- User Since
- Mar 10 2013, 10:05 AM (444 w, 4 d)
May 10 2016
I think the turning speed increase is partially due to the fact that it uses a fenestron tail rotor design, but I could be wrong. Either way, completely wrong area to be asking for a refund. Not to mention the fact that Day Z isn't even an available mod for arma 3 (that i know of, due to day Z standalone and all. I mean wasteland is still here but whatever) besides the alphas been out for what, a week, maybe two? have a little patience, damn. The mil sim servers will shape up once theres... yknow enough gear to actually get a mission with depth going. as it is the best you can really do are alterations on the showcase missions.
May 9 2016
initially there were three reasons I thought it was a bug (two of which are still present, one is not). These are:
- I thought the rounds were landing at the initial point and not the area you free-looked to. Turns out this one was wrong so disregard it
- while in free-look the sight has a tendency to jump aggressively. that is to say instead of moving smoothly as with simply aiming down the sights, aiming with freelook normally snaps in intervals (the first comments video displays this pretty well. point being aiming while freelooking doesn't always move smoothly)
3)it seemed odd that they would allow it to snap back into zero (more or less) perfectly to take up two rapid shots rather than leave that to user mouse input. Though that's just how freelook has always worked I guess...
either way I do believe this is a feature by design now, though the fact that freelooking while sighted in moves as roughly as it does should still be addressed.
okay so I went back and played arma 2 for a bit (for funsies) and I noticed that this happens in that game too, which leads me to believe it may just be an included feature to either allow a preplanned distribution of two shots (to assault two guard posts or something I guess), or to allow you to aim without moving your model (for example while avoiding detection in high prone so you don't make the ridiculous hovering in a circle animation). I'll leave the ticket up just in case it is in fact a glitch, but im starting to think it may just be an intentional feature.
tOBdavian: I think I'm (re)watching that video right now actually XD. Killroy's one where beagle Killroy and Dslyecxi start in diving suits (until they blow up a group of clothing models)? I know he brought up a running vault which would just be a new (faster) animation for the current vault to be played while sprinting (imagine bf3s vault animation, if you've seen it) basically so you don't make a strange stop to vault while sprinting. That's a slightly different feature though, but both would be very nice.
Darn I was going to request this myself XD. Although instead of waist high, I'd define it as chest high vault. I can't go into the scripting of how it would be implemented in A3, but in case the manager/dev team comes through, I'd say the default control would be intuitive as left ctrl + V (that is to say, modify + vault, to do a sort of high vault)
just to add more detail i'll drop an image or two of the real life action:
EDIT: (also note that though the picture resources all show the soldier scaling over a wall to get to the other side, in game this would also allow the player to reach higher areas. for example climbing over/on top of the cube barriers strewn about the map)
I agree 100%. dealing with init codes is a massive pain in the nect. to that end I'd probably think that having the inventory edit GUI button near the init line would make more sense (since that's where editing veterans will most likely go first) that switches between graphical and code based editing views (obviously script changes would have to show up graphically when switched to visual mode and vice versa). But easing the strain of mission editors would be very nice.
As a general note, I'd like to add that this has use in water based exfiltration scenarios. Since helicopters currently have no drop ladder/line into the craft, the only option is to take waterborne allies by lowering yourself close to the ocean, which often results in a fraction of the helicopter becoming submerged. (this may be a bug in itself) During my attempts at such a maneuver the submergence of a fraction of the landing skids caused the character to tunnel vision and slightly gray out, while plunging the helicopter into the ocean killing the lot.
EDIT: As you can likely see there is an ABSOLUTE TON of content in this post. I responded to a good amount of what had happened since I was last here and tried adding to the discussion as best I could, or at least clarify some information that was brought up.
" There is no shame in surrender if you have fought well and further bloodshed would achieve nothing, in War not everyone wins and not everyone dies."
I'm sorry, what? I take it you've never met a ranger before. They'd probably kick your dick and hang you from a tree if you said that to them. Their creed in and of itself states near the end "Readily will I display the intestinal fortitude required to fight on to the Ranger objective and complete the mission though I be the lone survivor." Rangers don't fail, they die securing victory, and those are values that are supposed to be passed down to most if not all other soldiers. The kind of men who would find no shame in surrender aren't the men who make it to the positions this game's battlefield showcases. That's not really here nor there just to say that surrender is the farthest from realistic situation in battle.
Past that first bit, I'm here to address some things I left open in the past and to reply to some other ongoing comments (while slightly altering and adding to my stance on the subject) I'll add that it's come to my attention that all army recruits are required to take hand to hand combat training in basic still (BCT, Red Phase, Week 2) (though I only know of rifle work and unarmed hand to hand, idk if knife techniques specifically are covered.) " To my knowledge, the only people who did any in depth study or real practical training were special forces." Not true as previously stated. Obviously even (in fact, specifically) MP's go through extended hand to hand combat training.
"Pilot crew have folders or even swiss knifes."
also not entirely true, Most blackhawk pilots I've come across keep a fixed blade Ontario knife company knife with them (the ASEK survival knife system, in case you wanted to look into it at all)
"Silent kill?Are you kidding me?The knife wound are bloody.Strag neck will be way effective in this case."
Dunno how being bloody equates to sound but whatever. The #1 method of knife takedowns I've learned thus far is similar in concept to a well placed sniper shot. Cover the victims mouth to dampen any vocalization and gain leverage over the targeted area, while simultaneously plunging the blade into the spinal column, severing neural connection to the body and thus resulting in immediate body system shutdown and an instant death (one that is both silent due to the lack of neural connection for any real reaction and causes the body to simply fall limply to the floor).
"your first thought should not be 'I'm going to knife this guy' but 'damn now I
have to use the knife!'"
Too true. Along these lines I'd like to point to the people saying "if you get in that close you're doing it wrong". Can't tell you how many times I've followed my team's patrol into a town only to walk up to a guy who hid inside a house rather than running away from an LAV (admittedly the smart choice). That's one of those oh shit moments (though given the context its a shoot him oh shit moment, but similar things can happen where knives are the best immediate solution (IE sneaking through a town where a guy just passes a corner into you and you don't want to take down one guy with a bullet and bring 10 more to your location) (<and yes that is possible, similar to the other neural breaking takedown I mentioned earlier, you push your off hand into his mouth/face area to drive him into a wall and stab through the neck tissue from the side to get the same results. Its more dangerous since he's now facing you, but you should likely sweep his arm past you body to move inside his ability to strike or grab you anyway)
"I'm gonna reiterate, killing someone with a knife is not quiet, and not quick. Almost no one dies from a single stab wound, much less a fighting soldier,unless it's a perfect giant ass Ka-Bar to the kidney."
or the spine as it breaks neural connection to the body...
"If you run out of ammo you should run or surrender. We do not need idiots sprinting at you to bash your face in."
I'll just leave that surrender thing to the creed snippet I posted earlier. Falling back is feasible but surrender isn't, though as much as it sucks to say, sometimes escape isn't possible, and it'd really suck to be SOL in a game because some people whined and cried about how a game that is nothing like COD is still nothing like COD even though it shares an item (fun fact, despite having M4's in both games I'd wager this game isn't more like COD for it, so why the hell do people think adding a knife that's usable will be carried out in an arcade like manner?) I'll kind of parody your argument by saying "if you're cornered with no ammo you should punch your way out or die trying".
"Battlefield 3 is OP, in BF3 when you knife somebody its like if you are a CQC and a knife expert and the enemy never hold back against you, but BF3 is an example for well made knifing animations"
See I can't help but half agree with you there, but simply because BF3 took the glossy animation to such an extent that they slowed the process down to a ridiculous level. the guys there basically tap the target on the shoulder and say "Hi" before plunging a knife into the dude, I'd be more apt to say the inclusion of take downs would have to make real practical sense and be done in a quick forceful jerk to which the enemy doesn't have time to repond, rather than a slow "look how sexy these animations are" sort of thing.
"Knives and melee combat should be for stealth only.Ie you need to take a guard or sentry out "silently" - or at least quieter than shooting a suppressed weapon. Cover mouth and knife attack, or cover mouth and strangle, with assistance of a teammember. Stealth options are sorely lacking."
Bingo. Knifes used in open firefights is a stupid idea (one that due to the thankfully potent weapons this game offers would almost assuredly lead to death). As stated before, if you run low on ammo, you really should fall back or call on a squad ammo bearer to get some more, but the thing they seem to be failing to realize is the fact that falling back isn't always a practical option and in a worst case scenario people might be needing a means of defense (also take note that in this situation it would be more suicidal to run through enemy fire, try to take one of their weapons, hope it has ammo, equip it, line up sights, and then fire) Don't get me wrong I can understand why people don't want arcade knifing, but that's just not feasible with the bullet physics that are already laid out, and it would really suck to tell someone "you were just too bad, now accept your death like a good boy" than give them a way to fight out a situation. But primarily yes, knifes would ideally serve the purpose of being the tool of an extremely skilled player, in few situations, that are both flawlessly planned, and flawlessly executed, or a last ditch resort when you either die or die trying.
"bayonets are not used anymore, i think they stopped making weapons with bayonets after the 80 or 90"
Airquote. I think M4's still have the bayonet lug on their front sight post/gas block, and I think a lot of derivative systems do as well. Same with AKM's and their derivatives. They aren't generally utilized as an equipped component to the weapon, but they are still manufactured, fielded, and used as a standalone item as a tool, weapon, or whatever else they may be seen fit for.
"If they are going to go as far as to add something like Krav Maga then they may as well turn it into a fighting game and slap street fighter on the title."
That is by far an exaggeration, and a straw man argument.
"Unless they utilize keyboard keys to add other types of hitting the opponent melee would purely be done with a mouse or controller, either of which only have so many buttons to program, thus limiting the number of "moves" the player could do using them."
Why not? we have a number row, F1-F12, and a num pad, not to mention ctrl, alt, and shift derivatives of each of those (shift wouldn't work most likely, due to the movement speed thing, but you see where I'm going, we have an abundance of hotkeys at our disposal). Assign techniques and there you go. Get into a fist fight and the first guy to have backup shoot the opponent wins. Or achieve victory by increased skill in the selection and utilization of techniques (ie skill in CQC). Seems fair to me in the interest of realism and whatnot.
"They also cannot make certain "moves" as it would give the player without the gun complete control of the situation. If I were to run at you and do a "move" to knock your gun away and leave you with only your fist to fight as well. You just went from a huge upper hand to having a level playing field all by me doing some sort of melee attack that you may not have had time to do anything about."
Not seeing the problem there. The disarmee failed to subdue the disarmer before they succeeded. That's called combat, thank you very much.
"There are only so many buttons that a player can use without leaving their normal WASD keys and mouse."
6 that I can manage without moving my hand, 12 if you include ctrl, 18 if you include ctrl and alt. That's enough for immediate action, and when things go to shit and become a brawl, you probably won't need to be moving all that much anyway, so you can reposition your hand to get to the rest.
"Look at Day-Z's hatchet and crowbar. Both of them are melee weapons that have one range of motion to them achieved by clicking the fire button"
They also need to be reloaded and shot. That's because they were based on an engine model that only supported firearms and not hand to hand weapons. In the development stage here, the engine can still be modified to accept a more vivid spectrum of movements, we're not working with the same system arma 2 modders were left with. That level of work would have been too much post release, but pre launch it's an entirely possible addition/alteration.
"Aside from all of the control side of things players don't often come close to other players."
sorry but I don't think "often" is good enough to remove a function that can still be utilized. That's like saying players don't often have to rely on their handguns because they'll likely die or get ammo for the rifle, so let's cut that out. Or how about removing flashlights because you don't often operate at night and when you do, you have night vision? Not needing something often isn't a reason to remove or ignore a feature, needing something at all is a reason to add a feature.
"The Samurai were considered some of the most lethal of all of the swordsmen of their time, yet they still fell to the new technology of gunpowder.The bladed weapons were basically useless because their enemies had flintlock rifles and were very capable of taking down the advancing Samurai before they even had a chance to fight back."
The lasting tactics of sword based infantry also led to the constant deaths of rifleman to firearms and even blade wielding indian guerrillas back in america's older days because they still stayed in large clusters as squads. Falling to firearms isn't caused solely by the weapon, it's caused by not reacting appropriately, which is what happened to the samurai because they'd never needed to face a gun before. They could manage to charge head on against blades prior, and that led to their deaths. But tactics have changed to accomodate blades and squads in a theater of war showcasing firearms. That example is a non sequitur, I'm afraid.
"We are talking about a combat scenario where the personnel fighting are wearing combat gear, plate carries, and magazines. The idea of a punch, or even a knife stab, to be an effective means of fighting an enemy while both parties are wearing this gear is null"
None of that covers the face and only partially the neck. Wearing plate carriers on ones chest wouldn't mitigate a punch between the eyes or to the chin, nor would it stop a blade to the victim's neck.
"THEN AGAIN, because not EVERY soldier its a CQC expert, it should be used as a module or just as an unit-specific feature"
Maybe not an expert but each soldier is trained for basic combatives. That said you bring up an interesting perspective that could go to add a unit type that is designed for CQC work and would know more sophisticated take downs (and MP for example would know a few more submission moves than your typical 11B in my experience)
"Movement speed is not gradual, so players would run around each other like machines that do not require momentum to accelerate or decelerate.
The other is,
Players can interact with objects or other players and not even be in proper proximity or can even look in the other direction of where they are interacting."
very true that these could be some severe problems to any sort of close combat system's implementation, But I think that adds more as a reason to fix those problems sooner than delay this features addition.
"However I have had a moment before where I was locked into a long engagement inside a building with my squad in multiplayer me and one other ended up having a last stand there while we waited for support, we ended up getting overrun after running out of ammo, would have been nice to ambush them with melee as they came up at us."
If you don't mind, I'll call on this as a good example of what I was getting at with the fact that retreat isn't always feasible, Thanks for that.
Demongornot, your video is blocked based on copyright issues in the US at least, if that's of any concern. The title fills me in on where you're generally going with that, though.
Anywho, I know there's an entirely ridiculous amount of text to read through there, and I'm afraid I can't TL;DR it because I touched on quite a few things throughout. But if you care to than go right ahead. It's mostly responses to comment throughout this issue with some propositions for refining the concept, if that makes you more or less apt to want to go through it.
EDIT2: I forgot to mention that I think It would be an interesting inclusion (provided the melee system is accepted) that blades retain their utility function, IE an m9 bayonet and sheath's use as a wire clipper for getting through wire fences, etc etc.
thought I might as well come back again. Everyone saying "you're doing it wrong" or "you shouldn't be out of ammo" makes me laugh. The point isn't to be out of ammo and have a last means to defend yourself (though that's relatively viable too), it's to take an enemy down without having to put out the sound level of a jackhammer and alert everyone in the surrounding area to your presence. Getting up close and personal isn't "doing it wrong" in fact its a large part of modern army activity, particularly in groups that need to stealthily grab a High value target a la the 75th ranger rgt, etc. Personally, I think BF3 did melee very well. I don't care what kind of He-man you think you are, if your trachea gets split, you're already halfway in the grave. Either way, we'll see what happens, but cut out his cod shaming shit and learn that silence is a tactical benefit (ps suppressors aren't silent)
@Jesse 1988 "Please, don't include any combat knife / melee weapons. What next? Some XP per melee kill? No! Bad idea, also casual gamer's idea. Arma games aren't meant to be played like COD. You should reconsider NOT buying another Arma game if you want instant action..."
Kindly go pick up a copy of "The Ultimate Guide to U.S. Army Combat: Skills, Tactics, and Techniques" edited by Jay McCullough. It's essentially a mish mash of US army field manuals, and part 1 of the book is dedicated to the army's hand to hand combat discipline. Its fairly well detailed, and even (funny enough) goes into a section based on knife combat (both against unarmed/knife wielding enemies, and riflemen). You're absolutely correct in saying that arma games aren't meant to be played like cod (mostly because they're simulators not even games per se), but take-downs and hand to hand combat, as it turns out, isn't a fantasy subject (granted I believe it's trained in AIT now instead of basic, but whatever). And I dare say that a soldier who allows himself to die simply because he ran out of ammo is far less realistic than one who at least makes an attempt to subdue an enemy and take control of their weapon.
Now let me be practical here and say as much as I want an unarmed combat system, there isn't likely to be one, simply because arma is a simulator. As I said, there's an entire discipline behind army hand to hand combat (make that two if you actually wanted to keep opfor and bluefor true to their nations practices). We are MUCH too far into the development process to go adding a system like that, and anything they could add at this time would either be too much (a la CoD instant knifing) or too litte (ie rambo style knife swings that take ~ 5 hits to get a kill, instead of recognizing that the army knife combat style has an instantly lethal front engagement move [a lower chest stab, as it were]). Ultimately to match up to the scale of realism in arma, a technique based system owuld likely have to be implemented which actually allows unarmed combat to be...well be something other than one sided. I'm talking blocks, parrys, jabs, stabs, swipes, joint/limb control, the whole 9 yards, and again that's just way too much to throw in this late into development. Regardless, I'd still like to see it @_@
EDIT: I'd actually like to take this chance to preach a tad. This'll be unrelated to the issue, so if you aren't interested, just stop here. I'll make it short, but essentially I'm just extremely sick of these elitist punks who come in with a negative attitude and turn people down with their slippery slope fallacies about "anything other than what was in arma 2 will make this COD" and even worse who trash people for simply enjoying another game series. I kinda like COD myself (not really the newer ones though) but in a different way. I also like puzzle games, RPGs, RTS games, you name it, up to hardcore military sims (a la Arma and OFP). Imagine that, mankind isn't so 1 dimensional that you can only have 1 set of tastes or 1 way about doing anything. Yknow when I first came into arma, I was amazed because there was a small, welcoming, kind community, who although being serious about milsim, weren't a bunch of stuck up elitist cunts, and that really made me feel that by and large, the arma community would be more mature than this slanderous crap. In fact I haven't even seen it up until just now after arma 3 was released in the alpha stage. I don't know where this influx of "im better than you" people came from, and I'm not turning you away, but could we all just kindly cut the shit and be polite and respectful like the community was in times of old?
"there should be no re-centering or resetting to the previous level. In real life your gun do rise up when firing repeatedly you hold/pull your gun down so the rifle doesnt rotate and rise up. its same with arma 3, you have to drag your mouse downwards as what you would do to your gun in real life."
AlperOzsahin, he's not referring to to recoil adding up after prolonged fire, he's referring to the fact that your weapon doesn't return downward due to gravity after firing has finished. Furthermore, I don't know what kind of shooting you've done in real life, but if you actively pull your weapon down, you're doing it like an idiot. For the record I have fired both semi and fully automatic firearms (i'll provide a list at the end for some insight into my experience), their muzzles do rise, but they are also affected by the downward force of gravity, giving them an upward rise and a slight downward "reset" (for lack of a better term). On fully automatic fire, this can accumulate to a bit of a rise I suppose, after repeated upward rise and downward gravity, but generally it isn't much (certainly not as much as we currently have, which increases your aiming angle by about 30 degrees) On that note, even prolonged fire should have a distinct upward and downward motion. Gravity doesn't just stop when you pull the trigger, and the next round doesn't fire instantly, there is a period between shots during which gravity pulls your muzzle down again, though maybe not entirely to the starting position, the muzzle still drops from the recoil's apex. Also, Once firing has completed, your weapon will return to the natural position you had your arms at (assuming you don't jerk the weapon downward as you described, or raise your arms along with the weapons recoil.) you do however firmly hold the weapon, which in general stops it from rising so much as kicking backwards into your body.
TL;DR: Recoil isn't the end all be all. Your grip stops a good portion of rise from happening, and gravity affects the barrel, even between shots during prolonged automatic fire. Currently, gravity does not affect the barrel and it only has a straight vertical rise, and holds in the new position even after firing has finished.
IRL Weapons experience: Remmington M870 wingmaster, Mossberg 500SPX, Franchi SPAS-12, some...dinky break barrel .410 bore shotgun..., S&W 19, Taurus Judge, S&W 5906, H&K USP (.45), FN Five-seveN,, Glock 23, Some non-colt 1911 clone, Norinco SKS, M1 Garand, AR-15 (semi auto), Steyr AUG SA3, H&K MP5 (full auto), Thompson M1A1 (full auto), FN SCAR (Mk16mod0) (full auto), Kriss Super V (semi), Ingram Mac-10 (full auto)
(provided in detail just to show I know a bit of what I'm talking about)
(for those skeptical and wondering how I managed to fire some of the weapons in the civvy spectrum as I haven't enlisted just yet, as well as for those interested in doing the same, Look into a place called machine guns vegas. The others I just own :\)
Following my overall post I'll pick out some specific quotes to respond to
@Raikoh "I played arma2 a lot and weapon feeling was bad, and i like it better in arma3. The game is much harder to aim and takes a lot a pratice compare to others games including arma2. The only way to shot something full auto is to be proned or the target to be at 10meters. Combat is very good and nice the way it is now, but we don't have a lot a weapon so maybe it will change after the release."
refer to my first post, you're still talking about recoil amount, this ticket is about the weight of the weapon not coming into effect AFTER the weapon has finished firing. I will agree that A2 had pretty bad recoil management because it just wasn't there. Weapons certainly kick harder than they do in arma 2 (i can say having actually fired almost the full roster of weapons in that game irl). arma 3 has better recoil AMOUNT to be sure (if not going a tad overboard in some cases), but again the problem is the weapons become weightless AFTER you're done firing.
@house "If shooting becomes easier then it is now, gameplay will suffer as firefights become who seen who first competitions. "
in other words, like a real fire fight? imagine that, a simulator that has realism...hmm.... this is why teamwork, remaining undetected, and taking proper cover is essential to survival, firefights ARE who first competitions.
@ViiK "Learn to pull down your mouse? Problem solved. 0_o"
you also seem to be referring to recoil amount and not the weapon after resting. Even if you are, then the problem still remains that it fractures the engines realism in that you have to fight to keep a weapon up while its resting, not the other way around (imagine taking a 4 foot long 2 x 4 and shouldering it. point it about 50 degrees upwards and relax your arms. correct me if im wrong, but that wood is coming down, and the only thing stopping it are you arms pushing UP. weapons are the same way.) as put in my first post, you can assume for the initial zero (+/- a few degrees) to be the arms resting point to which the weapon will fall, unless the user inputs (with the mouse) to say otherwise.
The fact that arma is harder to aim than other games is inconsequential.(I hate having to say this but) arma is a simulator, not a game. Weapons aren't balanced by artificial means such as arbitrarily higher recoil/more difficult handling capabilities, they are structured to handle as close to real as possible based on actual ballistic data and forces applied to the weapons in question (or the weapon series they're based around). as said by seemingly everyone who has experience firing actual firearms (myself included) after firing a round the weapon's weight brings it back down to zero (more or less). In fact you more have to exert force to keep the weapon FROM dropping, not TO make it drop.
just to be clear here, this fix would not affect full auto fire. fully automatic fire would still be difficult to compensate for because the upward force of the recoil would be constantly applied, disallowing gravitational force to take its effect anyway. the problem here is that once you're done firing, the weapons are virtually weightless in that they don't pull down on their own in any way shape or form.
perhaps a more appropriate way to structure this would be to allow the weapon to gradually drop while not firing based on the weapons weight *until* the mouse is moved (that is to say gravity doesn't affect the weapon against recoil forces, since the recoil amount already accounts for the muzzle weight of the weapon. Once the weapon is done firing, the gravitational force pulls the weapon down as though the muscles in the arm are relaxed. however, once the mouse is used, it can be assumed the user is "tensing their muscles", so that gravitational force is nulled as a consequence)
No loss of consciousness
No medecine (epinephrine, morphine, bandage)
No stamina and weight influence("Run, Forrest, Run!")
There are weather options for wind, so I'd be surprised if they didn't implement an effect on bullet physics by release. Though that seems like more of a beta/post beta issue than an alpha build test.
Loss of conciousness would be interesting, but again, not an alpha build feature.
Well there are FAKs which are essentially the bandages, plus boxes with some form of medical item, so again, I'd be surprised if they didn't implement more wound detail in future versions. I mean hell, we have those already and the game isn't populated with the full item list (as far as i know, anyway)
Stamina and weight? I can positively say that as your stamina runs out you move more slowly, your weapon is less stable etc as per previous titles, but i haven't been able to test whether or not actual load makes a difference (though I have heard tell that it does, in fact)
No bipods sadly, but there is at least one, probably multiple claims on that feature alone ( http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=432 )
If i'm reading the suggestion right, that would only make a difference in instances where you're wounded. If you had harder breathing in general in different stances, that would still become confusing as the distinction between low/tired and high/normal would become blurred. The problem here is that technology as it is can't impart impulses on our musculature. We can take in visual and audio queues and that's about it. A hud indicator acts as a replacement for your ability to feel your muscular changes.
Now then, I will say this: I believe HUD options should be client side, not server side (when moving up, not down that is). What i mean by this is anyone should be able to join a casual server etc and switch their HUD elements/3rd person off to immerse themselves deeper, but strict milsim servers should be able to enforce the high restriction they have. essentially, servers should only be able to set a minimum limit to HUD elements, but not an exact/maximum value. Things tend to be less black and white this way, and most (if not all) people will be able to cater their settings to their tastes. In general, If you agree with that statement, I'll refer you to another report somebody made on the topic so you can support that claim (should you agree with it, of course).
I wonder if the mods are just keeping this item open because they're getting a good laugh from the comments?
"About 15% of enlists in the US Army are women. Even 15% of admirals, generals and 15% of all officers are women too. As of 2013 women are allowed in direct combat roles. As of right now women are planned to be integrated into all combat units including the Air Force, Army, Navy, Marines, Special Forces, Army Rangers and Navy SEALs by year 2016."
Mind linking me to that info, I'd heard they were reconsidering the whole women can't be on battlefield thing, but I never heard any results from it. Furthermore, in my own personal research into US army SF and the 75th ranger regiment, they still list females as ineligible for service. Doesn't quite affect me because I'm a male, but I still take an interest in the whole situation.
I think SNT michael is correct (though I don't have the source anymore to link to or anything, I've heard the same). BI *should* be working out a more fleshed out method to grenade throws that are more realistic, from what I can tell they're just implemented to make sure explosive effects don't cause a fatal crash or do any ridiculous physics engine glitches. A better animation should be implemented by beta (that's just my perspective on the timing anyway)
I do agree though, it's much too fast. For all the weaponry I actually have gotten my hands on, throwing grenades remains an area I don't have any experience in, but i'll take the marine and army man's word for it (for now)
EDIT: I forgot to touch on the GRG thing. That's...hmm... that's not a particularly bad idea, actually. At first it seems pretty clumsy, but imagining it, it works pretty well. Although I'd probably have to say G-R-mb1 may work a tad better (since mb1 tends to be a more natural fire key) to that degree, g would be ready/replace grenade, R (with grenade out) would be remove safeties and pull pin (without releasing the spoon), mb1 down would begin ye old throw power slider, and mb1 up would queue the actual throw itself. That said I could imagine some creativity in making mb1 a normal throw and mb2 say an underhand toss/roll around corners, etc.
I've had the same issue with every weapon thus far (including the pistol). The scenario goes like this: 1)have weapon out 2) enter water 3) exit water 4) weapon won't fire.
as has been listed here, there are several work arounds to this problem (ie dropping/re-equipping, switching weapons, and personally using the F key, which i believe is default firing mode, also made the weapon operable again.) however, due to the nature of the work arounds, I do believe this is a bug and not a feature. I just say this to clarify on the nature of this and related issues and that it likely isn't an intentional occurrence
I've also reported this a little bit ago. Just in case part of the team comes in looking for a repeatable action, low-crouch, jog forward, vault (while still jogging) seemingly always drops to prone before performing the vault.
(im starting to look at the usernames here and I'm realizing the active community here is pretty small XD)
Anyway, I support this very much. After learning real life tactics and shooting techniques its just pounded into my head to do such things in certain scenarios (such things meaning use walls, cleft rocks, tables, etc to further stabilize your firing position). After the torrent of added controlability in this game (ie incremental stances, step leaning....lowering you pistol [somehow is new]...) I was a little to sad they hadn't added environmental stabilizing. Then again that'd likely be a lot of work for them to get working now, but i'd still love to see it. Considering the amount of ACE II features that people clamor for, I'm beginning to wonder why they didn't just bring the ACE team in during initial development and basically just have A3's ace mod features integral to the game from the start. (i mean why not, unless im mistaken they're working with dean "rocket" hall with Day Z. yknow unless they did in fact work with ACE team in the development stage with this...)
I've got to agree with iambobnrobn. A game shouldn't rely on mods to work to its utmost. The developer should make a completely finished and polished product (which by the amount of time BI is taking, I'm fairly certain they will do) and moders should make it better or add onto the already finished product.
I can very much agree with that, if anything server side restrictions should cut up not down (that is to say a server should reserve the right to maintain a realism setting by disabling HUD elements, but not force players to have HUD elements displayed if they don't want them to be). For the record i did vote up your suggestion, and im pretty sad to see it isn't more widely supported. IMO client side HUD options should be respected (though again, as said before only to upping your own personal difficulty, not lowering it below server standards)
As for the last statements, I never really agreed with the stance of pro players versus beginners, that is entirely where the ridiculous game slander (ie CoD faggot, dayz kiddies) comes from, and aside from that has almost uniformly lead to the destitution of game communities (look at MOBAs for example. Damn near everyone acts like a self entitled prick to each other because they feel like some kind of "pro".) To that end, I've seen more hacking, Tking, and general abuse because of this divide. The so called pro's act like cunts to beginners rather than helping them out and some leave, some rise to the occasion, and others decide to bite back and enjoy tormenting those very people that did the "owning". To be clear, I'm not saying this against you, I'm simply making a statement about the whole pro mentality in general as I've observed it. I think a great example would be BF2 vs BF3 (before this blows anybody's minds, I hail from a wide range of gaming tastes, including arcade shooters and mil-sim) but my experience in BF2 was great. kind open and helpful communities that made the experience enjoyable in it's entirety. what happened in bf3? the pros moved in and acted like a prick to everyone and generally made that games community a pile of garbage. I'd very much like to avoid that happening in arma, as it were. Thus far I've had a very good experience with the community with more or less, good, kind, militaristic guys. I'm going to virtually go insane if some "pro" gets uppity for getting a glancing shot on me at some point and decides to T-bag like a first rate idiot.
anyway, I began to ramble there a tad. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being cautious about implementations, it was mostly the "This game is a War-Simulator and not a FPS like COD and BF3, so every little bit of information is making it less realistic." statement that was grinding my gears (because it initially sounded like unabashed elitism) ultimately I hope they do implement the stance indicator, since it would be an invaluable asset to my strange night ops fetish, but also that they make it a client side option. In general I don't think forcing a players options down is ever a good idea.
EDIT: also, thank you for linking to your claim. If you haven't got a problem with it, whenever I see a "client side GUI/HUD" conversation come up, I'll refer them to your page so you can get some more support on that.
Hello Helperman. Typically I'd agree with you, but as I said above the issue here is that in a real world scenario, you're aware of what sort of stance you're in because you can feel and respond to the strain of your own muscular structure. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no implementation to simulate that sensation in the player, now is there? While it's true that you may be able to remember what keys you last pressed, your claim of authenticity is flawed because the game cannot represent muscular force feedback. A HUD indicator is simply a sort of synesthesia response used to report that lost information to the user. But just the same as you I've dealt with this since the days of old, but in a quite different way. In every iteration, there will be some people who claim an increased feedback response system to be "dumbing down" the game and use slanderous terms such as "CoD-kiddie" and pose straw man black and white arguments that any sort of change will revert the system at large into a blundering mess. But as I've said before, I do support your claim of the feature being optional, because (and apparently I'm in the minority here, but-) I don't feel as though my tastes should be forcibly implemented on others. Oh well, we'll see where BI lands on this. I've already suggested my version of such a tool, and if they add it, great. If not, I have no doubts I'll be able to adjust to the situation.
edit: just to really drive the point home, I'll add an in game example, using a no AI scenario match (that is to say all human players). During a nighttime mission, you may need to move and condense yourself properly without being able to use nightvision (due to scenario limits), or flashlights (to avoid detection). In this situation you are in complete darkness and unable to guage your position based on visualization of the environment around you. IRL, you could take any position asked of you blind-folded in a dark room because you can feel where gravity is pulling and how your body is aligned. In the game however, you cannot feel yourself, and as such are rendered unable to adequately respond (outside of gambling, making a convoluted stance reset and moving to the desired position, OR keeping tabs on your position) but the fact remains that you lose the ability to be self aware based on the nature of simply being yourself. To this end, a stance indicator would add to the authenticity, not reduce it.
I agree completely with this (actually i got here after searching to make sure i didn't throw out a repeat post). In an attempt to possibly draw a quick solution I'd like to propose how I see this working. essentially you'd have (as moronius suggested) a ghost recon style stance indicator with silhouettes for standing, crouch and prone positions. Past this, the indicator can be modified with a down arrow under the stance icon signifying low modified stances (low prone, low crouch, and low standing) and an up arrow above the stance to signify high stance modifications. In addition to this, a similar arrow to the left or right of the character will show you step-lean position. I would match this icons color to the existing white on black of the current HUD and simply add the element to the current hud (either in the top left corner above the firing mode indicator, or on the left edge between the firing mode indicator and sight-in range). movement speed and incremental leans are obvious enough in the first person due to dramatic changes in view angle, weapon position, sound assets used, and other such factors, and therefore would not be included in the icon (unless perhaps they felt it necessary, in which case as recommended by kid18120, green/yellow/orange/red movement speed could be implemented along with arc arrows in the corner of the proposed icon designating incremental leaning)
... that's just my suggestion though :/
EDIT: I forgot to mention that despite that i'd like to have the stance indicator (since i can't feel which muscles my characters using to hold himself ;p) I do support the idea of this being an optional function to allow the machinima / realism crowd to do their thing the way they'd like as well.