Development Blog & Reveals

err.. sadly i didn't try GC version but from what i read i can assume that current animations system works same as @smk = one modifer key, while rest is more or less the same as arma 2. and i assume that to run in tactical pace you press ctrl.

all i can say: GREAT NEWS! this is how it should be and i would FREAKING LOVE to have these controlls, even tho i use Alt as modifer while i play with @smk. ( freelook is on mouse button )

BIS take my money NOW!!!

EDIT: but if for some reason you will decide to change it ( please don't ) leave an option to be able to play with classic controls

Edited August 19, 2012 by n7snk

If I recall correctly, the modifiers at GC were as follows.

ctrl+w/s to switch stance increments up/down

hold shift to tactilol paec

there was a modifier too that allowed switching from tactical pace to slow walk for controlled, silent movement.

ctrl+somekeysaroundwasd for urban prone, last stand, and different types of lean. Some of these are in flux, I was told, and may or may not be in the final version of the game depending on playable alpha feedback/cost-benefit issues.

Edit: I have to add, I was at GC and played the demo for a short while. The new controls in general are smooth, but take a little bit of getting used to: you notice that I can´t completely recall anymore what did what. I also learned from the devs that they have multiple control schemes in the pipeline, and will test which one works best with the new animation system and for the players. The system used at GC was basically vanilla Arma2 + movement modifiers for Infantry.

If I recall correctly, the modifiers at GC were as follows.

ctrl+w/s to switch stance increments up/down

hold shift to tactilol paec

there was a modifier too that allowed switching from tactical pace to slow walk for controlled, silent movement.

ctrl+somekeysaroundwasd for urban prone, last stand, and different types of lean. Some of these are in flux, I was told, and may or may not be in the final version of the game depending on playable alpha feedback/cost-benefit issues.

Edit: I have to add, I was at GC and played the demo for a short while. The new controls in general are smooth, but take a little bit of getting used to: you notice that I can´t completely recall anymore what did what. I also learned from the devs that they have multiple control schemes in the pipeline, and will test which one works best with the new animation system and for the players. The system used at GC was basically vanilla Arma2 + movement modifiers for Infantry.

if zxc is still here then everything is good. i assume that shift once is change of walk/run. if so - perfect.

I am with the OFP CAMP when it comes to stance change, really you just do not need 3 freakin keys to go from whatever stance to whatever stance you want to

(Currently using only Z and X to do all the shit you guys takes 3 to do BTW, YES, you can set the control to be just that. I also cannot be bother to use SMK mod for that very reason as well.)

If there is any suggestions I can give, make it so that going from high crouch to low crouch using stance change key instead of forward and backward keys, makes more sense that way.

I have been using stance toggle keys since forever - Ctrl for toggling crouch and X for toggling prone. Two keys are more than enough, IMO.

I'll also mention that I have reveal key set to TAB (which also does cycle targets). I don't want to report a target every time I'm right clicking to zoom in, especially with AI. Reason being that sometimes I may want to review and change the AIs behavior before revealing, to avoid undesired surprises :p

I'm still waiting on Pure's low-down of GC so I can sum it up and update the damn features thread.

I initally had planned to come again on sunday but I think I did not properly measure up the results of my party on saturday... :D

But nonetheless there are some really interesting things for us! :) Writing at the moment, might be finished in the evening

Cool, I'll have something to read when I get home from work :D

Type faster...

If this is unchanged, than true. There is a good CIT ticket why and how (almost?) all movement speeds need to be reduced.

I agree with your general sentiments in the rest of the post, but every time someone posts "slow down / reduce speeds" in ARMA 3 my rage builds :mad:

I think 3 button mouse is obsolete by any standards right now. Mouse wheel was not a standard from the get go, anybody remembers a true 3 button or even 2 button mouse? :cool:

The one I'm using right now! :D

WTF has this discussion turned into? It has been thus for more than a decade: WSAD + very classic/standard/time-tested SHIFT for walk, Z, X, C for Prone, Crouch, Stand up, Q/E for Lean + OFP's classic ALT for free-look, and suddenly, it is not enough and people want to introduce redundant complexity into the game? WTF

Redundant complexity sounds very common when some long-timers -- in fairness, not others -- come up with ideas...

This is probably a bit of an odd question, but does tactical pace still apply (that is, does your character move at the same speed) if you go to optics in the GC build?

After watching a few videos and paying attention to the interviews, I have gotten the feel that Arma 3 is a very important release for Bohemia Interactive, more so than most people realize.

Its not just an new iteration of the Arma series and the evolving of the RV engine with some modern features bolted on.

BI seem to have really studied the concept from the ground up, taking in account the whole design, the main goals, a more realistic approach to available resources and paying attention more what is really important for the players.

They seem to have restructured the whole organization of the project and their approach has visibly matured.

If Arma 1 was rushed and Arma 2 was more like Arma 1.5, Arma 3 comes out more like a really new game.

What in my opinion has happened was that because the development of Arma 3 has been on going, along with the supervision of other projects (such as TKOH and CC:GM), the presentation of the ongoing process has not been perfectly organized and executed because of limitations in team structure and budget. In other words, BI's approach for Arma 3 has been surprisingly intelligent but the nature of their PR was not well organized to really give them justice.

Not that they have not been trying.

They have passionate development blogs, interviews, videos and interract with the community in the most friendly and informative manner.

The problem is that all these views into the development of the game have been somewhat chaotic.

We get the blog updated whenever, developers respond in random and information is leaked out by accident as if they are trying to tease the community on purpose. Certainly, there has been cases of BI-sunctioned trolling but it seems that is mostly because the same people are running around like crazy, developing the game, presenting it through official channels and monitoring the gamer's responses as best as they can, but not in a fluid, controlled manner.

Arma 3 does not appear to be Arma 2.5, a new island and a few features thrown in the RV engine that should have been there for a while (either because other games have it or players have been requesting it).

It may have started like this, but I see that it has quickly evolved to a new gaming platform.

Physics will free up the engine to do things that were impossible before not just make nice smoke effects or have cars handle a bit better. Character movements are being investigated through gameplay study. The story, campaign and default missions are in constant change, now seem to be based upon analyzing what Arma gameplay means not not just semi-randomly showcasing game features with gritty story cliches. Third-party involvement is now really thought out, provinding an extensive base platform to build upon the core game and engines and explore in detail elements that budget and time did not let be included in the release.

The development of Arma 3 looks to be very fluid with features not only constantly being evaluted and tested but also studied as core mechanics not as "this feature would be nice, can we add it?" but in regards to what's important to the core gameplay experience and to the potential of the platform for further development.

If only the presentation of the development has been more tight and clear, the audience wouldn't really misunderstand the fluid process and would trust and communicate with the developers in a more constructive manner.

For example, in that last interview, Ivan Buchta mentioned a gameplay-oriented approach to the campaign missions that seemed to be fresh and more mature which built upon many other mentions of the campaign by BI developers before, but such information has not been presented clearly in a more official way, for example the blog and most of the intented audience has probably missed it. Or many other important details that were quickly mentioned in other videos that should have been advertising highlights.

Another example is the Alpha build which was planned for this summer but has been delayed for technical reasons. Even though development of the game is continuing non-stop, the alpha is very much needed to get player information regarding core gameplay on which further development will be based upon. That can cause (re)evaluations that can further restructure the development.

But in short, I wanted to say that from what I've gathered from information here and there, I have grown to further trust BI.

They seem to be handling the development very intelligently but unfortunately their somewhat chaotic approach to PR has, even with their best of intentions, not clearly conveyed that feeling.

This is probably a bit of an odd question, but does tactical pace still apply (that is, does your character move at the same speed) if you go to optics in the GC build?

No and unlikely to change due to the nature of the design.

Don't like the idea about W being default for tactical jog. Because most of the time during a mission you're not in close combat. This isn't CounterStrike where you start 50m away from your enemy and have to expect contact 5 secounds after Mission start. Tactical Jog is supposed to be used in CQB only, since it's a bit slower than normal jog and uses up more stamina. Don't want to see the newbies in my squad "tactical jog" trough the landscape.

Lowered weapon while normal jog is fine IMO. One is unable to fire a that movement pace anyways and to newer players having your weapon lowered signals that pretty intuitive. If one has a problem with the weapon lowering/rising with small steps, one can simply double-tap LCtrl to lower the weapon in general (or use tactical jog if the situation demands the weapon to be ready at all the times).

Speaking of which - I think it will also be great if tactical jog had the low-ready weapon posturing (about 20 degrees lower like we are discussing in the related thread) - since moving at that speed indoors with a raised weapon like that may prove problematic (unless BIS allows the weapon to clip through walls) with raising and firing it when player hits LMB (this should be really fast to cause any "lag")

I agree, it would be great.

Too bad Smooki isn't already prototyping something like that... or is he?? We may never know. :confused:

Too bad Smooki isn't already prototyping something like that... or is he?? We may never know. :confused:

Great, now we have to wait till next E3 to find out! :eek:

Too bad Smooki isn't already prototyping something like that... or is he?? We may never know. :confused:

LKpnZ7cwWuY

I initally had planned to come again on sunday but I think I did not properly measure up the results of my party on saturday... :D

But nonetheless there are some really interesting things for us! :) Writing at the moment, might be finished in the evening

Not wanting to "sound" like an annoying brat but please please do hurry up my friend! :)

Too bad Smooki isn't already prototyping something like that... or is he?? We may never know. :confused:

They're going to clone him... Bastards!!!

Redundant complexity sounds very common when some long-timers -- in fairness, not others -- come up with ideas...

That depending on what you defined as redundant, for me , its that extra key for stance changing as none of the fps I play need to use that extra key to change from standing to crouch and to prone.(talking about reinventing the wheels)

@Smookie & Vespa,

1. Sprint
   
   
2. Jog
   
   
3. TactPace
   
   
4. Walk
   
   

That depending on what you defined as redundant, for me , its that extra key for stance changing as none of the fps I play need to use that extra key to change from standing to crouch and to prone.(talking about reinventing the wheels)

I think if I get this right is the kind of system I would like to see as well, one button for going up a position and one for going down for moving through the stances.

As for speed control, deosn't bother me as I use an analogue controler for moving, but possibly speed is regulated by the stance itself.

Mousewheel is no rocket science and we have already considered it last year. But as with everything, there are pros and cons (you named a big one there) and all have to be taken into account.

Edited August 21, 2012 by Smookie