DLC Standards

[breeze 0]

I don't think I am alone when I say that PMC was a very big disappointment to me. The Brit exspansion I enjoyed but this last one not a big fan. Which is why I suggest the following.

Each expansion should have a standard set to it so your community knows the bare minimum that the package will contain.

For example new expansion of China or North Korea

Included with this expansion

Map map of China or Asia or call it whatever you like but the expansion should always contain a map and not a cheesy map like proving grounds. A decent map maps are big in my opinion.

Then of course the soldiers, and pick some military vehicles be it 1 tank, 1 Jeep helicopter whatever you get the idea.

But doing it this way with a standard leaves the fans knowing what they will get it also allows the modding community to react and make things like fighter planes and whatever else your not including well in advance when you announce the start of a project.

Anyway that is my 2 cents I would love to see it done this way.

[Banderas 0]

I agree with you up to the point that with BAF BIS had set a standard for DLCs (as it was the first ever DLC to a Bohemia Interactive product), a pretty high standard I think, and PMC is under it. But...

PMC is still not that bad piece, it's just doesn't reach BAF in content and multiplayer value. The main feature for PMC is supposed to be the SP campaign, which I didn't play through yet, so I won't tell how good is that, there are reports some like it very much and some committing uncontrollable vomiting because of it.

Maps need time to develop, big maps need more time, don't expect a 10 euro DLC would contain a 100km2 new terrain made in 3 months. Proving grounds map is interesting and has a new atmosphere differing from previous A2 maps, although at this level of object density it could have been at least 2 times bigger.

Addonmakers don't sit and wait what's going to be in the next DLC to complement it, they all do their own stuff in their own freetime. The two DLCs arrived approx within 4 months from the first rumors, and within 3 months from official announcements. This surely isn't enough time for community modders to develop, test and release stuff for DLCs.

For the contents, they usually have been announced well before release, so people got a quite exact idea on what they will get their hands on. And if not, they have the lite versions in the patches so they can see what they miss.

[Crunchie 10]

So you're saying: Never mind the quality, feel the width!"

[CarlGustaffa 4]

it could have been at least 2 times bigger.

That only takes it from 2x2 km to 2.82x2.82 km though ;) Or did you mean 4x4 km, which is 4 times bigger? Let's face it, the map sizes of Chernarus, Takistan, and Sahrani even is not feasible in the scope of a DLC (takes years to populate well). And these recent small maps are to me unusable. Utes and Zargabad I still love though, but only for smaller scale operations, and because they are populated with some items. Complete wasteland is really not for me anyways.

[xxbbcc 6]

The wasteland could've been a great place - the crater is fantastic - but it's nearly unusably small. It's a shame, really.

If this map was let's say 5x5 (or even 4x4 as you wrote it), it could've been so much better. Looks like BIS is trying to move towards CoD-type "levels" from the island concept which I will NOT support.

[Lt Gunner 10]

Why not release an island as a standalone DLC then? Release factions/units/gear in DLC's of their own, that can be developed without regard for terrains. Then the terrains can be developed without any other time line effecting its release?

I would pay $10 for a faction without a terrain, since honestly i feel I have already twice. Both islands that came with the DLCs so far are honestly just clutter in the list of playable islands. I understand that the proving ground was developed for testing of new techniques and what not, and thats cool, but its just too small for any real arma mission, COD or battlefield it would be good.

I would also pay $10 for an island that is well developed, without any troops to go with it. I honestly think it would be just as lucrative as any other DLC as well. To me, adding more guns and troops only slightly changes the gameplay experience. Shooting russians, takiban, chinese, brits, or americans, just changes the color of uniform im aiming at... and different guns only change the look of the bullet launcher, and some slight changes in balistics, no biggie. But the island im playing on makes a huge difference in the game experience as a whole.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Takiban? :D Fits the land though :)

[xxbbcc 6]

I would also pay $10 for an island that is well developed, without any troops to go with it. I honestly think it would be just as lucrative as any other DLC as well. To me, adding more guns and troops only slightly changes the gameplay experience. Shooting russians, takiban, chinese, brits, or americans, just changes the color of uniform im aiming at... and different guns only change the look of the bullet launcher, and some slight changes in balistics, no biggie. But the island im playing on makes a huge difference in the game experience as a whole.

I agree with you - in fact I many times said in the past that I'd be willing to pay for what I call unified content: all islands, units, etc. ported from earlier games into A2:OA, giving them all the latest features.

There are a few units that I'd be interested in (variious civilians mostly), but in general I don't want any more troops for a while; the ones we have are very good and as you said it, it has relatively little effect on the experience.

[SB Interactive 10]

And although I buy the DLCs to support BIS, everything in both DLCs so far have been available in community addons, and frankly it seems like they spent more time on their stuff than BIS.

@Banderas

The main feature for PMC is supposed to be the SP campaign

Sorry, but that made me laugh a little considering they released the campaign with the last patch :D

But seriously, I say just make a $20 addon every year or so that contains a suitably sized map, units, campaign, and missions. I understand that this was what OA was for $40, but honestly, everything in OA could have been created by the community.

[max power 21]

Looks like BIS is trying to move towards CoD-type "levels" from the island concept.

Based on one DLC? LOLz.

[Banderas 0]

Sorry, but that made me laugh a little considering they released the campaign with the last patch :D

Yeah well I'm happy I could make you laugh. Did you notice the word "supposed"?

@CarlGustaffa

Yeah, I meant 4x4, not 2,96x2,96 :) I understand perfectly that bigger maps need more time to develop, I don't cry for a 500 km2 big map in a DLC,, but with this object density and setting, it could have been a little bit bigger I think. It's just my opinion, but I can put it to somewhere out of reach of children and sunlight if you wish so :) Don't want to hurt BI mapmakers, but at first sight it didn't seem they worked 3-4 months developing this map, didn't know that craters and bumps were such harder to make.

@Crunchie

So you're saying: Never mind the quality, feel the width!"

Sorry, as I'm not a native English speaker I don't think I understand it what you mean?

But if I understand you correctly, then my answer is, mind the quality of course, and devs should not go under the quality of BAF. All I wanted to say is that PMC is not that bad DLC, but doesn't reach up to BAF. It was just an unfortunate thing they released it after BAF, maybe if PMC would have been first then it wouldn't get this kind of bad light.

[Lt Gunner 10]

Based on one DLC? LOLz.

technically the BAF, and PMC DLCs both came with maps, that were both quite small for arma standards.

Personally i feel that object density is not as necessary, as space to roam. I'm not saying that quality should suffer simply to make the map massive, but the tiny little specs that were shipped with both DLCs just dont cut it.

The only people who really use either map from what I've seen so far are the PvP guys, and as sad as it is, they are a minority in this community. BIS may be trying to push out maps of this size that run smoother, and have more appeal to the COD crowd in order to lure those players into arma. However, If true... an attempt to attract those players that will never notice this game, will only lose them the revenue from the long time players who expect content that will add to the game, more so than what any community member could create.

[xxbbcc 6]

Based on one DLC? LOLz.

Based on 2 DLCs, of which the PMC actually has missions that look like they were ripped straight out of CoD.

And as others have already said, substantial terrain and new engine features are major additions that the community cannot do, so I'd want BIS to concentrate on those.

I'd welcome new troops, vehicles, etc. but only as a major version release (which is still fully compatible with A2:OA - I'm really done with having to discard all previous content because of a "new" game), content merged forward from earlier games or as freebies. I'm not inclined to buy any more troops, etc.

[Baron von Beer 0]

Agree. Shapur was way to small for my taste, but it's at least usable for small scale stuff. Proving Ground?

I'd much prefer more units and no "map" than something like the two so far. If they're going to be that small, why bother, just put that time/effort towards more units & missions. New units can be used on any map, in any mission. A tiny map has limited potential to begin with, but even if you ignore the size Proving Ground was further self limited: How many plausible scenarios are going to be taking place next to a giant nuke crater? :confused:

Edited December 11, 2010 by Baron von Beer

[Banderas 0]

How many plausible scenarios are going to be taking place next to a giant nuke crater? :confused:

Dunno, maybe get out with an AK-74U and kill some blood suckers and snorks? :P

[11aTony 0]

Out of this 2 DLCs I got most joy from units, vehicle and weapons of course. BAF especially becouse it has more.

Second thing was SP and MP missions. I liked all of them in BAF.

Last are campaigns. I guess BAF is kind of consistent and PMC missions vary. Some are good, some are... not so good and some have nice idea behind them but not made very well.

Anyway for me both campaigns are not fun. I think campaign is something to get you into the game, present the game to you. It takes a lot of work I immagine.

Since DLC requires OA or CO, campaign is not really needed. Nor are this small maps either.

So overall, I think DLC should be more guns, units, vehicles and missions so you get more re-usable content for the buck.

Im not sure what exacly these DLCs are all about.

Edited December 13, 2010 by 11aTony

[ArmAriffic 10]

It is still way more content than most DLC's though

[b00tsy 28]

Can't BIS not sell new maps as DLC's? Personally I think there is plenty of content already. I do not even use BAF content most of the time, there is already so many men/vehicles/weapons you can use.

The small maps are pretty much useless for me, I only use them for testing. Also with small maps you can not make use of air combat properly. I will be happy to pay for new big diverse maps!

Ultimately I would like to see an easy map editor where you can start with a blank map and create hills/mountains and roads and also adding vegitation and buildings etc.

[breeze 0]

I would kill to see more of an urban map with indoor buildings capable of indoor firefights as well as the outdoors like we have some warehouses and the ability to bring firefights inside when clearing a village or area of a city having to check indoors as well.

[Militant1006 11]

If there was a another small map I wouldn't mind a military training ground, but Jesus they need to decide what they want to do, at the moment it's like they go "I want to do some map making" then stop and go "I think I could get money from this, Imma go make some units" then they go "I FEEL LIKE AN AUTOMATIC SHOTGUN!!!!!!!!!!", it would be better if they abandoned DLC's and made another expansion.

[stupidwhitekid75 11]

Think it would be better if they divided things up.

In an expansion we pay $50 for a campaign, large map, (and in OA's case) two large factions with four smaller ones (Taki Militia, ACR, Germany), and a lot of SP missions. Why not make an expansion, but release it in increments? First units, then map, then campaign/SP missions.

If not that, I suggested in another thread, instead of making the campaign and map all be in once DLC, why not try and cut that up? What they'd do is give us units (could be some or all), a 5x5 map, and a campaign of something like 5 missions or so. That would become the first DLC. The campaign would revolve around something, but it wouldn't end with the first DLC, it would come to some kind of temporary ending or cliffhanger. In the second DLC release, an additional 5x5 was ADDED (not in separate map form) to the original map included with the first DLC. The campaign would pick up from there as the characters journey continues to progress and end in a similar way (temp. ending or cliffhanger) as the first one did. And it again would be continued with another as well as the original map size increasing. This would easily allow for a full army or two (three!... :D) to be included into the game, there would be a long campaign that was interesting and left people waiting and wanting to know what would happen next with a lot of character development as well as a map that would continue to grow and could eventually be the same size as Takistan or Chernarus.

[Banderas 0]

I would sum up my thoughts about that in one sentence: No Soap Opera in Arma :D

I like the different additions as something that rounds up its own story. The only game I forgive to have such end ever was Half Life series, but in those the main storyline gets closed down to a level and something new will add the "cliffhanger". No if something like "To be continued" would show up in an ArmA campaign ending, I think I'd blow my head off :D

[ACPL Jon 68]

it would be better if they abandoned DLC's and made another expansion.

Lots of people talk this crap. Do You ever thought about multiplayer? How it will break the community, because some will don't buy the new expansion? DLCs are a better idea, and as long as their content will be satisfying - I will support and buy them. And I guess many other players will...

(We have some 30-40 year old players who don't feel like "buying new game every half of the year so they can play with friends". So please. Stop talking shit.)

And finally - who said DLC's can't have more content for more money?

Like a "full expansion", let's say winter island +...? That's the room for Your imagination, BIS.

[BKnight3 0]

And although I buy the DLCs to support BIS, everything in both DLCs so far have been available in community addons, and frankly it seems like they spent more time on their stuff than BIS.

If this were true, then community addon makers should be getting paid more than BIS devs.

The money says different.

[Zipper5 74]

And although I buy the DLCs to support BIS, everything in both DLCs so far have been available in community addons, and frankly it seems like they spent more time on their stuff than BIS.

Jackals and Warriors were made by the community before the BAF DLC? High quality Mercenaries and a SUV with a minigun on top were made before the PMC DLC? That's not even mentioning the two campaigns and all the SP and MP missions.

Seriously, stop with the "everything" part of that sentence. The only thing the community made before either of these DLCs were British soldiers and weapons. As far as I'm aware, no one made a XM8 pack let alone a working AA-12.

Edited December 23, 2010 by Zipper5