Invade & Annex Aim Coefficient Poll

[MidnightRunner]

Following discussion at the community meeting we have a poll on whether or not to reduce the aim coefficient.

 

 

Please Feel free to discuss below your opinion in relation to adjustment of the aim coefficient for I&A3.

[Nibbs]

My reason to reduce is that in it's current form, everyone just turns off all the grass, and goes prone to stabilise their weapons whenever they're shot at. It would be nice to have the grass back on, whilst still being able to return fire.

[Gambit]

i can understand both sides, but imo, the problem is that two tactics are present on eu1, namely 1.) park outside the AO, bring a hunter with plenty of ammo, and just lob bullets / rockets until the AO is cleared. 2.) get in, move, dash from cover to cover, clearing houses, get caught on a crossing, sprint to cover, struggle with weapon sway for 2-5 minutes and pray to whatever gods you pray to save you from getting dinked

the problem lies in the weapon sway coefficient, that makes 1.) more viable... reducing weapon sway coefficient will still penalize heavy loadouts (sway coefficient doesnt eliminate the sway, just reduces the time its hindering effect after a short sprint, which if you go with 2.) is necessary, for example across a street, or to nearest cover), coefficient works in tandem with stamina, if you burn stamina faster the sway will be exponentially higher, and occure more frequently (since you run out of stamina almost immediately with the heaviest loadout)

in my opinion, if 2.) is at least equally profiatble and workable, then the sniper squads with hunters who are afraid their score will suffer will be incentivised to get closer, get involved... my 2 cents... plus, if it doesnt work and can not be made to work, no harm no foul, it can be changed in the next update, its not like several hundreds of code has to be changed to achieve this effect, lets say after a month of fiddling with it in trial runs (acre switch on eu3 and gamenights anyone? giving it a chance to see if it works or not? ring a bell?)

[Art3misZA]

I stand by my original perspective that changing this means spoonfeeding players, making the game easier to play. The knock-on effect is players will get bored more easily which could lead to higher player turnover and / or more trolling. 

 

Conversely, if you do reduce sway, them the AI difficulty should be tweaked to balance this. Just my opinion on this. Pls no hate.

[RiverWolf]

1 hour ago, Art3misZA said:

Conversely, if you do reduce sway, them the AI difficulty should be tweaked to balance this. Just my opinion on this. Pls no hate.

 

Wasn't this the original plan before it got pulled?

[RiverWolf]

Removed by Riverwolf.

[Gambit]

More AA subobjs, increased respawn time on transport birds, very limited and rare cas assets, all made it in because eu1 is supposedly infantry focused. Then why discourage movement in infantry with extreme weapon sway if you move more than 10 meters (the bobbing effect is still there, that remains, just the recovery will be shorter) 

Make it extremely hard to enjoy infantry, the sneaking around getting close type, crawl 3 meters out of stamina, get extreme sway for insanely long time, encourage only one working strategy of camping with a shit ton of ammo, and frustration will be the cause of turnover or trolling

 

How should we know if we only play the what if game, instead of testing it. Not that weapon sway coefficient has only an on and off setting, it can be a fraction between 0 and 1. 

[Bomer]

I think it's a great idea to reduce the weaponsway. as people mentioned already arguing for and against, it will give players power/more ability to fight. This might make it easier yeah, but that's not inherently a bad thing. Giving a player power to do things will incentivise them to do something more. In this case it would be moving around and getting close. Getting close and personal is not a surefire way of winning the fight but it will make the fight more exciting.

 

I personally find ARMA a lot more interesting when I am in the thick of it compared to when I sit on a hill blasting people. A reduced weapon sway will insentivice me then to move more so that I can do those exciting things.

 

As midnight mentions this won't have as much of an effect to the overencumbered amongst us so it will be unlikely to have an impact on those that play that playstyle, and if it does it would be minimal.

[Stanhope]

7 minutes ago, Bomer said:

midnight mentions

*Gambit

[Bomer]

13 minutes ago, Stanhope said:

*Gambit

You know how freudian slips work? This was a profile picture slip.

[Noah_Hero]

Obviously I haven't played on EU1 in a long time, though I think it is a good idea to lower the sway if it is impacting players. I think so because recently I played Arma with someone brand new to it, who really struggled with the sway, etc. which somewhat hindered the enjoyment.

Further, in my opinion EU1 should be a server that provides a fun experience for all players and especially those who are brand new to arma and are looking for an enjoyable non-modded experience. At least this is how I got into Coop-Arma and I really liked the way that EU1 provided a fun experience without having to worry too much about the game-mechanics at first (e.g. stamina was completely disabled). This meant that you could just focus on the gameplay and then refine it when getting used to the mechanics over time, but didn't had to overcome a learning/skill-gap to start having fun (e.g. because you cannot hit anything due to sway and so far you haven't gotten a feeling for what will cause how much of it, etc.)

 

 

6 hours ago, RiverWolf said:

because there's one or two cunts

Keep it civil, there is no reason to be insulting or use faul language.

 

[Art3misZA]

I was just simply stating my thoughts. This comes from hours and hours running around with a Cyrus, a heavy weapon with terrible sway. I cut my teeth on EU1 and like I said in the meeting I learnt with the sway and am used to it and compensate accordingly. 
 

River your comments are quite combative and rude. People are welcome to their opinions on this but ultimately whatever choice Core Staff makes is fine as I trust they have community interests at heart.

I think this is a case of “my opinion is the right opinion”. 
 

At the end of the day it is a game on a server run by volunteers. Remember that when issues like this are raised. I have been guilty of this myself and it does help to just take a step back and regain perspective.

[MidnightRunner]

Please keep comments civil and respectful.

All members are entitled to their opinion and to express them.

 

 

[RiverWolf]

Sorry for the rudeness, post has been edited

[RiverWolf]

An example of how weapon sway is broken is you run all the way to a position putting yourself in danger, you find a spot where you stop and regain stamina and to steady weapon sway, you the identify your target, you raise your rifle, you wait for weapon sway even thought you have a full stamina bar, then you have to simply shimmy 1cm to the left or right and then you look down your scope and the sway is all over the place, it's not realistic it's game restricting and makes me say screw been infantry I'm going to get a vehicle and set up on a hill, because you know no weapon sway.

[Murph]

So disclaimer before we start… This is the opinion of an asshole, an opinion no more no less, it is one that is based on my experiences and perception which will differ from your own, difference of opinion is good.

 

Most of my experience is in the role of Rifleman (AT) – R(AT).  As such I’ll keep my comments primarily within that area of experience.

 

Indirect Nerf:

Weapon sway is what I would call an indirect nerf, in that, yes, it is affecting everyone but some classes will be affected more than others by any changes to it.  This is mostly seen in classes where heavier loadouts are required, for example Rifleman AT – R(AT).

 

I am also aware that this is stamina entwined so to be clear this isn’t about tweaking stamina rather mitigating the effect (weapon sway) of the stamina settings on the player.  Something which I believe we can do rather easily (open to correction) as opposed to changing how stamina works.

 

Impact on R(AT):

Typically I run a R(AT)/R(AA) loadout working out of a hunter… that being a base loadout with one of each launcher and missiles in the hunter that I can swap out as needed.  The tactic being set up on the downslope of a hill, blast the armour and aircraft, switching out launchers as needed then move in and clear as a standard rifleman with the hunter doing all the heavy lifting (carrying).

 

The problem I have is in the distance (5-10m) it takes me to walk to the top of the hill with a launcher and 1 more missile I’m at 50ish% stamina.  The weapon sway kicks in and I’m sat there for anywhere up to 2 minutes (yes I’ve timed) waiting for the sight to settle so I can guide the missile to target.

 

The reason you have to guide is the AI will use counter measures if you lock on so in order to be effective in that role you have to manually guide, which the AI won’t launch countermeasures on as it doesn’t receive a lock on warning.

 

Previously Tried Solutions:

I can confirm, having tested, that running a loadout of 5 FAK in the uniform, 6x 5.56 mags and an empty kitbag does not make any marginal difference in the weapon sway settling to my normal loadout.

 

I’ve also tried running single missiles back and forth, if you jog or sprint to the hill it is a similar ‘weapon sway cooldown’ before you can actually guide the missile in.  Which means you have to walk, then you’re looking at 60-90 seconds of wait to reduce sway to hit an armoured target at 800(ish)m.

 

For me personally, losing time on target running back and forth and waiting for sway to settle isn’t as efficient as just bringing two missiles up and firing.  Weapon sway seemingly is less between shots which means reduced wait on sway settle.

  

The issue for R(AT) is not base loadout weight, as we have to take missiles to shoot which increases our weight as titans are heavy and immediately easts into stamina.

 

This results in dead time for the role, and makes vehicles infinitely more suited to the role of AT work, nullifying that role somewhat (somewhere in the distance TheScar is laughing).

 

Other Roles:

I have less limited experience with SAW but can say that it is noticeable with the bigger boy rounds (SPMG), although the issue of compulsory ammunition (i.e. ammunition for the role specific weapon) is still there however the issue is mitigated by the ability to bipod or weapon rest, something not applicable to the launchers.

 

To confirm I have tried it with the 5.56 Minimi (LMG I think is the name), Negev (Zafir) and the SPMG.  All had the same loadout (bipod, laser pointer and ACOG) and 600 rounds.

 

As a rifleman I just don’t bother engaging beyond a certain range (300ish) unless I can bipod and even at close range I’ll drop to a walk weapon raised to minimise sway (yes I know part of that is the movement but walking reduces stamina consumption = less weapon sway).

 

Conclusion:

Hence above, my term indirect nerf, in that it disproportionately affects roles where compulsory ammunition is heavy.  I think it does need to be changed to reduce downtime between pew pew for AT, and from the sounds of it for standard infantry too during short bursts of speed from cover to cover.

 

Solutions:

I think the solution proposed by Gambit is the best, we release a new aiming coefficient let people try and see what happens until we get one the community agrees on (or hates the least).

 

Personally some sway is good, but my preference is to the lower end of middle so it will only really affect the character if you are really exerting and pushing your stamina, in that stamina management is still a factor and the intent of the mechanic is kept in the game rather than removing it completely. 

[SiegeSix]

I voted yes, because I like to aim

[OcUK-Timo]

17 hours ago, Murph said:

So disclaimer before we start… This is the opinion of an asshole, an opinion no more no less, it is one that is based on my experiences and perception which will differ from your own, difference of opinion is good.

 

Thanks Murph you saved me having to do a load of typing, must agree with every word you put, not only your intro
I also think a staged reduction in the value would be good, then hopefully we can find some agreement on the best level as each new update gets released.

[MidnightRunner]

The poll is now closed and the result is clear.

 

Staff will look at the implementation of this in the coming days. Please bear with us as we go through this process.

[MidnightRunner]

Hey all, 

 

The change requested has been implemented and will be live on server from Tomorrow.
See https://forums.ahoyworld.net/topic/8308-invade-annex-3-version-history-and-feedback-thread/page/14/ for full changelog.

 

[JJ Cakes]

This is by no means a scientific comparison, but here's some video capture before and after the change.  I wanted to keep stamina in the green, but use up a bit and see what the sway looked like.

 

Before (100%)

 

After (70%)

 

So yeah, much much better.

[RiverWolf]

Drop it down to 50% or ultimately 0%. Gambit was right.

[Admiralbumfluff]

On 8/30/2021 at 11:32 PM, JJ Cakes said:

This is by no means a scientific comparison, but here's some video capture before and after the change.  I wanted to keep stamina in the green, but use up a bit and see what the sway looked like.

 

Before (100%)

 

After (70%)

 

So yeah, much much better.

Still got sway, although more manageable so I'm a fan

[MidnightRunner]

Quick note from me:

The current value was chosen to give players a quality of life improvement without overly impacting game difficulty and was decided through staff testing.

 

The intention was never to remove sway just make it more manageable.

[Nibbs]

I really like the 70% thanks guys!