Is it too much to ask for smooth controls?

[-Gews- 7443]

and last thing its annoying to me when people call a rifle an assault rifle, is my tikka a sniper rifle because it has a scope? no i use it for hunting/long range target shooting. its what your doing with the rifle that makes it what it is. sry

 

 

I disagree, "assault rifle" has a clearly-defined definition, it is a valid term.

Since the assault weapons ban many pro-gun people have disliked the term because it "sounds bad". They want to present their guns in a positive light so they don't get banned again. I've even seen many people say their guns aren't weapons at all, just "tools" for self-defence or hunting, which is a bunch of laughably euphemistic bullshit. The definition of "weapon" doesn't include "weapons are used for bad purposes only". Most guns are weapons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

However your Colt isn't an assault rifle because it's not select-fire, I'm assuming. As well the term "assault weapon" is political nonsense, as opposed to "assault rifle".

[louist 163]

Do you think that the clunky controls are an issue introduced along with the game's engine?

I personally always thought that,they would not pay any attention on tweaking it.

But if they do work on it,do you think that there is a chance of improvment on the controls,or is it something that you can't do much about?

I can't give you any specifics, not having enough experience with engines, and with no access to RV. But intuition and what little experience I do have lead me to believe that small refinements and tweaks could be made. Beyond that, I think we run into the hard limitations of the engine itself. It's for that reason we won't see satisfying melee combat, for instance. But, if the devs have enough love and time, we may see a better handling of animations, an improvement to the functionality of the hotbar, and such.

Things can be worked on an improved, just not to the point where the game plays radically smoother.

[louist 163]

If you want Dayz with good controls, play Arma 3 Breaking point. I prefer it over the old mod and SA just based off the movements alone.

I've been playing it myself, and it is a smoother, sleaker experience. They also have found a nice balance between zombies who are slow, but still pose a threat.

But it's also a different game in how it plays, and I don't see it replacing DayZ. There's enough room for both in my opinion.

[Damnyourdeadman 1045]

I can't give you any specifics, not having enough experience with engines, and with no access to RV. But intuition and what little experience I do have lead me to believe that small refinements and tweaks could be made. Beyond that, I think we run into the hard limitations of the engine itself. It's for that reason we won't see satisfying melee combat, for instance. But, if the devs have enough love and time, we may see a better handling of animations, an improvement to the functionality of the hotbar, and such.

Things can be worked on an improved, just not to the point where the game plays radically smoother.

There is a reason Dean said that the engine has limitations.

If only Bohemia listened to his pleas and implemented a brand new smooth engine for the game's needs

all of that would be avoided.

[optimumbox 8]

I absolutely agree with you. I think dayz will eventually surpass this mod down the road. I think this mod is more for the arma fans that have a little bit more experience in the battlefield. Most players are experienced and the combat can be very unforgiving for a new comer. 

I've been playing it myself, and it is a smoother, sleaker experience. They also have found a nice balance between zombies who are slow, but still pose a threat.

But it's also a different game in how it plays, and I don't see it replacing DayZ. There's enough room for both in my opinion.

[louist 163]

I disagree, "assault rifle" has a clearly-defined definition, it is a valid term.

Since the assault weapons ban many pro-gun people have disliked the term because it "sounds bad". They want to present their guns in a positive light so they don't get banned again. I've even seen many people say their guns aren't weapons at all, just "tools" for self-defence or hunting, which is a bunch of laughably euphemistic bullshit. The definition of "weapon" doesn't include "weapons are used for bad purposes only". Most guns are weapons.

However your Colt isn't an assault rifle because it's not select-fire, I'm assuming. As well the term "assault weapon" is political nonsense, as opposed to "assault rifle".

"Assault weapon," taken literally, just means anything used to assault someone. That includes everything from rocks to novelty Eiffel Tower shaped drink containers.

That said, as a non-American, I find much of their gun-control debate to be a farce.

[finnpalm 312]

ALPHA!

 

lol couldnt resist.

 

Strawman...try running up a hill in SA. tell me then you understand what were saying.

 

i think you think they designed the controls like this to make the game more realistic.

 

basically they should fix the negative mouse accell and smooth things out, and then introduce realism.

 

I dont think porting over the code from TOH or Arma 2 is a great idea. Its bohemia...the movement and weapons, etc are all so well done in arma 3. why the fuck not use it and mod it.

as opposed to trying to reinvent the wheel.

 

Are you referring to the fact that at steep angles you start walking? Because have you tried running up a really steep incline with a backpack and a rifle in your hands?

 

No, I don't think, or know, if they made the controls as they are to be more realistic. I just think they are.

 

I worry about you, Strawman. I really do.

There is little realism in the controls, or rather, in how those controls respond to your actions, and how your character responds to them in turn. Character control in SA (and in the RV engine in general) is the definition of clunky. There is no fluidity between movements or individual animations, and each animation is bookended with a pause that makes most actions in SA look like it's performed by a robot.

Selecting items in the hot bar is often unresponsive, and as someone else has pointed out, despite slow delays, these selections queue, meaning if your character doesn't seem to be pulling out his pistol after two or three seconds (not uncommon), and you hit the key again, he may very well pull it out, and immediately holster it. There no way for you, as a player, to know whether your input has even registered.

Then there is the inability to cancel animations/actions, which can be dangerous and frustrating. Given the ponderousness of both registering the key press for a custom animation (say, pointing) and the animation itself, you're stuck spending a few seconds waiting for the process to end before you can do anything else.

And then there's negative acceleration...

This isn't about turning dayZ into a twitch shooter, it's about having the controls hew a little closer to reality. SA, as it is, exists in the opposite extreme as a twitch shooter, and is no better for it.

 

I never disagreed with animations and weapon switching (although bringing your rifle from your back into a ready position does take a couple of seconds, which is why you carry it in your hands against your chest if you expect a hostile encounter. Different levels of readiness).

 

However, if you have your gun up and you're aiming along the sights and you turn, the gun will sway a bit from it's own weight. This is the reason you try to avoid turning more than only a few degrees with your gun up, and if you need to make a larger turn like 90 degrees or so, you lower your weapon to get it's weight closer to your center, then turn and raise your gun in one fluid motion.

 

i disagree with the  An assault rifle is fairly heavy and moving and shooting is difficult. statement. first off my colt is about 7-8 pounds, thats fairly light and moving around with it is easy if your alone as you dont have to focus on muzzle control which no one does in dayz or any game for that matter. and most of the time when you shoot at someone in the city your around 50-100 yards out and you can move and shoot at that range(you wont get 2 in groups or hit everyshot, specially since most people that play go full auto with m4s half the time) but its fairly well doable irl without training, if you shoot fairly regularly it shouldnt be much of a problem since your  rifle is locked into your shoulder and you can keep your upper body from shaking around when moving, in this game you cant. and last thing its annoying to me when people call a rifle an assault rifle, is my tikka a sniper rifle because it has a scope? no i use it for hunting/long range target shooting. its what your doing with the rifle that makes it what it is. sry

 

See my point above about how to move with a weapon in a ready position.

Edited February 24, 2014 by Strawman

[louist 163]

Are you referring to the fact that at steep angles you start walking? Because have you tried running up a really steep incline with a backpack and a rifle in your hands?

No, I don't think, or know, if they made the controls as they are to be more realistic. I just think they are.

I never disagreed with animations and weapon switching (although bringing your rifle from your back into a ready position does take a couple of seconds, which is why you carry it in your hands against your chest if you expect a hostile encounter. Different levels of readiness).

However, if you have your gun up and you're aiming along the sights and you turn, the gun will sway a bit from it's own weight. This is the reason you try to avoid turning more than only a few degrees with your gun up, and if you need to make a larger turn like 90 degrees or so, you lower your weapon to get it's weight closer to your center, then turn and raise your gun in one fluid motion.

See my point above about how to move with a weapon in a ready position.

I see your point, in regards to turning, and I don't argue against that system, merely how it is implemented. As it stands, the faster you try to turn, the slower you will actually turn. It's an odd choice, and one that is jarringly unintuitive. Rather the negative acceleration, there should be a hard limit to how quickly you turn. I think we would both like to see the same end result, but where you are fine with the implementation, many people are not.

[Element47 2480]

walking in a building without bumping into walls and turning either too far or not far enough does not require military training, its something most learn at around the age of two.

[onkel (DayZ) 5]

what are "smooth controls"?

[louist 163]

what are "smooth controls"?

The opposite of everything listen in the thread, essentially? Fluid animations, responsive controls, character movement that doesn't feel like we're controlling tanks, so on and so forth.

[Jex 1104]

I don't have much of an issue with the controls, I mean they've always been bad but I don't notice it at all now and I'm running at 9 FPS. They're not as bad as people make out what is bad is the lack of progress in the arma series. One thing that needs to be fixed is the door controls - don't lave me standing there pointing my mouse trying to get the sweet spot - FFS it's retarded!

[louist 163]

I don't have much of an issue with the controls, I mean they've always been bad but I don't notice it at all now and I'm running at 9 FPS. They're not as bad as people make out what is bad is the lack of progress in the arma series. One thing that needs to be fixed is the door controls - don't lave me standing there pointing my mouse trying to get the sweet spot - FFS it's retarded!

Or those instances where you're choosing "open door," "close door," and "open door" again before realizing you're interacting with a door the floor below you.

[Mdogg2005 447]

I disagree, "assault rifle" has a clearly-defined definition, it is a valid term.

Since the assault weapons ban many pro-gun people have disliked the term because it "sounds bad". They want to present their guns in a positive light so they don't get banned again. I've even seen many people say their guns aren't weapons at all, just "tools" for self-defence or hunting, which is a bunch of laughably euphemistic bullshit. The definition of "weapon" doesn't include "weapons are used for bad purposes only". Most guns are weapons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

However your Colt isn't an assault rifle because it's not select-fire, I'm assuming. As well the term "assault weapon" is political nonsense, as opposed to "assault rifle".

Too bad I find your opinion laughably one-sided bullshit.  I call my guns "guns" or "handgun" or "rifle" depending on which one I am referring to.  But to say it's a weapon is stupid.  Literally any physical object that can be carried, thrown, or thrust can be a weapon. 

 

It's all about how something is used.  If I am shooting at targets it is a firearm or a gun, but if I use it to harm someone or attempt to harm someone, it's at that point considered a weapon.

 

Let me guess, you don't own firearms and possibly have never shot any either?  (And no I'm not talking about in games, I'm talking real life here).

 

But I digress.  As I said I already agree the controls in the SA are currently ass and need to be re-worked.  I'm stepping out of this thread before I see more uneducated bullshit nonsense about guns that is for some reason in this thread.

Edited February 25, 2014 by Mdogg2005

[27 others 102]

The controls are the reason for me to stay away from the game until its improved

[louist 163]

Too bad I find your opinion laughably one-sided bullshit. I call my guns "guns" or "handgun" or "rifle" depending on which one I am referring to. But to say it's a weapon is stupid. Literally any physical object that can be carried, thrown, or thrust can be a weapon.

It's all about how something is used.

Let me guess, you don't own firearms and possibly have never shot any either? (And no I'm not talking about in games, I'm talking real life here).

I find your distinctions a little troubling. On the one hand, while anything could indeed be used as a weapon, some objects are designed specifically to be weapons, and serve little use beyond that. Likewise, anything could be used as a tool, with varying efficiency, but some items are designed specifically as tools, and have little use beyond that. A "gun" or "rifle" or "handgun" is designed as a weapon. Sure, you can use it for other things, but it's hardly the best "tool" for, say, hammering nails, just as a ruler is hardly the best "weapon" for hunting deer.

Getting hung up on the technicalities behind what constitutes a weapon as opposed to a tool does nothing to serve any meaningful discussion, and more often than not is used to dodge the issue or derail it entirely.

I speak as someone who has fired as mall handful of weapons, and enjoyed the act, though I have no cause to own any. I don't see how that changes the facts, though.

[finnpalm 312]

How about we all stop splitting hairs and agree that what we're talking about is firearms?

 

Firearms are created with one sole purpose - to harm or kill other living beings.

 

Some are made for hunting and designed keeping in mind that an animal should be brought down with as little suffering as possible.

 

Others are made for hurting people, and are often designed to maim rather than kill, to keep the enemy paramedics busy trying to keep the victim alive, and as a result slowing down the enemy as a whole. Sure it can be discussed if a 7.62 round that easily punch through brick walls before blooming and starting to tumble are more likely to damage than kill, but that's a different discussion in my opinion.

 

I feel somewhat responsible for this derail into the thread being about firearms, so can we perhaps drop that discussion, or take it elsewhere, and instead go back to talking about the controls?

Edited February 25, 2014 by Strawman

[infiltrator 275]

How about we all stop splitting hairs and agree that what we're talking about is firearms?

 

Firearms are created with one sole purpose - to harm or kill other living beings.

 

Some are made for hunting and designed keeping in mind that an animal should be brought down with as little suffering as possible.

 

Others are made for hurting people, and are often designed to maim rather than kill, to keep the enemy paramedics busy trying to keep the victim alive, and as a result slowing down the enemy as a whole. Sure it can be discussed if a 7.62 round that easily punch through brick walls before blooming and starting to tumble are more likely to damage than kill, but that's a different discussion in my opinion.

 

I feel somewhat responsible for this derail into the thread being about firearms, so can we perhaps drop that discussion, or take it elsewhere, and instead go back to talking about the controls?

I agree, talk about it somewhere else. After the last experimental changelog, I am glad melee is being addressed, slowly, but still, progressively. If only they could delve with the more fundamental mechanics..

[Element47 2480]

i have no idea why you guys talk about weapons, as they have nothing to do with the implementation of game controls. or should we start a debate on obesity here because the controls are equally horrible when holding a can of oversugared soda?

[-Gews- 7443]

Too bad I find your opinion laughably one-sided bullshit. I call my guns "guns" or "handgun" or "rifle" depending on which one I am referring to. But to say it's a weapon is stupid. Literally any physical object that can be carried, thrown, or thrust can be a weapon.

It's all about how something is used. If I am shooting at targets it is a firearm or a gun, but if I use it to harm someone or attempt to harm someone, it's at that point considered a weapon.

They are weapons. The only reason many people have suddenly stopped labelling guns "weapons" is to try to pander to or influence the antis who might be reading their posts. Is a sword not a weapon just because it's hanging on a wall? Hey, maybe it's a utensil.

By your definition weapons don't exist until they are used as such. "Nuclear weapons proliferation? What proliferation? There have only been two nuclear weapons."

And I'll also add here: if they're not "arms", then you have no right to bear them!

 

If I am shooting at targets it is a firearm or a gun

Fire-arm. It's in the word itself.

 

Let me guess, you don't own firearms and possibly have never shot any either? (And no I'm not talking about in games, I'm talking real life here).

Wrong on both counts.

 

i have no idea why you guys talk about weapons, as they have nothing to do with the implementation of game controls. or should we start a debate on obesity here because the controls are equally horrible when holding a can of oversugared soda?

"Assault rifles don't exist" and "the weapon word" are two pet peeves of mine. Anyways the controls need smoothing out, "it's for realism" is not a valid reason to keep terrible clunky, non-interruptible animations and nasty negative acceleration. They did it better in A3 so they should be able to do better, if not perfect, in SA.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Gews

[infiltrator 275]

Again, what has this got to do with the topic at hand... ?