Walking on moving decks

[Delta Hawk 1829]

For anybody who doesn't know what I mean by walking on decks I mean walking on the decks of moving vehicles, which typically would be a ship or naval vessel.  Obviously this could dramatically change the game, at least when it comes to naval warfare.  I don't think a lot of modders have been focused on making naval assets because they don't really serve a purpose, which I hope this doesn't give BIS the impression that we don't want naval assets.  Simply without this feature there's no point in making ships at least from a game play point of view.  To be honest I would be happy with just the feature because that'll pave the way for modders to make the naval assets themselves.

 

I suppose they're making an aircraft carrier, the USS Freedom for the jets DLC, which may give them an incentive to create this feature.  But seeing as the focus of the jet DLC is, of course jets, I don't think they will put much effort into the aircraft carrier much less its features.

 

What do you think we can do to get BIS to implement this feature?  Do you even think it's possible?  It seems vehicles already have an ability to land on moving objects so how difficult would it be to implement it for people?  It looks like BIS already has a full load of work with all of the DLCs so would they have time or would it be worth it to them create this feature?

 

What could happen with this feature?  Could we very well be at the beginning of a naval warfare revolution with this feature?  Sure, there's battleship games out there, but nothing that puts you on the deck of one in the middle of the action.  Would this feature expand on the ArmA player base and attract new customers to ArmA?

 

Sorry if it seems I'm beating the proverbial dead horse, but this is something I have a great interest and even an investment in.

[veles-zv 176]

I think that Large ships are better in support roles (base,artillery/ missile support) . I am fine with having none movable large ships as I dont think sea warfare with weapons that can fire 10km plus against other ships is fun or really worth the time to implement to any reasonable fidelity. plus the current arma maps are too small for such environments and I dont think anyone would be having fun driving such a large vessel. I think that small gunboats, hovercraft, landingships/ crafts and maybe even submarines of decent size / or corvettes such as this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanuchka-class_corvette would be acceptable. and doesnt roadlod let you walk on things already? I dont know how it works on moving objects but it would be cool to move around on a large landing ship firing at the beach you are invading. 

 

But again this is the limitations with Arma 3 hopefully arma 4 with the enfusion engine that apparently from what ive heard allows for almost totally open scripting which means that est 95% of the game is not hardcoded, and I can only pray that the new enfusion engine has parallel multithreading which allows all the cores to do any task the program needs. then we might see a strong possibility of having a real navy yet still somewhat arcady because I dont belive that anyone wants to be crew member out of 30 which has a single boring role.  

 

I do not think that it would attract many new customers as most "gamers" just want to pew pew without thought and hate the idea of learning or thinking. just look at what most people play, counter strike, battlefield, overwatch you get the idea... we are a niche player base even more segregated then others besides maybe gmod which is just cancer now... in arma we have people who play Life (which i despise, if you want to play gta play gta, arma was never made for that,) then you Dayz, wasteland, king of the hill. you get the idea, the people who play arma for the military gameplay (milsim, realism , just general combat) is not the only group sadly it is the majority and the most loyal thats all I know. 

 

[BadHabitz 235]

I'd like to see any feature added to the arsenal of mod creators.

 

I think large ships work better as static objects, but if they're able to move I just hope it would be realistic. Carriers barely move around, unless it's heavy seas. Smaller ships are always rocking to some degree. I've been a crew member of both. On a destroyer the non-wheeled chairs are tied to an object welded to the deck (usually the leg of a desk). On a carrier the chairs are untied and often have wheels.

[bloodwyn1756 130]

Is possible with a script, but not flawless of course.

[Callsign 128]

I think this is quite an important feature for expanding the game - not just for ships, but for helicopters, planes and trains too. However I don't think it's a huge priority - I don't think overall gameplay would drastically change - especially given we already have static ships (though no doubt they need work!).

 

I imagine the greatest impact would be on where scenarios are set, primarily in SP (starting on a ship or landing on one, take over the train, shoot from a helicopter, carrier operations/ landings etc.), which would add novelty to the what can at times be a static Arma experience, but I think it's more immersion, rather than game-changing.

A PvP battleship/destroyer game mode might be interesting, but I don't imagine people would want specific naval roles (radar operator etc.), but then again who knows.

 

[dragon01 902]

Don't get your hopes up. It'd be a nice feature, but I don't think we'll get that one until Enfusion. Maybe in ArmA4 we'll get a Navy DLC (mostly because after BIS is done with ArmA3 DLCs, it'll be about the only thing they'll have left to improve :) ), but that's far in the future. Static ships are just fine for me, they work well as bases and could be useful for setting up a boarding mission. ArmA isn't a game about naval combat, though, we don't even have a horizon (though we definitely should have, given the map sizes). 

[GBee2 68]

On 08/04/2017 at 10:56 AM, Callsign said:

A PvP battleship/destroyer game mode might be interesting, but I don't imagine people would want specific naval roles (radar operator etc.), but then again who knows.

 

 

Initially I'd be inclined to agree, but then we already have some less interesting roles in ground and air vehicles. The commander role in tanks and APCs is only slightly more interesting to most people than being a radar operator, but it's there in the game. A ship with gunners/weps officers, commander, helmsman and maybe a couple of ancillary roles like radar operator would probably be accessible enough for gameplay purposes.

 

On 08/04/2017 at 7:28 AM, veles-zv said:

I think that Large ships are better in support roles (base,artillery/ missile support) . I am fine with having none movable large ships as I don't think sea warfare with weapons that can fire 10km plus against other ships is fun or really worth the time to implement to any reasonable fidelity.

 

Well, the 'board' game battleships would seem to suggest an enduring interest in blowing up things you can't see with your own eyes ;) Using drones or other assets to locate/identify an enemy ship and then engaging it at range could make for interesting gameplay, this isn't all that dissimilar to what people are currently doing in-game with artillery which also has a range > 10km. Though I grant the appeal would be limited and personally I'd probably get bored of it quickly.

 

[dragon01 902]

Unless ArmA can be made to simulate a horizon, there can't be proper ship combat. It's still an infantry game at heart. Planes still can interact with infantry, despite their speed and altitude. Ships can not. They can't be a part of "combined arms" with anything but airplanes. The only thing they can do for infantry is providing a static artillery position, bases and aircraft launch platforms, for which static vessels would be perfectly sufficient.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Hence where you can check my posts about naval assets that brings light to what CAN be of use to an infantry based combined Arms title. But I'm afraid it's far too late for that boys, that boat has long sailed. (Pun not intended. XD)

[Delta Hawk 1829]

On 4/8/2017 at 1:28 AM, veles-zv said:

I think that Large ships are better in support roles (base,artillery/ missile support) . I am fine with having none movable large ships as I dont think sea warfare with weapons that can fire 10km plus against other ships is fun or really worth the time to implement to any reasonable fidelity. plus the current arma maps are too small for such environments and I dont think anyone would be having fun driving such a large vessel. I think that small gunboats, hovercraft, landingships/ crafts and maybe even submarines of decent size / or corvettes such as this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanuchka-class_corvette would be acceptable. and doesnt roadlod let you walk on things already? I dont know how it works on moving objects but it would be cool to move around on a large landing ship firing at the beach you are invading. 

 

But again this is the limitations with Arma 3 hopefully arma 4 with the enfusion engine that apparently from what ive heard allows for almost totally open scripting which means that est 95% of the game is not hardcoded, and I can only pray that the new enfusion engine has parallel multithreading which allows all the cores to do any task the program needs. then we might see a strong possibility of having a real navy yet still somewhat arcady because I dont belive that anyone wants to be crew member out of 30 which has a single boring role.  

 

I do not think that it would attract many new customers as most "gamers" just want to pew pew without thought and hate the idea of learning or thinking. just look at what most people play, counter strike, battlefield, overwatch you get the idea... we are a niche player base even more segregated then others besides maybe gmod which is just cancer now... in arma we have people who play Life (which i despise, if you want to play gta play gta, arma was never made for that,) then you Dayz, wasteland, king of the hill. you get the idea, the people who play arma for the military gameplay (milsim, realism , just general combat) is not the only group sadly it is the majority and the most loyal thats all I know. 

 

 

Valid points, but in reality even infantry operations are quite boring, especially specific roles, i.e. motorman and machine gunner.  It's only when you manipulate reality to adapt it to fast gameplay does it become interesting.  Same could be done with naval vessels.  You can adapt the gameplay to be interesting and exciting.  And people do like it.  Look at world of warships.  It's a successful game.  ArmA 3 is also set in 2035, which give some creative liberties in replacing redundant, boring tasks with automated systems.  It's possible but it requires people to think outside of the box when it comes to the gameplay.

 

But the roadway LOD doesn't allow you to walk on ships, much less boats, land vehicles and airplanes, while they're moving.

[dragon01 902]

The thing is, infantry operations do not need adjustments for "fast gameplay". That's not what ArmA is about. ArmA is about planning and tactics. Infantry operations can be tedious when setting up, but both the planning phase and the actual shootout are exciting in their own way. It's not a problem with slow gameplay.

 

I think that any attempt to bring ship to ship combat to ArmA will be a shoehorning, one way or another. It's just too different. Check out the old Fleet Command to see what proper naval gameplay would be really like. World of Warships is not only an arcadey multiplayer game that doesn't even pretend to be realistic, but a WWII game. Needless to say times have changed. How much? Let me tell you this: ship to ship combat doesn't happen anymore. When was the last time a proper warship duked it out with another proper warship? Ship to ship combat today is mostly pirates being pwned by frigates (or, on occasion, their quarry). Were it to happen, ships would fight at a distance of thousands of kilometers (Tomahawk's max range is 2500km, and at sea there's little reason to let the enemy get closer than that), firing missiles and railguns at each other and trying to get overwhelm each others' active point defense systems. The only vessels that ever get close to the enemy are submarines. The "proper" way of dealing with enemy ships today is using submarines and airplanes.

 

There are uses for ships in ArmA, but they don't need to move for that. They can be bases, artillery platforms, Zodiac launchers and the like. If anything, it'd be a gimmick for helo pilots to try to land on a moving ships (for either boarding or returning to base), or for jets to try to hit a moving target with bombs, or land on a moving carrier (which is a nontrivial skill). Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a functional destroyer in ArmA that would let me call in missile or railgun strikes, but with the ranges involved, it'd be OK if it just stayed in one place.

[Delta Hawk 1829]

Real life infantry combat is 99% boredom and walking, and 1% excitement.  Even hard core mil sims like ArmA throws out 98% of the boredom.  They can make ship combat work without making it seem too arcadey.  Though ship combat wasn't actually the focus of this post.

 

The last real ship to ship combat was back in the early 90s I believe when an American frigate and an Iranian? frigate exchanged missiles.  But there's ways of adjusting the gameplay to make it exciting, just like they do with the infantry whether or not you believe it.

 

You seem very resistant to the idea of ship to ship combat, much less implementing a "walking on decks" feature, whether it's trains, airplanes or ships.  Is there a reason?  If it doesn't affect infantry combat anymore than jets or artillery why would it hurt?  Some enjoy air to air combat.  Why not have ship to ship combat?

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Why is it when someone mentions Naval combat, everyone tries to find the best way to prove aircraft carrier strike groups and submarines have a place in Arma? I didn't want to comment much more on this, I believe I've said my fair share in the past, however look at War Thunder for example. In contrast to World of Warships, it focuses on patrol boats. There's a big reason for that, and the reason is quite similar to why they would also fit well in Arma. Not to mention, if your talking about walking on decks, the best use for this would be logistics, as far as ships go.

[Strike_NOR 898]

I remember walking on decks in battlefield 1942. You could run for the AA guns when being attacked, hop out and repair the hull, board enemy ships etc. It was really cool. The game had a core mechanic for walking on moving vehicles. In battlefield 2 they removed that possibility. Thing is, it was very glitchy. You constantly would hear sounds of being crushed, and the player operating the vehicle would see the infantry "lagging" several meters behind their actual position. So on small ships, they appeared to be hanging behind the vessel.

 

I must honestly say that while it would be cool to be able to walk on moving decks, it would probably result in random deaths all the time. Heck, after many years of ArmA I'm scared to death of stairs, ladders and even rocks. How many times have I gotten stuck in a stair and launched into sudden death, or tried for the 100th time to enter a ladder only to fall 30 meters, or glitched inside a rock. And you would like to see this movement system on a moving ship? It'll be a ghost ship in no time :D

[dragon01 902]

8 hours ago, darksidesixofficial said:

In contrast to World of Warships, it focuses on patrol boats.

In other words, the predecessor of the kind of speedboats that are in game right now. Speedboats and RHIBs, riverine patrol boats (think 'Nam) are of course Zodiacs all have their place, but they're so small that the actual utility of being able to walk on their decks would be minimal. Instead of making things unrealistic for the sake of making them exciting, it simply cherry-picks the exciting moments and the kind of operations that are intense in comparison.

 

The point is, we don't need large, moving warships. The ability to walk on static decks is just fine for ArmA, at least. 

12 hours ago, Delta Hawk said:

Real life infantry combat is 99% boredom and walking, and 1% excitement.  Even hard core mil sims like ArmA throws out 98% of the boredom. 

They cut it out by skipping it, or giving players a means of transportation which is usually far more restricted than ArmA would have you believe (like helos. Most grunts don't get to ride them very often). If you tried playing on a realistically sized map, you'd have to walk just as much as real soldiers do (or, more likely, get a car or a helo). What ArmA does throw out is infantry life, when you walk around on patrol just for the sake or walking (or so it seems to you), never meeting the enemy, get assigned to police call the parking lot, sit behind the duty desk at the barracks or stand post. ArmA simply cuts to the moment when things get interesting. 

 

I'm not even saying real ship to ship combat is boring, I'm saying that it doesn't happen anymore. That Iranian frigate was hit by one Harpoon from a ship, most of the damage was done by aircraft. If you want ship-based gameplay, you need to go into the "bigger picture" like Dangerous Waters or Fleet Command. Ships today don't often go up against each other, a far more common scenario is ship vs. aircraft.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

2 hours ago, dragon01 said:

In other words, the predecessor of the kind of speedboats that are in game right now. Speedboats and RHIBs, riverine patrol boats (think 'Nam) are of course Zodiacs all have their place, but they're so small that the actual utility of being able to walk on their decks would be minimal. Instead of making things unrealistic for the sake of making them exciting, it simply cherry-picks the exciting moments and the kind of operations that are intense in comparison.

 

The point is, we don't need large, moving warships. The ability to walk on static decks is just fine for ArmA, at least. 

They cut it out by skipping it, or giving players a means of transportation which is usually far more restricted than ArmA would have you believe (like helos. Most grunts don't get to ride them very often). If you tried playing on a realistically sized map, you'd have to walk just as much as real soldiers do (or, more likely, get a car or a helo). What ArmA does throw out is infantry life, when you walk around on patrol just for the sake or walking (or so it seems to you), never meeting the enemy, get assigned to police call the parking lot, sit behind the duty desk at the barracks or stand post. ArmA simply cuts to the moment when things get interesting. 

 

I'm not even saying real ship to ship combat is boring, I'm saying that it doesn't happen anymore. That Iranian frigate was hit by one Harpoon from a ship, most of the damage was done by aircraft. If you want ship-based gameplay, you need to go into the "bigger picture" like Dangerous Waters or Fleet Command. Ships today don't often go up against each other, a far more common scenario is ship vs. aircraft.

No. Those barely classify as patrol boats, those are more like fast attack craft. I'm talking about REAL patrol boats. The ones 2-4 times the size of the Speedboat we have. I reckon you haven't seen my videos using the ASDG MkvSoc as a demonstration. There isn't even a deck to walk around on the Vanilla boats. Though in the demonstrations, I've proved that the specific size, logistics, and combat capability of naval assets can be well designed by BIS, and work seamlessly with all the other assets.

[Delta Hawk 1829]

3 hours ago, dragon01 said:

I'm not even saying real ship to ship combat is boring, I'm saying that it doesn't happen anymore. That Iranian frigate was hit by one Harpoon from a ship, most of the damage was done by aircraft. If you want ship-based gameplay, you need to go into the "bigger picture" like Dangerous Waters or Fleet Command. Ships today don't often go up against each other, a far more common scenario is ship vs. aircraft.

 

That's a mute point, don't you think?  When was the last time there was a real air to air dog fight, or US fighting Russia or even Iran...or even a real tank vs tank battle?  It's not fair you're using that as a point against ship combat when just about everything else in ArmA goes against what you're basing your point on.  That's the beauty of video games, you can make stuff up and adapt the gameplay to have a balance between realism and arcadieness.

 

They can also cut out a lot of the redundancy in ship life.  The newest war ship the USS Zumwalt has a crew half the size of a normal warship because a lot of systems are automated.  So you could imagine in 2035 it wouldn't be difficult to have a decent size cruiser manned by just just 20, with less than 6 being essential to general quarter operations for gameplay purposes.  In fact, I'd love to make a small futuristic missile cruiser.  That would be sweet, but pointless with out a "walk on decks" feature.

 

I remember years ago back in OFP people were arguing against jets and helicopters because it distracted from the infantry gameplay.  Now jets and helicopters play a bigger role in infantry operations.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Full Logistics demonstration.

 

Basic example of physics doing it's awesome thing. 

 

 

Even Ariel vehicle transport. 

 

 

 Vehicle transport with boats. 

 

 

Advanced vehicle transport with boats. (Excuse the DnB)

 

[dragon01 902]

1 hour ago, Delta Hawk said:

That's a mute point, don't you think?  When was the last time there was a real air to air dog fight, or US fighting Russia or even Iran...or even a real tank vs tank battle?  It's not fair you're using that as a point against ship combat when just about everything else in ArmA goes against what you're basing your point on.  That's the beauty of video games, you can make stuff up and adapt the gameplay to have a balance between realism and arcadieness.

Hardly "mute" (maybe "moot" is what you meant?). Anyway, tank warfare happened during the Gulf War, when the US steamrolled Saddam's forces, and also recently in Ukraine. Air to air combat also happened back when the US fought Iran. Ships, on the other hand, probably wouldn't fight each other directly even if an US vs. Russia conflict arose.

Quote

They can also cut out a lot of the redundancy in ship life.  The newest war ship the USS Zumwalt has a crew half the size of a normal warship because a lot of systems are automated.  So you could imagine in 2035 it wouldn't be difficult to have a decent size cruiser manned by just just 20, with less than 6 being essential to general quarter operations for gameplay purposes.  In fact, I'd love to make a small futuristic missile cruiser.  That would be sweet, but pointless with out a "walk on decks" feature.

 

I remember years ago back in OFP people were arguing against jets and helicopters because it distracted from the infantry gameplay.  Now jets and helicopters play a bigger role in infantry operations.

Jets and especially helicopters have always played a role in infantry operations. Ships do not. MkV SOC is about the biggest you can get. What would be the purpose of a missile cruiser in a combined arms mission? It could fire missiles at things, but it could do it without being able to move, as well. Big ships can't even come close to shore. What would this "essential crew" do? You need a driver (helmsman), a gunner for each weapon and maybe an observer. With automated point defense that's a crew of 4 or 5, depending on the ship's armament. IRL, you can barely crew an oceangoing sailboat with this. 

 

The only thing that ships can bring into ArmA is logistics. And I might add that it's not huge cruisers and destroyers, but rather small boats and landing craft. The large landing craft would benefit from walking on decks, but I think that realistically, the amount of effort required is not worth it.

[Delta Hawk 1829]

2 hours ago, dragon01 said:

Hardly "mute" (maybe "moot" is what you meant?). Anyway, tank warfare happened during the Gulf War, when the US steamrolled Saddam's forces, and also recently in Ukraine. Air to air combat also happened back when the US fought Iran. Ships, on the other hand, probably wouldn't fight each other directly even if an US vs. Russia conflict arose.

 

Yes, I meant moot.  But my counter point still stands.  The last ship to ship combat was around the time of Desert Storm, which is also the last time there was a real air to air dog fight and a real tank fight, so saying it doesn't happen often anymore and therefore it shouldn't be included in ArmA is a moot point at best, a fallacy at worst.  Do you not see this?

 

And too be sure you're saying if the two countries with the biggest navies, including ships which provide the only reasonable means of shipping heavy and large quantities of equipment like tanks overseas, probably wouldn't fight each other directly?

 

2 hours ago, dragon01 said:

With automated point defense that's a crew of 4 or 5, depending on the ship's armament. IRL, you can barely crew an oceangoing sailboat with this.

 

In real life a helicopter needs a crew of 3-5, yet whenever we play arma 98% it's just one player.  Sure, you can grab an ai and say he's the co-pilot, but they absolutely do nothing.  And human players in gunner seats are halfway worthless when you consider everything else the gunners actually do in real life so that's a moot point also.  In fact often I would crew a tank all by myself in multiplayer games.  Also nothing says that a mission designer can't include AI in seats to make it look like real life.

 

2 hours ago, dragon01 said:

The only thing that ships can bring into ArmA is logistics. And I might add that it's not huge cruisers and destroyers, but rather small boats and landing craft. The large landing craft would benefit from walking on decks, but I think that realistically, the amount of effort required is not worth it.

 

So really your only concrete point is it probably wouldn't be worth it to BIS to develop naval assets, much less a "walk on decks" feature simply because it wouldn't be utilized as often as other feature?

 

The real issue is implementing a "walk of decks" feature would require serious modification of the VR engine.  Very few games have a "walk on decks" feature.  Just looking at Ark you can see how ambitious a feature like that is.

[dragon01 902]

39 minutes ago, Delta Hawk said:

Yes, I meant moot.  But my counter point still stands.  The last ship to ship combat was around the time of Desert Storm, which is also the last time there was a real air to air dog fight and a real tank fight, so saying it doesn't happen often anymore and therefore it shouldn't be included in ArmA is a moot point at best, a fallacy at worst.  Do you not see this?

One missile to an already doomed ship is not "combat". If we're thinking of the same frigate, then it was sunk by aircraft, the missile that came from another ship was a small contribution compared to missiles and bombs from A-6s. Tank combat during Desert Storm was, on the other hand, quite intense, if often one sided. Same for air to air combat (not actual dogfights, they weren't exactly going at each other with guns, IIRC). Even disregarding enormous ranges naval combat tends to take place at (you simply can't do this on an ArmA-sized map, even 100x100km, without looking very silly), aircraft carrying anti-ship missiles are far more important than launching such missiles from ships themselves.

Quote

And too be sure you're saying if the two countries with the biggest navies, including ships which provide the only reasonable means of shipping heavy and large quantities of equipment like tanks overseas, probably wouldn't fight each other directly?

Yes. Both navies include aircraft carriers, submarines, not to mention a lot of land-based naval aviation. Why should they risk their ships? No, if the US and Russia were to duke it out at sea, it'd be ships vs. aircraft, subs vs. ASW aircraft and subs vs. ships. Offensive weapons on ships would be far more likely to be used against land targets.

Quote

In real life a helicopter needs a crew of 3-5, 

No it doesn't. Most helos can be easily flown by a single person. Having a copilot is for redundancy (as it is in ArmA). Door gunners aren't essential to flying the helo, they just man the weapons (and you're free to leave them on the ground if you need two more seats for grunts more than you need the guns). Also note that when it is the case, ArmA does simulate these crew positions. Gunships are the only exception, they do need a gunner to perform their mission, but it's still a crew of 2 not 3. They can be manned either by players or AI. On the other hand, a large motor vessel can't be sailed singlehandedly for any appreciable period of time.

[Delta Hawk 1829]

@dragon01  I kind of feel like we're butting heads on the topic of whether or not BIS should create futuristic Naval assets but that's not really the premise of the question I originally ask, which was would you like a "walking on decks" feature. 

 

This feature could have a lot of applications in the game.  For example, you could walk around in large aircrafts like the Blackfish as they fly, or someone could use this feature to make WWII battleships, or duda123 could use this feature to walk around on trains in his Advance Train Mod, or SixTen could use it to walk around on his 18th century ships, or a Star Wars or Halo mod using it for their space ships.  Imagine playing a WWII mod being able to walk around a B-17 while it's flying in air and manning the different .50 cals as the crew dies from German planes strafing it.  Or jumping from a building onto a truck and shooting the driver through the roof like an action movie.  This feature would also expand the ability to carry boxes.  You could drop an ammo box in the back of a truck and carry it without fighting with attach to commands.

 

  I understand your feelings toward modern day naval stuff, but regardless would you not like that feature so others could expand what ArmA is capable of? 

[DieselJC 196]

I'd love to see that implemented..the RHS MKV has issues walking on it..as does the Burnes MK10 and LCAC....most of the time you get injured trying to walk on them..why why why BI didnt include  landing craft is beyond me..well thats a different story..but yes anything that would increase the immersion I'm all for it.

 

 

Diesel

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

You can walk on the MkvSoc as long as it's stationary.

[lumnuon 295]

17 hours ago, Delta Hawk said:

@dragon01  I kind of feel like we're butting heads on the topic of whether or not BIS should create futuristic Naval assets but that's not really the premise of the question I originally ask, which was would you like a "walking on decks" feature. 

 

This feature could have a lot of applications in the game.  For example, you could walk around in large aircrafts like the Blackfish as they fly, or someone could use this feature to make WWII battleships, or duda123 could use this feature to walk around on trains in his Advance Train Mod, or SixTen could use it to walk around on his 18th century ships, or a Star Wars or Halo mod using it for their space ships.  Imagine playing a WWII mod being able to walk around a B-17 while it's flying in air and manning the different .50 cals as the crew dies from German planes strafing it.  Or jumping from a building onto a truck and shooting the driver through the roof like an action movie.  This feature would also expand the ability to carry boxes.  You could drop an ammo box in the back of a truck and carry it without fighting with attach to commands.

 

  I understand your feelings toward modern day naval stuff, but regardless would you not like that feature so others could expand what ArmA is capable of? 

 

You nailed it. But what is even more important to me than the walking on ships feature (although it would be incredibly useful to have) is fixing the parachute animations. As it is you can´t use units properly above 50m over the ground (a pretty big issue for our OPTRE frigate) because as soon as you exit an aircraft for example you will be stuck in the freefall animation for a few seconds until the game finally understands that you are not falling but in fact standing in the hangar of the frigate. I would think that that could be fixed fairly easily but I might be wrong (and it is a whole new discussion).