forum, but I guess because UAVs don't really have much bearing on how some people play, they should be entirely left out to some other thing. Personally I really enjoy working as recon, relaying info to my team, so it's why I have a vested interest in seeing them improved, and thus why I'm suggesting a review of them.

Also, no, just having the UAV terminal doesn't allow you to see what the operator sees. You have to be connected to the UAV. Only one person can be connected to a UAV at a time, though if that could change, ie: one connected to the gun on a stomper, one connected to the "driver" position, that could work too. More than that, just having one primary operator, with the others able to see, but not control is pretty much what I'm asking for.

And actually, it's very realistic. The lasers have specific frequencies which is why, in reality, not everything that can detect a laser designation or is laser guided, suddenly starts targeting that particular designated target, or in the case of laser jammers (as mounted on the latest versions of combat helicopters) start flipping out, jamming lasers, thinking they are being targeted.

Edited February 16, 2015 by The Amazing Flight Lizard

Hm, I guess that if one of my team members are holding a UAV terminal, I should be able to glance at it and make out some of what he is seeing. Interesting bits in this suggestion

Normally, if you're operating the UAV, your head is down working it, rather than watching your own butt. Just to be a member of the squad getting your operator's UAV view on the right side would be kinda cool. And it replaces the GPS terminal, so not EVERYBODY should have one.

Normally, if you're operating the UAV, your head is down working it, rather than watching your own butt. Just to be a member of the squad getting your operator's UAV view on the right side would be kinda cool. And it replaces the GPS terminal, so not EVERYBODY should have one.

Pack a Terminal in your rucksack and switch from your GPS and back again like a "normal" person.

Pack a Terminal in your rucksack and switch from your GPS and back again like a "normal" person.

Why would you need to do this when the UAV terminal functions as both?

Why would you need to do this when the UAV terminal functions as both?

Certain mods (AGM etc) negate that function and remove the GPS functionality from the UAV Terminal.

Hi!

Making perfectly working AI is nearly impossible and will be for the near future for sure. So why not use humans to control AI like what we have in the Zeus already but for the single player missions.

Of course with some limitations like:

- cannot spawn new enemies (only those availble what the mission designer added already)

- cannot take control (like firing weapon, driving vehicles)

- no time or weather changes allowed

- only the controlled soliders are visible and those from the opposing force which were spotted

This limited Zeus (lets call it Minos) would have control over:

- change the behaviour of the soldiers (aware, combat, relaxed)

- mark paths for the AI (like for the UAVs)

This Minos is controlled by some other player remotely over net.

Please share your thoughts about this idea!

Cheers,

Erik

This Minos is controlled by some other player remotely over net.

That makes it a multiplayer mission by definition. It sounds like you would limit Minos though to setting AI waypoints and "mindset"? How about stance and pace control for instances where the AI's tendency might be to prone when they should kneel?

It is still a single player mission with its original storyline but Minos would make strategical decision mostly. (controlling waypoint, using vehicles, sending extra troops if available) However not clear what is the border between micro management (like controlling a single unit) and strategic decision (for example: troops are crossing the valley directly to reach enemy or go around, call the armoured vehicles or keep those assets later, hide in the village or go out etc.) Available resources would be limited by the mission.

My concern is how fun the mission would be, as it depends on the skills of the one controllig Minos.

Actually this idea came from Watch Dogs (there it called Online hacking, online trailing) and Forza Motorsport (Drivatar : http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/drivatar/forza.aspx).

BIS, after the Expansion, please make all the varients of existing vehicles. It can't be too tedious, it onyl takes research and editing of existing models within the game. For example, there are version of the Patria AMV (Marshall) with and without protective sheilding, version with Mortor , so on. Yak-131 (Neophron) Two seater variant, maybe AA version. Strider with AA/ATGM (Titan maybe?), M-ATV Minigun (Hunter with Minigun, used by Army/Special Forces?), or the Mobile Mortar system.

Also, more static weaponry, as there isn't nearly enough. Modern D-30, or sling loadable Artillery Piece. Static Observation Pod Antonymous.

Naval Assets. I've probably said this before, but the waters in Arma, even since Operation Flashpoint days has been empty. Arma 3's water is a masterpiece, and it looks too good to not have some kind of medium patrol, or even LCS style vessel in Vanilla content. With nicely detailed water Ports and accesses on both base game maps (Altis/Stratis), it's a shame that the biggest boat is a small gunboat.

Naval Assets. I've probably said this before, but the waters in Arma, even since Operation Flashpoint days has been empty. Arma 3's water is a masterpiece, and it looks too good to not have some kind of medium patrol, or even LCS style vessel in Vanilla content. With nicely detailed water Ports and accesses on both base game maps (Altis/Stratis), it's a shame that the biggest boat is a small gunboat.

Unfortunately LCS style is straight-up "big ship", aka what BI has never shown interest in simulating as "tactical vehicles" as opposed to background scenery, and with plausible reasons.

For "medium patrol" on the other hand, based on your defining of "medium" in the Development Blog & Reveals thread as "about twice the size of the Mk V SOC"... the Maltese iteration of the Diciotti-class offshore patrol vessel (the shipbuilder calls it a Saettia Mark III) supports both medium helicopters (the AFM link shows the ~10 m Alouette III, though Wikipedia says that P61 can support the 13.77 m long AW139*) and RHIBs, it's got a OTO Melara 25 mm autocannon and two 12.7 mm machine guns, a top speed of ~43 km/h, and a complement of 25... why not make it an addon request? :D

I'm imagining such a Saettia Mk III-based fictional OPV as mostly an upscaled third-gunner extrapolation of the Speedboat (HMG), but the big sticking point from a technical perspective (read: the excuse BI would use to omit this) would almost certainly be getting the crews and passengers for the helicopter and boat to/from their respective positions, due to the lack of friction on moving ships' decks for all simulation classes besides helicopterX.

That Maltese iteration, is quite literally PERFECT. Looks awesome. I don't like making addon requests, because most of the things i request i think should be in the Vanilla game, which is why i come here most the times for reasonable things (EXCEPT THE MINIGUN BUS. Ignore that request, it was make through me by a friend who literally has no idea about anything semi realistic, and wishes there were more WWII tanks in Arma, because he plays World Of Tanks... <.< Forgive me), and maybe the LCS style ship is a bit too big. The Maltese however, is really nice, and is big enough to land the Hellcat. It'd be really nice in the waters, and can be fitted with maybe a Mortor system for active mobile support. A version with standard loadout, and a Mortar variant would be amazing. Modders have shown helicopters can land on the helipads while in motion, as long s the player stays inside the ship. So, i wouldn't mind if a ship like this was properly made without being able to walk on it in motion, but when it's perfectly still is fine, and good enough. It's better than not being able to move on it at all.

Did you see the Complement part in the info sheet? 25 men.

I'd still be perfectly happy with static larger ships (LHD etc) while having some slightly smaller vessels like fast attack boats etc. I don't even care if they make them up! Imagine a fast attack boat that has FFAR style rocket pods mount on the sides. Or mount a BM-21 style MLRS on the rear.

The only downside would be to avoid placing guided weapons on them as the tab-lock system would not work very well in a naval environment where there is not much to hide behind.

Did you see the Complement part in the info sheet? 25 men. The only downside would be to avoid placing guided weapons on them as the tab-lock system would not work very well in a naval environment where there is not much to hide behind.

Entirely aware of 25 men, but the most of my team i've had on Arma 3 at one time is 10, maybe 11 (on a 100 player server). With Physics in Arma 3, and the things we could do with a boat of that size, essentially, we could have a Mobile HQ capable of landing a helicopter, and storing Supply Crates, at sea, and capable of defending itself to a certain extent. It's never been done in the Arma series, why not give it a try, or take some risks? It'd be interesting for sure. With proper modelling, it would look really nice int he RV4 Engine and it's new water. Hell, they could even create a new ammo class where that particular ship can deploy naval mines or something. I just think it'd be really nice, and can be used for various Naval situations for the vanilla game.

Also, you can't avoid lock-on's in 2035, it's kinda impossible. And while were missing ATGM's/AAM's on MRAP's, that role can be used for boats. That would fill two gaps in one. Though with your idea about BM-21 Style rocket mount, that would be even better. Something new, that hasn't been done in Arma's vanilla life.

On a completely different note, though, Armored Rover/SUV!

On the maritime track, one thing that I'd like to see would be for "static larger ships" to be destructible or at least seem to be, lest new attack boats face the same gameplay issues as there are with both SDVs and SDAR-armed divers: beyond directly engaging peer equivalents, what's the point? For that matter, why would divers be fighting in the first place in an Arma scenario?

Heck, with big ship destructibility you'd also have a point (gameplay-wise) to having maritime air defense.

Entirely aware of 25 men, but the most of my team i've had on Arma 3 at one time is 10, maybe 11 (on a 100 player server). With Physics in Arma 3, and the things we could do with a boat of that size, essentially, we could have a Mobile HQ capable of landing a helicopter, and storing Supply Crates, at sea, and capable of defending itself to a certain extent. It's never been done in the Arma series, why not give it a try, or take some risks? It'd be interesting for sure. With proper modelling, it would look really nice int he RV4 Engine and it's new water. Hell, they could even create a new ammo class where that particular ship can deploy naval mines or something. I just think it'd be really nice, and can be used for various Naval situations for the vanilla game.

As a reminder, I recall that other than the lack of friction for non-helicopterX simulation classes on moving ship decks, what you describe already seems supported by RV4 as demonstrated in mods. Also, considering your mention that "most of my team i've had on Arma 3 at one time is 10, maybe 11 (on a 100 player server)", my own recommendation would be for a fictional vessel to be depicted as having its crew size comparable to the existing armed speedboats (basically pretend that non-driver/gunner automation went that far in 2035 for all boat/ship classes) with the rest of the seating being for passengers and FFV support for any exposed seating.

As for naval mines, I don't recall if the "vanilla" ones do anything or are just inert scenery objects (or visual stand-ins for an objective as with the diving showcase), but cervantes wrote an underwater explosive ammo class.

Also, you can't avoid lock-on's in 2035, it's kinda impossible. And while were missing ATGM's/AAM's on MRAP's, that role can be used for boats. That would fill two gaps in one. Though with your idea about BM-21 Style rocket mount, that would be even better. Something new, that hasn't been done in Arma's vanilla life.

Boats with "ATGMs" (surface-to-surface missiles, SSMs) as the primary weapon would straight up be the fast attack craft/missile boats like Imperator_Pete wanted (case in point: Swedish Forces Pack's Norrköping) whereas I find SAM-primary boats more difficult to fit into an "Arma scale, infantry-centric" scenario as directly player-operated craft, as opposed to unmanned surface vehicles (USVs). As with Norrköping though other FACs would have the issue of just what they can target... Norrköping deals with the issue by allowing targeting of a ground position via map-click instead of a specific boat... but gameplay-wise, unless the FACs have targets bigger than the Speedboats (HMG/Minigun) to attack (since they're the only maritime threat with mounted weapons if you're not running other mods) or can otherwise attack ground/surface in direct support of infantry players...

Speaking of "BM-21 Style rocket mount" though...

On the maritime track, one thing that I'd like to see would be for "static larger ships" to be destructible or at least seem to be, lest new attack boats face the same gameplay issues as there are with both SDVs and SDAR-armed divers: beyond directly engaging peer equivalents, what's the point? For that matter, why would divers be fighting in the first place in an Arma scenario?

Showcase: Diving uses a contrived situation where if you can get to an armed CSAT speedboat without being detected, a custom "Sabotage" action menu entry appears, and completion thereof will eventually cause divers to disembark and eventually engage you if they can find you, but then there's the question of "why am I having to sabotaging this individual small boat" instead of, say, swimming to and sabotaging a renamed/CSAT-aligned Submarine_01_F (Modern Warfare 3-style) or a CSAT SOF command ship disguised as a fishing Trawler... and at least Call of Duty: Ghosts' infamous underwater mission had the premise of infiltrating towards a big ship with the goal of underwater attack.

Heck, with big ship destructibility you'd also have a point (gameplay-wise) to having maritime air defense.As a reminder, I recall that other than the lack of friction for non-helicopterX simulation classes on moving ship decks, what you describe already seems supported by RV4 as demonstrated in mods. Also, considering your mention that "most of my team i've had on Arma 3 at one time is 10, maybe 11 (on a 100 player server)", my own recommendation would be for a fictional vessel to be depicted as having its crew size comparable to the existing armed speedboats (basically pretend that non-driver/gunner automation went that far in 2035 for all boat/ship classes) with the rest of the seating being for passengers and FFV support for any exposed seating.

As for naval mines, I don't recall if the "vanilla" ones do anything or are just inert scenery objects (or visual stand-ins for an objective as with the diving showcase), but cervantes wrote an underwater explosive ammo class.Boats with "ATGMs" (surface-to-surface missiles, SSMs) as the primary weapon would straight up be the fast attack craft/missile boats like Imperator_Pete wanted (case in point: Swedish Forces Pack's Norrköping) whereas I find SAM-primary boats more difficult to fit into an "Arma scale, infantry-centric" scenario as directly player-operated craft, as opposed to unmanned surface vehicles (USVs). As with Norrköping though other FACs would have the issue of just what they can target... Norrköping deals with the issue by allowing targeting of a ground position via map-click instead of a specific boat... but gameplay-wise, unless the FACs have targets bigger than the Speedboats (HMG/Minigun) to attack (since they're the only maritime threat with mounted weapons if you're not running other mods) or can otherwise attack ground/surface in direct support of infantry players...

Speaking of "BM-21 Style rocket mount" though...

Naval mines indeed work as mines. Easily testable in Zeus, and they can destroy a lot of things if you fool around with them on land too. XD

However, that rocket system looks awesome. A bit of creativity like this wouldn't hurt. The only faction that has rockets is NATO and their Sandstorm MLRS. So, it wouldn't be entirely silly to give AAF a say, Maltese with rocket mount in front, or maybe CSAT a boat with rockets of that size in the picture. =D

Currently bunkers, bean-bags and h-barriers and some misc. fortifications are impervious to damage as they are missing destruction effects in their config (despite being marked as destructible building). I am not sure if this is a bug or working as intended, but in any case I'd advocate to change them to just disappear into the ground when damage is 1 instead of simply being unaffected.

Ticket:

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=22880

Are there any (official) plans to finally improve/tidy up the action menu, or ingame UI in general (yeah, I see the tickets...)?

...just came back to play some lovely Arma after some time without it, and managing my squad, or their loadouts respectively, drives me completely nuts. If there are multiple "item-sources" (e.g. dead bodies or just crates) around, you simply can't quickly (or at least reliably) point your subordinates to do anything. A lot of the time they're just opening their inventory, unable to grab anything. And even if some "item-source" shows up to the lefthand side, it's most certainly the wrong thing. And I'm not even going to consider/talk about those +20 "Pick up this or that" action items (under 6->next page->next page->next page->... ) which are completely useless. (also it is next to impossible to let your AI rearm at a dead guy somewhere above groundlevel, such as the second floor of a building; while such an "item-source" might be isolated enough, there are other problems leading the AI to rather rearm somewhere else, preferably ground from what I can tell...).

The fix here would be rather simple: upon selecting one (or multiple) subordinates in your squad, their actions need to be easily available to me/the leader, preferrbly by means of pointing at things those actions are attached to (just like opening doors, or making them get in a car...).

For Example: hit F2 to select unit 2, point to certain dead body (out of many others...), hit some "open inventory there/rearm at that guy/thing" action. And we're done.

I'm not even going to ask for a complete overhaul of the ingame UI/the action menu et al. But this. This... *grrrrrr

...and in the meantime: how do you guys manage your squads, and their loadouts in particular? - The only thing/workaround that works somewhat reliably for me, is to micro-manage this procedure by playing some kind of buffer, making (hopefully) reachable targets of "item-sources" for my AI guys. That is: I go grab stuff for them (depositing my own stuff somewhere else in the meantime) and put/drop said items for the AI somewhere (a bit isolated, but accessible), make the AI dance to that somewhere and hope they manage to get it... it's super slow, freakingly dangerous and no fun at all.

Do you people even rearm your little AI guys? Or did you all give up a long time ago? :rolleyes:

Yes, indeed. Playing/testing Pilgrimage I'm struggling with very same problems on regular basis.

That is: I go grab stuff for them (depositing my own stuff somewhere else in the meantime) and put/drop said items for the AI somewhere (a bit isolated, but accessible), make the AI dance to that somewhere and hope they manage to get it... it's super slow, freakingly dangerous and no fun at all.

This, or switching to that unit, if switchable. Noted, so this:

. A lot of the time they're just opening their inventory, unable to grab anything.

Happens more often for the containers like boxes (something to do with the lately appeared issue with sometimes hard to get visible atttached actions to the object?) than for weaponholder created ad hoc by dropping stuff at AI's feets, so indeed, that way often does the trick. This issue showed up lately IMO, no such observations earlier.

But yeah. It's terrible mess, handling that stuff (manging AIs using that menu) is really awkward sometimes even despite, we have "open subordinate inventory" action now for direct giving the stuff.

"Pick up this or that" action items (under 6->next page->next page->next page->... ) which are completely useless.

Very useful as magical way to learn all the stuff available to pick up around. :)

Dear BI!

I get asked this on a near daily basis ! I've seen the map and it looks amazing on the Arma 3 engine ! Can you just not include it with the next release or DLC of Arma 3 ?

This will extend the lifespan of the game by a year or two at the very least !

Hey Rydygier :p

Yes, indeed. Playing/testing Pilgrimage I'm struggling with very same problems on regular basis.

Well, glad I'm at least not the only one struggling with this (or missing some obvious workaround...).

This, or switching to that unit, if switchable.

Yeah, I'm currently playing some campaign without team-switching; and yet I'm supposed to manage all the things for my team...

...guess I should try some Pilgrimage instead :cool:

Happens more often for the containers like boxes...

Haven't noticed this yet; most likely because I don't even try any more with multiple boxes next to each other...

In terms of such silliness, what happens most to me is that there is only the main weapon visible/accessible to the left in the inventory, when it opens (while looting from some dead guy). Close. Make the AI dance. Try again. And if you're lucky, the rest (like bags, helmet, uniform, ...) might show up too.

I think I might just stop playing longer missions, or continuous campaigns alltogether, and focus on short, straightforward scenarios instead. Ready? Set? Go! And then some pew, pew and that's it. No more clunky inventory nonsense/madness. :(

Dear BI!

I get asked this on a near daily basis ! I've seen the map and it looks amazing on the Arma 3 engine ! Can you just not include it with the next release or DLC of Arma 3 ?

This will extend the lifespan of the game by a year or two at the very least !

That tired old map needs to be given a rest.