No announcement yet.

Markers discussion

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Markers discussion

    A while back I got us into discussing on making it first-person only and removing a lot of helpers like enemy being automatically marked on the map. What I want to bring up now is less important stuff, but I know for sure there'll be a great deal of thoughts on it anyway.

    1) Waypoints are disabled in every aspect except while you're inside an aircraft, take this as an example in a CAS where I got an APC just above my crosshairs (it is barely visible): http://images.akamai.steamuserconten...797EEEF6CA598/ - you can also see that the waypoint is marked on the directional minimap on the top of the screen.
    Would it be possible to remove waypoints in aircrafts too and if so do we want to? A thing that comes in mind is that smoke on LZ's would be more viable for pilots that actually waypoint their LZ's (happens a lot...)

    2) Map markers, we like to use these as a great aid in spotting targets, making LZ and CAS runs and anything else very precisely, sometimes down to a few feet of in-accuracy, I would like us restricting the usage of it to direct/vehicle channels and not using it in side/group/command - or even try to mark them only on our own map by using vehicle chat while on foot. This so we have to transmit grid coordinates every time, especially to CAS where you'd have to give multiple grids: IP's, BP's, target locations, friendly locations...

    I'd like to hear your thoughts

    *Found the earlier post at page 11 posted over one and a half year ago... sheesh, did I really post it that long ago? :)
    Last edited by Xorilliz; 10-14-2015, 12:51 AM. Reason: earlier post
    Xorilliz's ArmA 3 TG Twitch - Current ArmA Pathfinder


  • #2
    Re: Markers discussion

    The thread you referenced is a good read. I was deep in BF4 at the time and absent from the discussion so it's interesting to see how we've evolved from the comments in that thread. When my affair with EA anded and I had come back to TG Arma I was immediately struck that switching to third person only and eliminating automatic enemy map markers was a leap forward in gameplay improvement. In that sense TG ARMA has evolved really well I think. We have a balanced approach that stresses realism but also allows for aids like player ID at close range and a dynamic squad management tool. We lost a couple or more regulars, like Zap, switching to 1st persononly but most of the players commenting on that thread are still regulars. That tells me it was the right move at the right time. We've also gained players who appreciate the more realistic approach we've employed. I think of players like Trace and DMZ Scout and a host of others I should remember but don't. B was prophetic in one of the posts in that thread when he said we move forward together and we have done that. One player base playing a unified play style. In this regard I think we should all pat ourselves on the back and especially give a hearty nod to the GO and the admin team. That was a difficult bridge and crossing it is a big benchmark for how far we've come as a community. I felt that instantly upon my return.

    I've given map markings some thought in the past and my thoughts echo what is mentioned in that thread about current blue force tracker technology that is in use by many armed forces today. I think we should keep using what we have for id and tracking of friendlies. As far as marking enemy on the map by individual soldiers I think there is an easy case to make about the current drones and UAV systems in use today. Nations like the U.S. (NATO) and Iran (CSAT) certainly have and use the technology. This approach could be refined by limiting who places the markers. In the real world Joe Grunt slinging an M4 probably doesn't have the capability to update maps on a theater or even AO wide basis. But limiting who can mark up the map seems unenforceable. It's not like the 3rd person where we can shut it off. Or is it? If SL's, PL's and FTL only have the capability to add intel to the map that really refines the chain of command, doesn't it. That sounds good in theory but I'm not sure, again, it's enforceable or if there is even a setting that can be turned off and on by class.

    This is a good time for an extension of that discussion but I just want to say I'm really happy where TG ARMA is right now. Coming back to ARMA from that time to now has been great. We have a solid and growing core of regular players and we seem to keep getting new people who are attracted by our playstyle and the TG ethos. Some of those guys turn out to be klunkers but the klunkers typically fade away on their own and those we've gained permanently are a great addition. @ Zap...if you are reading this I hope we see you come back man. We are having so much fun I don't think you'd care about 3rd person after a week or two. The leadership is great and the missions are even greater and that beats any game play setting hands down.
    ARMA Admin (retired)
    Pathfinder-Spartan 5


    • #3
      Re: Markers discussion

      It would be more immersive without the marker aid. Im all up for it. Its a great idea


      • #4
        Re: Markers discussion

        Newcomer and probably don't need to be voicing my opinion yet, but what about just limiting the map being available in your arsenal to leader roles and pilots. Maybe not on insurgency but on the mission server. Me as a lowly rifleman,GPS is all I really need. With a map it is too easy to question orders, if Grunt tells us to go east but the route he had marked on the map says west, let us go the wrong way, mistakes are reality. Does a real grunt in the field have a map to question command with? As I type this though I think about vehicles and the driver needs a map sometimes perhaps default one in each vehicle inventory?
        May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won’t.
        -- Gen. George S. Patton

        |TG189th| Cody


        • #5
          Re: Markers discussion

          Waypoints would be eliminated if possible. Now, they may have updated the profile options but last I looked at them closely (admittedly a while ago) all markers were turned off but the pilot or driver positions still get a personal waypoint. That isn't the worse thing in the game world in my opinion.

          I do hope more map tools become available either in a BIS module or a scripted option. The ability to mark up landing zones with colours and free hand lines is a great tool for pilots. A map ruler where you could get the scale and then convert a diagonal line to an accurate distance....these would be great options for pilots and leaders. That would put the skill back into a Forward Observer.

          However, until tools like that are available I wouldn't want to go down the road of calling grid coordinates all the time. I think of all the time already that important information like contact reports, sighting reports, sitreps, all seem to take a number and wait. The radio coms are great but I'd be sad to see the brevity of coms get bogged down with the time and care to get an accurate grid, announce that your going to transmit a grid, wait for buddy to find his pencil, transmit the grid, confirm the accuracy of the received message then wait for them to interpret it, communicate it to their team....which if your going to use that method is what is required to be accurate, my point should be self evident. You did well to make it through that sentence.

          There is a time and a place. If you are running as a forward observer and have the time and would like to role play a more involved artillery procedure, that is cool. I love it. I just don't want to burden a squad leader who is running a 9 man team with one other FTL with the grid coordinates. At that point most of the time, its more important that the players get a good view of tactics in action and maybe less role play for the leaders.

          Thats what these tools do. Take the book keeping out of the mix and allow players to multi-task and simulate a larger command element leaving more players to man the rifles. That is a good thing for the player experience in many cases.

          But I'll admit my secret. I just love no markers. Actually reading the map, using the contour lines, lining up the compass. I do remember playing Acog's missions where he stripped out all the toys and while the first few missions I did walk the wrong way. A lot. I did learn some really good habits like always looking around to see where the team is. But players going afk for 5 min is a normal thing. And this becomes mighty annoying when stuck with grids only.

          Anywho, the markers, we want to hear much more ideas you may throw into the mix. You never know when someone here may be spurred into a genius solution by a few ideas you may rattle at them.
          |TG-189th| Unkl
          ArmA 3 Game Officer
          Dean of Tactical Gamer University
          189th Infantry Brigade Member
          "We quickly advance in the opposite direction and take cover in a house on the SW side of town." - BadStache


          • #6
            Re: Markers discussion

            I wouldn't want either of these things changed.

            Seems like pilots who don't want to use waypoints could just not put them on the map. Can't think of any value to blocking them. Does making navigation by pilots more difficult improve the experience of anyone?

            Removing or limiting access to map markers would only serve to add a barrier to communication, which is a terrible idea in a coop game. Sure being able to mark a map on the ground and have a pilot instantly be able to see it in the air is not "realistic" if you assume it's a paper map. However IF you assume it's a tablet PC map connected to a secure military data network, same one that carries our universal range radio traffic perhaps, then it makes total sense.

            As far as having to call grid references and such for air strikes. That sounds like a lot more comm traffic, and less accurate targeting. Consider the time it would take to spell out 4 grid references rather than just stating "Air, reference marked grid for rocket run. Over."

            Speaking strictly personally - if I'm leading, figuring out IP, BP, And target location while managing a ground team is would make the value proposition of calling an air strike be very low. I'm sure with practice and training I could do it, but i can't see the advantage it would give over the existing system.


            • #7
              Re: Markers discussion

              Originally posted by Noyava View Post
              As far as having to call grid references and such for air strikes. That sounds like a lot more comm traffic, and less accurate targeting. Consider the time it would take to spell out 4 grid references rather than just stating "Air, reference marked grid for rocket run. Over."

              Speaking strictly personally - if I'm leading, figuring out IP, BP, And target location while managing a ground team is would make the value proposition of calling an air strike be very low. I'm sure with practice and training I could do it, but i can't see the advantage it would give over the existing system.
              And with that one reference on mark, I can give that rocket cas with a waypoint on it accurate fire within 5 seconds with no fear of hitting friendlies and no way of improving myself (and with too little information to avoid flying into a high threat area - not related). It is a lot like you said, we could just avoid putting down a waypoint but I think plenty of pilots still do it all the time, I'm not gonna lie even I do it in rare occasions. CAS is truly done in the length of a heartbeat here, I think we should assign someone to give better information than having a leader do it... if there isn't one then take the time to do it I say (even if it's just some lines like target grid and threat descriptions..) or just don't use CAS if we can't give plenty of info. So no waypoints can make the difference between life and death when you know you're firing close to friendlies and you're trying to get a tally on the target area.

              Next mission we run involving CAS I'll be happy to try out JTAC but then I think we may have to find a solution to comms... I guess we can discsuss this too as 3). I found that the best solution for FO/Arty and JTAC/Aircraft comms etc is double-transmitting through teamspeak and direct chat ingame. We won't clutter up command channel, nearby players will hear the JTAC do his work and the JTAC can be in an infantry squad by group.... the double-transmitting can be skipped (TS only). Alternatively I can give my constant one minute long mission briefings over command channel so TL's won't hear anything else.. (briefing over command channel would also make it so that the JTAC has to be in his own group)

              Another thing is be creative, since the pilot has the location of friendlies, you can give target locations in relation to that to shorten the mission brief by far
              Last edited by Xorilliz; 10-16-2015, 11:52 PM. Reason: added (briefing over command...)
              Xorilliz's ArmA 3 TG Twitch - Current ArmA Pathfinder



              • #8
                Re: Markers discussion

                dont forget that we can make our own voice channels ;)
                i could write up a simple jtac script as well, could be cool.

                good example on detecting user made map markers (ty BIS):
                  private "_a";
                  _a = toArray _x;
                  _a resize 15;
                  if (toString _a == "_USER_DEFINED #") then {
                    deleteMarker _x;
                } forEach allMapMarkers;
                just delete all user made map markers and require grid point references and smoke grenades/laser pointers.
                Last edited by Yink; 10-16-2015, 04:33 PM. Reason: stuff?
                Yink | Vanilla Pilot | Killer of Stirling | CS GOD | Projects Team


                • #9
                  Re: Markers discussion

                  I really don't think that deleting the personal waypoints contributes to the immersion in any way. The reason is fairly straight forward. Effectively all aircraft (apart from the Pawnee/Hummingbird) in the game have HUDs. In proper flight sims/the real aircraft you have the ability to enter coordinates as steer points or mark points. You usually get a compass needle and 3D representation in the HUD for those points. Some aircraft with HCMS (like the F-16, F-22, F-35...) can even give you a 3D representation everywhere. You are still missing the targeting pod that real aircraft tend to carry along during CAS missions. That means you are missing a very significant ability already - that is staying at a safe altitude/distance and visually collecting information or lasing targets yourself. So by taking out the markers you are just taking away one of the few capabilities that the aircraft ingame should be having.

                  If you prefer playing without the personal waypoint then that should be your decision. Removing it via script from the Pawnee and Hummingbird is reasonable as well (probably not quite worth the effort though).




                  TeamSpeak 3 Server


                  Twitter Feed