- User Since
- Mar 5 2013, 7:51 PM (433 w, 11 h)
May 10 2016
For LORD JARHEAD! YES!
For stuff and things.
I just want to make sure they are portrayed properly, because some require tools, while others do not, and there are differences between muzzle brakes, compensators, and flash hiders.
Rah rah, let's get all mad, "god damn".
You do realize this is a FEATURE REQUEST, right? I'm not saying I want this right now. Do you even read the other feature requests? They are things that are complex, that might be added in DLC packs or patches down the road.
This is me suggesting a feature that matches directly with what they are trying to do, by adding modularity to firearms for ease of use and realistic gameplay. With your logic we should all just Q_Q and say every suggestion is stupid because we're in the Alpha, and the only things we should put up are bugs.
You did a really great job of expressing yourself though.
I had realized that I should have made two separate issue tickets after the fact, but figured since it isn't just a giant feature request with 10 suggestions all at once, it should be fine considering how closely related they are.
Something I'd like to point out to anyone who reads this is don't downvote a feature request simply because an issue like optimizing the game takes precedent over being able to change your barrel. That's silly. I think it's pretty clear this is not an urgent feature request, and so do the devs, so don't let that sway you showing support for something you'd like to eventually see down the road in the final product, or in a patch after the fact.
As far as changing the barrel thing for moving from a CQB rifle to a marksman rifle and so on. While I do agree it can be used by the commando players, of course, I think it has a much stronger application for unique game modes such as MSO events, where the world is persistent, and you have to be careful about what resources you use. If you're familiar with things like MSO you'll know what I mean. I think it could simply add to the modularity of the game, which they are clearly trying to do with attachments and etc.
I gave two suggestions that are a direct result of having the ability to change barrels.
As Stiffwood said, in ACE you need to change barrels if you shoot excessively, and a very large part of the community plays ACE. If Arma 3 is going to be a simulator, why not add that? Granted this type of suggestion isn't exactly the highest priority, but if you're going to downvote or say no to overheating barrels, which is a very real consideration in real combat, then you could say no to a lot of other features for being equally as tedious.
As far as the changing barrels out thing goes for rifles. If you notice on the MX series of rifles, for the Blufor, if you'll notice that's based upon the ACR in real life. That has an easily changed barrel. Now go back to the MX rifle, and notice how they have a marksman version, a rifle version, and a carbine version. What's the harm in being able to add a 20" barrel to the rifle rather than picking up a whole new gun?
Arma 3 is in 2035 after all, I'd hope there is a bit more modularity with firearms by then.
Moderators, feel free to merge the above mentioned tickets with mine or vice versa, I must have missed those.
Even adding a computer like a tough book IG would be awesome for viewing UAV footage and etc.
What mwnciboo said is just plain wrong. I don't need to explain why he's wrong, people have already above me.
We really do need much, much stronger flashlights in game. Something that was not mentioned above that should be implemented are IR lenses for the flashlights, not just colored lenses.
I was really excited to finally use flashlights in close quarters due to the new lighting improvements. I bound my light key to a mouse button so I can quickly turn the flashlight on while searching a room, then turn it off to not reveal my location as I was walking around, and was really disappointed to see that it is way too dim and not even usable.
We're playing in the future, things like this would at the very least be standard issue for your average soldier if not better. In just 10 years night vision has advanced to crazy levels, now imagine 20+ years from now.
The fact that we are still using the tunnel vision NVGs is kinda sad.
It's about time as someone said before me that BIS realized the age of their consumer and added some more gore that is fitting with the scenario, such as Red Orchestra 2.
Dismemberment from things that would actually blow off your leg like bounding mines and etc would be welcome additions, along with blood spray on walls and windows of vehicles and etc.
Could you just imagine a mission where you need to rescue two hostages, you reach their last known location only to find one of them with a round to the head and blood splatter all along the walls? I personally thing that would add a ton of immersion.
NO NO NO
OP is really wrong.
Suppressors in no way affect the performance of a round any more than the wind a few feet in front of the gun would, which is negligible. I know the developers are smart so I'll try to keep this short.
Suppressors are first and foremost used for hearing protection, with their natural secondary use being to keep the signature and muzzle flash of the shooter low. Subsonic ammo is not used by the military and thus should not be taken into account here.
Frist, when you shoot a supersonic round from a rifle with a suppressor indoors, it is usually a small enough distance that there is no supersonic crack.
Second, rifles with suppressors are not used as super James Bond stealth weapons. If you need to take out a sentry quietly, there are more dedicated weapons for that such as the Mk23 or HK45 which use the .45 round, which is inherently subsonic.
Third, if you are being shot at by a supersonic round from a suppressed gun, you hear the supersonic crack near you, meaning it is very difficult to identify where the rounds are coming from, thus concealing the shooter. The main point is to keep the sound from booming through places like canyons, and to conceal the initial position of the shooter, not to conceal the shooter's sound completely.
I have confidence the Arma 3 developers will get this part right, and ignore suggestions to do things like decrease suppressor performance, which is really unrealistic.
If sounds were done properly, shooting indoors or inside a vehicle would be ear shattering.
Getting meyered in mud whilst in a tracked or wheeled vehicle would be awesome. You'd have to avoid thick forests or swamps and plan your route carefully, or even use main roads at times which leaves you susceptible to ambushes.
I would very much like to see proper CQB mechanics utilized by AI. It's quite annoying how they shoot through the roof, or go prone in a room, or stand directly in front of the door.
AI using simple mechanics like angling towards doorways with their gun up when they know an enemy is present, or crouching/standing with a lean towards the door instead of going prone would make the entire CQB experience much nicer.
The same applies for explosive charges. The small ones, which are essentially small C4 strips used for small ordinance disposal or door breaching. They take up a massive amount of space, yet I can fit multiple 200 round belts in the same space.
Don't forget that we're talking the year 2035 should be taken into account. By then, the range would be further than 350m, but in general, they are pretty OP atm.
I laughed at the single person who downvoted this.
Kumeda is right, unless you stop completely, the main turret grenade launcher on the assault boat is not even usable. It needs some serious stabilization.
I fully support this idea.
The only gripe I have with it is that all of these chest rigs and plate carriers have webbing on them, and by permanently setting what each specific type can carry, you kinda defeat the whole purpose. A slight revision to this is as follows.
Also, make sure you understand the difference between a chest rig and a plate carrier before you continue reading. An example of a chest rig is an Eagle Industries Rhodesian Recon Vest, and a good example of a plate carrier is a London Bridge Trading 6094.
This assumes the concept of body armor would be implemented.
The reason someone would choose a plate carrier over a chest rig are many, but the fundamental reasons are that it can carry body armor, it also hugs your body tightly, and doesn't have as much space to attach pouches when compared to a chest rig, usually. This means that you carry slightly less ammo but you have armor, and you're also heavier.
Of course, a direct contrast to this is a chest rig, which usually allows for a bit more space for ammo and etc, depending on your setup, and a chest rig is inherently much lighter, especially without plates. This of course as the name mentions is for roles more relating to recon, hiding in a mountain where you don't expect to be shot at actively or accurately, whereas a chest rig provides armor for CQB operations.
Now that you know how both would be used, I think it's important that if you're going to be going to a fidelity of allowing certain specific capacities for individual chest rigs and plate carriers, you need to be able to customize your chest rigs and plate carriers adding or removing specific pouches. Otherwise, all you would be doing is expanding on a feature slightly, only to limit it to a point where it would just get really annoying with the limitations.
In my view, it would be going one step forward only to take two steps back.
This would simply be nice for TvT when sneaking up on a FOB or on other players. Currently, people just tap their movement keys so they move, but not enough that it employs the sound.
I have noticed in the latest dev build, there are still some clipping issues with walls and general smoothness. I think the most prominent example of this would be to simply walk up the stairs of a lighthouse. It's just...clunky and not fluid.
Better than it was though.
I agree with this, but this could very quickly become a HUGE annoyance in CQB. Unless CQB is more fluid, this would never work, because in reality, you would maneuver your gun around corners and etc, but in Arma 3, CQB is too clunky, and therefor you'd be lowering your weapon constantly, making you vulnerable indoors.
Wow, I hope this is a troll.
Unfortunately, I doubt it is with the massive influx of dull folks who are now interested in the Arma series.
This would be a welcomed addition. Synchronizing attack times or being able to start countdowns and see how much time you have to do X part of a mission would be helpful at a quick glance.
This would add an entirely new dynamic to the game, and it would just be AWESOME!
At times, I feel Arma is just not dynamic enough, and you're forced to go with certain plans simply because things like this are not possible.
Princeton Tech helmet lights ftw.
I really wanna start seeing missions like looking throughout a dark building for intelligence, thus making you use lights, rather than having lights be just a gimmick.
Of course I saw the videos.
The rant you delved into regarding Special Forces fanboyism has nothing to do with this conversation, and quite frankly it's pathetic that you would drag the conversation down to that level rather than discuss the topic at hand.
I am well aware of how the military functions in its many capacities. I cited information from factual books and biographies to point out that stuff like cracking doors open to throw grenades, flashbangs, or peering into a room does happen. It's not some rare occurrence like you make it seem. Its not all blowing down or smashing doors, and if you think it is, you're really ignorant.
Reading a book by people who have been there and done that constitutes as equal knowledge to anything you have to offer here. The source of information one step removed doesn't make it any less valid. So please, go read a book if that suits you, or you want to continue to believe that somehow cracking doors open in real life doesn't happen.
No, I wouldn't give advice to doctors on how to perform a surgery because I saw ER, that's fiction. Not to mention, your example is outlandish. There's a huge technical gap between performing surgery and knowing that things do exist, such as cracking doors. Giant surprise, right? Use some common sense.
Well I once again sincerely hope the devs don't. Arma 3 is a game in 2013, it's about time we had a bit more polish in the series, and being able to crack doors open, or as you mentioned, have an animation when opening a turret isn't exactly a giant request, nor is it anything new for video games.
If you don't want the ability to crack doors open, just say it, but don't try and justify it by insulting others and implying retarded fanboyism when you can't come up with a good reason why more options in a game made in 2013 shouldn't be made available.
EDIT: I forgot to mention. Nobody, or at least I hope nobody is claiming this should take priority over clearly more important issues in the Alpha, such as optimization and AI, but at the same time, not supporting a solid idea put into a feature request because more things take precedent is just nonsensical. You should support it, with the takeaway that of course it shouldn't take high priority.
I can't believe I have to explain this, it's common sense.
I'm sorry but you have no idea what you're talking about. You're making room clearing seem black and white, when that's not the case, at all. Yes, in instances like Fallujah where you had insurgents barricaded it was loud, dirty, and you didn't spare any ammo.
On the other hand, go read books about how various SOCOM groups in Afghanistan and Iraq did room clearing. They didn't follow standard by the book procedures at all. They didn't yell or talk much, they were quick but stealthy as hell, and would enter buildings, and shoot guys in their sleep with MP7s and other really quiet weapons once suppressed.
They did exactly the kind of things OP mentioned, like cracking doors open and etc.
I really hope the devs don't utilize your misconstrued black and white view of CQB, because it is highly dependent on the situation, not just all loud banging and crashing through doorways.
Puddles and mud would be nice.
This would be very nice. A good example of this is GTA 4.
Lol, downvoting simply because you won't use it despite it clearly being useful? Genius.
To all of the people downvoting this....
Why don't you just unbind the safe combo if you don't want it?
A safe mode on the guns with the applicable safeties would be useful for when playing serious games, where something such as a ND would compromise an entire mission. Whether you choose to believe this or not, NDs to happen, it's not just a matter of "well duh, just don't click".
The statistics he provided regarding body armor are actually fairly accurate, whether you like it or not. It takes 5 minutes of research and an open mind to figure out what type of protection modern armor issued to even the lowest grunt offers. Take a look at this link, and try a little googling for yourself also.
One mistake and you can still easily be dead, body armor wouldn't drastically change that. A helmet can't always stop rifle rounds, especially within closer distances, and your front and rear rifle plates only cover 9.5" x 12.5", along with your side abdomen plates being 6" x 8". Not to mention, someone doing recon, or a mission where they don't anticipate trouble won't wear plates, due to the sheer weight. With Arma though, you can get shot anywhere, and you often do get shot everywhere, not just the center of your chest and your head from straight angles.
You don't go unconscious after being hit in your body armor, so laying unconscious would be a direct result of an improved wounding and medical system, which is probably going to be implemented in the future, not an armor system. Go play any server on Arma 3, or 2. On Arma 2, almost everyone uses ACE, which have the medical features you apparently don't like. Even if you don't like to play the ACE mod, join almost any other server and they have the revive script. So, simply saying you don't want to lay there unconscious is silly because that doesn't happen when you get hit by armor and, almost every server out there has a version of a revive script or medical system anyway.
You're taking the whole "simulation" of body armor to the nth degree, and simply being a bit ridiculous about it. Body armor does not need to be any more complex than defining how much of X, Y type of body armor can take, with a bit of randomness added in to account for plates simply failing, such as they do IRL. If you go in-game, and shoot at a wooden door, you'll notice it splinters, and eventually breaks. Body armor does not need to be any more complex than that in theory. That would most certainly not require an overhaul of the engine, that's a blatant exaggeration on your part.
The 'FunFactor' as you put it for the vast majority of Arma players (perhaps excluding the DayZ crowd because they're an entirely different beast, bless them) is the simulation and realism. That's why ACE is such a widely adopted modification. Although I would like to point out, that if you don't want to see body armor implemented in the game because it ruins your 'FunFactor' yet seemingly a large portion of the community does, maybe the Arma series simply isn't for you? Or maybe you should simply find a clan that doesn't utilize body armor, if this request became a reality, of course.
Saying that we only want to see body armor added without anything to balance it makes you seem really naive, or you're trying to paint us as idiots. I had assumed it was common sense to balance out a feature, just like if you ask for tanks...I shouldn't have to also mention how they should have APFSD rounds instead of just HE in order to take down other tanks. This same concept applies to body armor. Modern body armor still cannot stop very large rounds, or rounds with extremely capable tungsten core AP rounds, which are found in 7.62 NATO linked belts every few rounds. But, the majority of bullets employed on the battlefield among infantry, it can stop.
Armor can be balanced, easily. Just look to real life for examples.
Everything in Arma 3 is based upon reality, and on real life concepts and prototypes. Arma 3 isn't portraying Skynet. Even if by the mid 2030s bullet technology had advanced a great deal, do you really think body armor wouldn't keep up pace?
Modern body armor as I stated above can stop a myriad of rounds, including high and low quality ammunition, so your implication that it could only stop low quality ammo produced in some cave in Afghanistan is just silly.
P.S. I'm well aware the year Arma 3 takes place :)
What world do you live in where you think the Arma 3 dev team wouldn't already be able to tell where you got shot in the body? Do you think they are so incompetent that they set it so a shot anywhere does the same damage? Give me a break.
There have already been heavy hints to upgrading the wounding system. Ontop of that, implementing body armor would be as simple as getting the hitmarkers for your chest, side abdomen, and head, where your armor would take place, and figuring out how many of X type of bullet each type of armor can take...
It's not as if we're requesting an overhaul of the engine for a feature or something. Arma 3 is also a military simulator, it's sold under the simulation portion of Steam, so what's wrong with simulating even the simplest aspects of body armor? Especially when body armor now days is such a crucial part of modern combat equipment.
It's about time we get away from acting as if we are shooting at each other in the 20th century, and your opposition to such an important community suggestion of a feature because you think it's too hard is rather pathetic considering as I stated above, we're not requesting anything groundbreaking. I hope you also realize that this is a suggestion. Something we hope to see in the future, we're not necessarily saying "We want this in the next Alpha patch, prioritize it over optimization now!". Instead, it's wishful thinking, giving a suggestion for the final release or patches down the road.
I absolutely support this.
The fact that people are arguing that modern body armor can't stop large 7.62 rounds is ridiculous. It literally takes a few minutes of research to find out just how capable modern body armor is, with front, back, and side protection.
This isn't a game, you don't go flying back when you get hit either.
Please support this feature BIS, we have needed it for a long time, and please implement it properly, utilizing the different size plates, and side plates that cover the lower abdomen.
I can give a absolute shit ton of information on body armor if needed, for anyone thinking about posting another ticket about an armor feature or w/e.
I was just practicing some close quarters room clearing with a buddy of mine and he got shot twice through the roof. We enter, clear the first floor, hold at the stairs, and then we hear a plethora of automatic gunfire, only for me to look down at my buddy dead on the ground with arms or a gun poking through the ceiling.
Indeed, this would be really useful for CQB situations. Especially when you are playing on higher difficulties without any sort of crosshair. If you suddenly have to shoot down a long hallway, that split second to right click and find your sights to take a more precise shot can get you killed.
You wouldn't need a class, just an item that is a pair of bolt cutters.
May 9 2016
Breaching doors would also obviously stun the people inside a bit, thus making it another reason to breach instead of just open the door.
I have wanted better AMD optimization since I started playing Arma 2.
I have an AMD Phenom II X6 1050T that's over clocked to 3.8 ghz and a Radeon 6870 and I still get fair amounts of lag even with very moderate graphics settings. The game just simply isn't smooth for me and many others with similar hardware.
The sound values are way off also. I have to turn my sound up really, really high in order to hear footsteps next to me, or to hear ambient noises, yet the second I start shooting, or I get into a vehicle, the sound is so loud that I am forced to turn my general volume down, thus rendering my audio far too low to be really helpful.
To all the people saying suppressors can't make something quiet enough for stealth, you're just plain wrong.
When utilizing a suppressed weapon in a caliber that is inherently subsonic, such as a .45 handgun, with a good suppressor, it sounds about as loud as someone flicking a piece of paper.
Go ahead and try it. Grab a piece of paper, and flick it as hard as you can. It's pretty loud, but imagine if someone did that in the other side of your house...and just imagine, would you truly hear that, or care about it if you were doing something else like watching TV or browsing the internet?
The same principle applies when outdoors. If you are by the ocean, provided you're not directly next to someone, and you shoot a sentry in the back of the head or something, all AI within 200M shouldn't auto detect you.
EDIT: I just wanted to add, OPs idea of a James Bond stealth kill is not correct, but his general gripe with suppressors has some merit among A3's AI.
The M4 and M16 would be the equivalent of the AK-47 or Lee Enfield today. While you would still see them on the battlefield, they wouldn't be anyone's primary firearm.
You would more likely see weapons such as the H&K 416 or SCAR being used as the standard infantry rifle, as it takes many decades for a good rifle to be phased out. A perfect example of this is that the M16 was introduced in the 1960s to the US Military, and it is just now being phased out for the M4 in the Marine Corps.
In general though, the game isn't that far in the future, and weapon systems from 2013 would definitely still be around in the next 20 years.
Having a clacker for explosives would be very nice indeed.
This happens all of the time to me, in various circumstances.
I'm playing on regular difficulty with a friend, we climb up a hill to overview a simple mission I created where we have to destroy a chemical weapons box. There's a fireteam guarding the box and a fireteam patrolling around it. We're around 300 meters away with suppressors, and we begin to fire. We manage to kill maybe 3 or 4, when everyone goes prone, and instantly shoots us in very limited number of shots.
The same really accurate spotting and shooting applies when I do water missions and have to swim up on the coast. The AI just instantly spots me and suppresses me in the water until I need to swim out of their line of sight, and by then, the stealth element is compromised.
It's not hard to hard to climb over walls and etc, provided you're not carrying a giant rucksack full of equipment. It would be really useful if you could have a buddy boost you up onto a rooftop or use a ladder, preferably both, so that you can do things like crawl up onto buildings or nooks and crannies which could provide very useful, turning the tide of a battle in your favor.
The only example I could think of this would be from the movie Zero Dark Thirty where a sniper gets boosted onto a rooftop during the raid scene, and then his buddy hands him his rifle.
I had this same issue, except I did it a bit differently. I was in a lighthouse spiral staircase, and I pointed my gun up the stairs. Because the lighthouse is such a small space, I saw through the wall at certain angles simply because it's a small space, no leaning or anything was even required to see through.
This would be an outstanding feature to have. The immersion you'd get would be amazing when the game is all polished and purdy.
In a lot of missions in Arma 2 currently, you lose if you lose X % of your forces, you lose, the same applies towards the enemy. If one or multiple of your limbs are blown off, you are a casualty, but not a fatality, which means that you don't count towards your team losing a player and thus, you might complete your mission if you don't lose that extra person, so the don't count towards that percentage.
This would put great importance on medivacs, which is hardly ever used in Arma, otherwise, the person would sit there, with a leg blown off, waiting to die and be useless.
Just something, simple, so we can deal with situations where it would come in handy. Just as in Red Orchestra 2, slam the butt of the rifle at them, or jab a knife into their neck. A simple animation, like on Battlefield 3, but not quite as hollywood-ish, to portray a realistic take down would do the trick. Nothing special.
Voted up. I really hope BIS researches this and implements it properly. I've seen some videos where 5.56 can't penetrate car doors and etc in Arma 3 when even handgun rounds IRL can.
If this can be fixed it would add an entirely new dynamic to the way we play the game. You'll have to take into account cover vs concealment, which would be just plain awesome.
While most night vision currently is not adjustable, we're talking about the year 2035 here...so why not add it? At the very least, modern night vision adjusts to the brightness level so they don't white out, thus blinding you, and possibly breaking the night vision, if there are sudden influxes of bright light.
You don't need to compromise and always open away from the player. Just do what OP said and use an indicator. If it opens towards you, simply switch sides. Plus, there are standard building codes used IRL that dictate which way doors should open depending on whether or not it's indoors, outdoors and etc.
A 3D editor with the fluidity like Shaygman's MCC Sandbox with the way point adding functionality of RTE or the A2 editor would be soooo helpful.
Please implement this. Shooting from vehicles in all forms.
It is a widely taught and known technique that when inside a vehicle it is very effective to shoot through windows, and of course shoot through windows that are rolled down and etc, or the back of a pickup truck.
Regarding shooting through windows. It is widely taught that if you have a contact to your front, and you have a gun, you can very easily engage the target and start shooting through the window without much effect to the people inside other than temporary hearing damage I suppose.
Just an FYI, in red dot sights like the Trijicon Reflex Sight, which uses ambient light to brighten the dot, the dot is not very bright, and can be washed out in bright sunlight. The same applies for night time, when there is not much ambient light to keep the dot lit.
If they can make it so bubbles appear, adding scuba gear would be neat and thus oxygen levels would be really necessary, but in a re breather, I have my doubts on how necessary a gauge is, even in an MSO event. I mean, to be in the water for 8 hours, that's using the same re breather for a helluva long time.
On the other hand, if you are on an aircraft carrier or something, they have small oxygen tanks that are kept strapped to your waist, that give you 20 or so minutes of oxygen. Those would definitely need a gauge in my opinion.
I like this idea. It not only makes the helicopter more functional in general, but it also gives the co pilot more to do.
Please, a quick, moving switch is needed for those gritty CQB moments.
Just because you think it's not necessary doesn't mean others don't. It is actually some times hard to figure out what positions you're in if you're in if you use first person only.
I voted yes for this. This should definitely be an option to appear in your screen.
Sure they would.
If you have your rifle slung at your side with no hands on it, it would take longer to raise the weapon. It would take even longer if you had the rifle slung along a single shoulder, or across your back in a very casual manner. Plus if you had the option to carry or sling your rifle a few different ways, depending on the type of sling, there would be some slight variation in the Arma series, which would be very welcome, considering everyone looks like robots holding their rifles the same way when walking around in a group.
Not to mention, if you were holding a large MG such as a M240, and it was slung properly while jogging, you could experience less fatigue because your arms don't have to hold it up.
This is Arma we're talking about here, every small detail makes a difference.
I would really like to see proper sling mechanics implemented. Quickly dropping your weapon to grab your handgun, or simply slinging your rifle rather than holding it in your hands 24/7.
Unless you are carrying some extreme laods, generally speaking, you can jump forward and dive over a log, or something of that nature to get cover.
Yeah, you might be bruised at the end, or hurt like hell, but at least you're not dead from a bullet in the noggin.
This has always annoyed me.
Type: Public Alpha
Type: Public Alpha