same key could b used to tap the rearguard in a fireteam to indicate the team is moving forward. the player tapped would receive a visual and audial cue, ie some visual cue accompanied by a soft, dulled thud as if patting a leather jacket.

lol again noobs voting no

i can tell you anyone who votes no for this uses teamspeak ingame specifically so they can communicate silently because they are noobs and need the advantage

It could be spammed. A LOT.
/upvoted

I like spamming.

i think the feedback tracker should be updated so that people have to type a reason if they want to vote no for something because there are some serious retards on here.

how can anyone say that non-verbal signalling in a milsim is a bad idea?

fullretards

related to #0011981

"because there are some serious retards on here." I totally agree. In another ticket I saw a guy post "WHY THE FUCK IS THERE A BALANCING SECTION FOR ARMA WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS". It's really not the place for it. That kind of talk really needs to remain on forums, or better still playgrounds. This is supposed to be a proper feedback tracker.

But my little dig aside - no, there shouldn't be a requirement for a comment when down-voting in the same way there shouldn't be one for up-voting. When you up-vote you shouldn't have to explain why you think it's a good idea or what parts of it you think are best. Same with down-voting. It simply means someone doesn't like the ideo or thinks it's a low priority.

But if an explanation is required - fine. I down-vote because it's a waste of dev resources when saying or typing "All in" will suffice. Whether this feature is added doesn't worry me one way or another, but it falls so low on the list under so many important issues that really do require work that I'll do my part to make sure the prioritisation of this issue is appropriately diminished.

you just are a noob and dont understand that the whole point of this is to make it so that no verbal cue has to be given in a number of situations to enable silent execution of an already planned fightplan without giving the enemy intelligence on your location or your planned move.

but youre a noob, so thats fine. also explains why you love the idea of balancing.

as to your "reason" - I think its quite obvious that developers who have gotten this far would know how to allocate their resources effectively. you are not here to decide what the devs work on you just vote yes if you want the feature in game and no if you dont.

jesus christ what a pretentious attention seeking troll.

again longjocks thanks so much for your input its as relevant and interesting as always.

i cant stop with this guy. reading through your comment again. like what youre a game developer now? youre on BI dev and know what they are dealing with and whats "important"? jesus just fuck off rash

let me explain how this works; you vote yes if you want the feature in game, you vote no if you specifically don't want the feature in game. if you don't have an opinion, you dont vote.

you dont act like some pompous fucktard pretending to have some inside information on the prioritization of the BI development pipeline.

jesus christ this thing needed a screening process

We're not prioritising BIS's work - we're giving input on what we think should be in the game, regardless of the reason. That reason can be because a person doesn't want BIS's workload spent on issue A, B or C. The vote represents this opinion. After this point BIS can then prioritise their workload as they see fit based in part on the numbers in the voting system - if they so choose.

Wasn't this same gestural stuff added to arma 2 via a mod? Probably safe to assume that they'll be porting it to 3.

I can see how it could have a place in certain missions but I'd prefer the devs spend more time on the core of the game and let the modders fill in these little niches.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?154567-VTS-Simple-gesture-commo-rose

was released during alpha, unclear if its updated to work with the beta, either way, it exists and works well (communications are passed to AI too as i understand), and could be easy to add this kind of action

i'm voting this ticket down because its for slapping a vehicle as an indication to drive; i agree the other gesture/nonverbal should be implemented, just not this. few reasons, including:

-everytime a vehicle door slams shut a n00b driver will speed-off :)
-most of the time you can't clearly see if a vehicle is full from the outside only
-not likely to be used often enough to justify its own default key-combo, still barely easier than typing "/roll out"
-being nonverbal doesnt matter in this scenario, because the vehicle is loud-as-f*** anyway (on second thought tho, it'd be easier to hear a bang instead of a yell...)
-its -extremely- easy to script this on a per-mission, or per-vehicle basis

(scripting: addaction to vehicle, upon execution could play the hitting-the-vehicle sound, could optionally send a message on the vehicle chat channel too incase someone didn't hear the sound cause they were blathering)

Mass closing ancient tickets with no activity for > 12 months; assume fixed or too trivial.

If this issue is still relevant in current dev build, please re-post.