Improvements I believe a decent number wants

[Ironman13 13]

No more DLC for now (<-400+ community members agree). Fix these things first.

The Bold points are what many agree should be fixed, anything after the main point is mere conjecture on how to fix. Everyone can have their own opinion. Many agree with this list.

1) All modules need to be MP-Dedicated compatible. If it works on a dedicated server, it should work on everything else fine. Mission makers shouldn't have to resync anything because pretty much all missions require re-spawn and Mission makers shouldn't have to write a ton of code to get what they want out of it. Keep all the options but maybe have some presets, not just 1 default.

2) REWORK THE WATER SYSTEM! This is lol-tastic. In OFP you died when you tried to swim in water. In ArmA you could swim and lose all your gear, except your super duper pistol. You wonder what changed from ArmA to ArmA 2 regarding the water system, nothing. We should be able to swim in water without losing anything. Soldiers in real life are taught how to do this with all their gear. Maybe give us scuba gear so we can even, dare I say it, swim underwater. I find it hilarious how a game like Delta Force-Delta Force Team Sabre can accomplish swimming underwater but a sophisticated game like this will either have you die, or lose all your gear. Not asking for much with this as you have had MANY years to fix this.

3) Throwing a hand grenade while walking. This was possible in the original ArmA and in ArmA II, fix it. Either disable it all together or make the animation actually throw the nade.

4) 3D editor. Yes we have one in the game, Yes there are addons out there. It should be "noob" friendly though. Make it so we can access it from the single player mission editor. So where the button for "preview" is you can also have a button called "3D editor" and you could save it in a mission.sqm or a "blahblah.sqf". The 3D editor menu should be uniform to the 2D editor except instead of the Map in the background you are actually seeing the environment of wherever you are editing.

5) Better CQB. There are a number ways to accomplish this. Dare I venture out into the abyss. How about simply increasing building sizes? Having hallways where more than one person can fit through. Increasing sizes of rooms. I don't think many people live like Harry Potter did under the stairs. The buildings should keep a good ratio to the size of the AI. I feel like most buildings do have a good height, what it lacks is depth. Most will probably say the AI are too dumb to fight in that kind of environment. I would agree. But, that would take a lot of time and maybe leaps in technology to achieve the level of realism everyone is looking for. So, lets focus on what is achievable right now. Increase building depth.

All of these things are achievable. BIS, we have paid for 2 DLC that many say are not worth 1/4 of the price of the original game. It is obvious that we all love this game and support your company. Will you support your loyal community? Will you hear many of our voices? Don't continue to give us guns/tanks/planes, many of us wish for a change in the overall gameplay experience. Give us game engine upgrades! Don't tell us it will require us to buy new computers either, you have the means to accomplish this goal with our current rig specs. Do it.

I may be one voice but I speak for many.

Disclaimer: *This does not mean, necessarily, that I speak for everyone or a majority (or even you reading it). As per the last post, many people do tend to agree with my so called "assumptions".*

---------- Post added at 12:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:54 PM ----------

If you don't agree with my list, feel free to come up with your own or say what you feel needs improvement. Otherwise, there is no point for you posting here.

[james mckenzie-smith 1]

Are you absolutely sure that fixing the issues on your list, and producing DLC content are mutually exclusive?

[Ironman13 13]

If you are asking is it possible to just use patches for these improvements I listed.... No I don't believe it is. I believe a patch can be issued for the 3D editor, modules, and hand grenade bug.

The water system and improving CQB may require upgrades with the engine itself, which in my mind is more than a "patch". The 400+ I am referring to said "not to make DLC but make an expansion pack" again.

[james mckenzie-smith 1]

No, I am not asking if it is possible to use patches for the improvements you listed. I am asking if you believe that a DLC can only be produced at the expense of other improvements?

It is strange that people still do not understand that 3D artists and level designers could possibly improve those aspects of gameplay you deem in need of improvement. What would you suggest the artists and level designers do while engine improvements are made? Should they get paid for doing nothing? Should they be released from BIS until the game reaches a state that your 400 people deem satisfactory? I am not too sure that the artists will just wait around to be hired by BIS in the meantime.

I think that the DLC content is a welcome addition, frankly, and the latest beta patch is further evidence that essential gameplay elements, such as better AI, is still being worked on by BIS. CQB is still not at a standard that you might like, but in my opinion, the improvements are pretty impressive, and BIS is on the right track.

Really, I think that we can have the best of both worlds.

[Zipper5 74]

No more DLC for now (<-400+ community members agree). Fix these things first.

You think that BIS concentrate all of their resources on making DLC? I think you guys are far too used to mainstream game developers, whose sole purpose after releasing a game is not to support it but find ways to milk it as much as they can.

Also, you seem completely oblivious to the constantly on-going, in-spite-of-DLC-production beta patches BIS have been producing like clock-work which usually include at least one engine up-grade, test, or fix. You cannot take a look at the sheer number of patches released by BIS and make claims that they don't want to support the community. That's either ignorance, or blindness.

Edited January 13, 2011 by Zipper5

[Ironman13 13]

It might be possible, it might not.

If BIS doesn't need as many personnel then they will cut many of their contractors out.

If you have one goal you can spend 100% of time on it.

If you have two either it is 50/50 or one of the two projects isn't receiving as much time. I believe that this principle is more often the case. With every DLC came a patch, and with this, 400+ are not pleased.

However, this is not the full point of the post. The list on what should be improved is the main point. I can state 400+ agree that there should be no more DLC over and over again, but that doesn't accomplish anything. It only recognizes an issue with no suggestions on how to work on it.

-------------------------------

In my personal opinion regarding beta patches: I believe that these patches have caused many problems. Not more problems than solved problems, but nonetheless, spawns other issues. I respect the people that work on everything that might be posted on the dev-heaven. However, it would be an issue of me practicing blindness to say that they don't create any problems of their own. Of course they are just BETA-patches. But correct me if I am wrong, didn't a recent OFFICIAL patch cause AI's in flight to almost 90% smash in to the ground? So what happened between the beta and official patch there? To the best of my knowledge a beta didn't cause that issue. But beta's do cause many issues.

This is for another topic post though.

Edited January 13, 2011 by {GSF} Ironman

[Defunkt 431]

Quite honestly, any improvements to CQB would be welcome but none of the other things is even remotely a cause of concern for me.

[Zipper5 74]

BIS have a studio in Brno which largely concentrates on the DLC side of OA. That leaves the rest of said studio not working on the DLC, and the studio in Mnisek pod Brdy, at the least, to work on supporting the game. It's no question that BIS aren't devoting their entire team to DLC production.

[shark-attack 2]

Well said Ironman

[Zipper5 74]

In my personal opinion regarding beta patches: I believe that these patches have caused many problems. Not more problems than solved problems, but nonetheless, spawns other issues. I respect the people that work on everything that might be posted on the dev-heaven. However, it would be an issue of me practicing blindness to say that they don't create any problems of their own. Of course they are just BETA-patches. But correct me if I am wrong, didn't a recent OFFICIAL patch cause AI's in flight to almost 90% smash in to the ground? So what happened between the beta and official patch there? To the best of my knowledge a beta didn't cause that issue. But beta's do cause many issues.

This is for another topic post though.

Will you support your loyal community? Will you hear many of our voices? Don't continue to give us guns/tanks/planes, many of us wish for a change in the overall gameplay experience. Give us game engine upgrades! Don't tell us it will require us to buy new computers either, you have the means to accomplish this goal with our current rig specs. Do it.

The point is that you're implying in your post that BIS don't already want to support their games to the best of their ability, and if you had been around for longer than you have, you would know this is not the case. As long as you keep this as part of your argument, it doesn't need a different topic to discuss it under. Did you miss the Community Awards as well?

[Ironman13 13]

Did you miss that I have been around since the beginning of OFP? I stated that in the last topic that had the title changed twice by admins and then placebo locked it.

And no, I don't think BIS supports the community to the best of it's ability. Once again, this is my opinion.

[W0lle 1050]

Did you miss that I have been around since the beginning of OFP? I stated that in the last topic that had the title changed twice by admins and then placebo locked it.

And because he locked it you now just start another one?

As far as I can tell no one allowed you to do so. And when we close a thread then that usually means 'end of discussion'.

But it's obvious that you think your opinion is so important, our rules are of no importance.

Well go ahead as long as you can.

[Ironman13 13]

I am following the rules of your head admin: "I think this thread is best left to gather dust and you reshape your requests to be your requests not your assumptions that everyone wants your requests"

I reshaped my request and made clear that not everyone will agree with me. The title is of good representation of that. So, you can skedaddle or make input. Either way that post is more suited for a PM. Wouldn't you agree?

I have broken no rules regarding the forums and it seems non-rules are being created as everyone is going along. If placebo told me to stop posting then there would be grounds for "punishment". He simply said, reshape.

Edited January 13, 2011 by {GSF} Ironman

[TechnoTerrorist303 10]

Wow.... FPDR

[Chill xl 10]

Come on people, the guy said "we" instead of "i" in the wrong sentence, he acknowledged and changed it. Problem solved, nothing to see, lets move on...

To comment on Irons list, i dont see any value in most points on the list apart from the CQB thing that i think the game is really missing. Outdoor battles is where the game really shines, indoor it becomes rather difficult.

I think the avatar should move more fluid, with some build in mechanisms to do so. Like lowering the weapon when theres no rome for raised, raise the weapon when pointed out of a window and trying to look down. Also the scale of the houses make it difficult, they are on the very small side... Which makes moving inside them, especially with more people, very uncomfortable.

[no use for a name 0]

And no, I don't think BIS supports the community to the best of it's ability. Once again, this is my opinion.

Seriously?? I guess you should go find a game from EA or UBI that was released more than a year ago and see how much support it gets. Or better yet, go to a forum for a game that was released recently and see how many responses from devs you get

And then you also said:

In my personal opinion regarding beta patches: I believe that these patches have caused many problems. Not more problems than solved problems, but nonetheless, spawns other issues. I respect the people that work on everything that might be posted on the dev-heaven. However, it would be an issue of me practicing blindness to say that they don't create any problems of their own. Of course they are just BETA-patches. But correct me if I am wrong, didn't a recent OFFICIAL patch cause AI's in flight to almost 90% smash in to the ground? So what happened between the beta and official patch there? To the best of my knowledge a beta didn't cause that issue. But beta's do cause many issues.

So you want more support but no way for the public to test changes/fixes. Didn't think that thru too hard did ya?

As for the water...First, US military infantry rarely go into the water during combat. Second, swimming with a full kit is damn near impossible, and I'm sure it's a LAST resort. I was even in the Navy for 4 years and the only time I jumped in the water was in boot camp during an "abandon ship" drill. Third, if it was so easy to change, don't you think they would have done it by now? There's not even any mods for swimming/diving under water. My guess is that it's either near impossible or very buggy. But I guess that's what the beta patches would be for...oh, wait

Edited January 14, 2011 by No Use For A Name

[PuFu 4600]

leave the frustrated guy be...He obviously has an issue here, and none of the post will change his mind.

[Ironman13 13]

Spooner back in ArmA made an addon to swim under water. I believe it wouldn't work on a dedicated server too well.

So, if beta patches are for testing, answer the ridiculous question of how flying AI smashed into the ground. That was on an official patch. So, lets go through this logically. Beta patches are for testing and tinkering around right? Then after a beta meets many goals, it turns into an official patch right? Am I missing something so far? So, if there were no AI flight problems in the beta patches, how was there magically an issue on the official patch? O yea, but of course they use the betas to test everything before making an official patch, right?

@No Use For A Name:

1) Did I say BIS doesn't do as much as EA or UBI? Don't bring up silly points that are meaningless. The answer remains no, BIS doesn't support us TO THE BEST OF THEIR ABILITY. I will agree that they do support us.

2) "As for water....First, US military infantry rarely go into the water during combat" You are making yourself sound silly. You even acknowledged you were in the Navy. We better turn all them carriers and destroyers back home, tell the sailors their time was wasted lol. O yea, don't the marines normally get deployed by the Navy? Wasn't that even the case in the title ArmA2? I mean, need I say more?

I accept that some people wont like my list. However, if you feel this is an idiotic list, better go check the other forum post I started. Read it through and see how many people say "Don't speak for me" and then say they agree with one, two, or even three points. That is done multiple times, so obviously, I raised valid points.

I am prepared to defend this list because, a decent number would love to see it. Mission makers - modules fixed and 3D editor, Gamers - Water combat/swimming, Gamers - Hand Grenade toss fixed/adjusted, pretty much everyone would like to see CQB improved. Whether or not you accept this fact is on you.

The only thing I am frustrated at is the way people degraded my character by mixing around my words to say, "This was my interpretation of what Ironman's intentions were." You talk about arrogant assumptions? People sue others for just that and they always win. The BIS forums is an official forum board of the company BIS. It is a way for gamers to communicate with people who are actually open minded. Otherwise, what would ever be the point of posting anything at all.

I am not frustrated at all about people not liking my list. I didn't post it expecting everyone to be in complete agreement with me. That would be idiotic of me.

[wolfbite 8]

To be honest I think the waters fine.... No one can swim with 50+lbs of gear and a rifle/lmg/launcher. And i think BIS are doing well releasing new content and polishing and fixing the older bits/problems

[TechnoTerrorist303 10]

And no, I don't think BIS supports the community to the best of it's ability. Once again, this is my opinion.

This is really the biggest fail comment I've ever seen. I wonder how you form this opinion? As far as I can work out the only way this could be an informed opinion is if:

1) You have a supernatural awareness of the capabilities, abilities and time constraints of the BIS development team

2) Your programming knowledge and experience in maintaining and fixing the engine is equal to that of the people who wrote it.

If point 2 is true then why are you posting here and not working for them?

[-)rStrangelove 0]

/me realizes beer & popcorn are up and goes back to enjoy ArmA2 MP

[maddogx 13]

Ironman, some of the points you raised are indeed valid, but you are still wrong about several things:

- BIS does not need to stop making DLCs in order to fix engine issues. There is a difference between artists and programmers.

- Your criticism of the beta patches is completely baseless. Okay, so maybe the aircraft issue slipped through. Nevertheless, the benefits of the betas far outweigh any drawbacks you may percieve, and they certainly don't "break" anything, as you seem to be implying.

- Claiming that BIS doesn't support the community "to the best of their ability" is, quite frankly, borderline moronic. BIS employees use the community bug tracker, they read and comment on the forums, they provide beta patches to recieve feedback on bug fixes and new features, they provide direct support to mod and mission makers etc. How much more do you expect?

- Looking at your first post, I see the following phrases stand out:

... (<-400+ community members agree) ...

The Bold points are what many agree should be fixed, ... Many agree with this list. ... many of us wish for a change in the overall gameplay experience. Give us game engine upgrades! ... I may be one voice but I speak for many.

Claiming to speak for more than just yourself doesn't help the validity of your arguments. Sure, some of your ideas make sense, and wanting actual bugs fixed is a no-brainer, but on the whole it just makes your post seem extremely presumptuous and it makes you look unnecessarily insecure.

How about you just bring forth your ideas as your ideas and ask for comments?

Btw., since you requested that commentors provide their own ideas, here's a list I made earlier: Link

[Ironman13 13]

Why would I claim ideas are only mine when I hear others say the same thing? They are not only my ideas. It is a collection and I go about it in that way. If that makes me look insecure, ha, then so be it.

Many people agreeing with what I have to say proves the validity of my argument. Otherwise, I would be a moron throwing mumble jumble at a wall.

If the points seem presumptuous, and people agree with them, then I must carry at least an ounce of truth to my presumptions. Which many would say that I am a good observer/listener, I don't ever expect to hear that from the flamers here though.

Once again, if anyone is working on more than one thing they are not putting 100% in to either. You can say certain offices put 100% in to their part but overall, it is a split of some kind.

---------

About beta patches: Unless you are omniscient you can not say they are supporting us to the best of their ability. See how that argument works?

Edited January 14, 2011 by {GSF} Ironman

[maddogx 13]

About beta patches: Unless you are omniscient you can not say they are supporting us to the best of their ability. See how that argument works?

It works both ways, sure, which means you have essentially just torpedoed your own claims to the contrary. Well done.

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

To Ironman,

BI= slackers? I think not.

You suggest they should just stop everything, close the doors and come back when everything is perfect?

And just how many games and/or programs have you designed.. (for your arguments sake)?