ArmA3 Wishlist and Ideas

[Luomu 10]

It's hard enough to generate a <first name> <last name> without having fictional namesakes in one game (or movie) or another. Now they have to consider close shaves too?

As somewhat related trivia, Duke Nukem was originally a villain in the Captain Planet cartoon series. The name was later taken by a popular video game character.

Even better, Duke Nukem developer 3DRealms/Apogee was founded by Scott Miller :P

[RangerX3X 0]

It's hard enough to generate a <first name> <last name> without having fictional namesakes in one game (or movie) or another. Now they have to consider close shaves too?

There are "Close shaves" and then there are complete rip-offs. There is simply no excuse to virtually mirror the titular character from another highly successful military shooter.

I guess the developers really do live in a vacuum.

In an E3 video the BI rep says that the Comanche was not shitcanned in the Armaverse.

And that is simply sad that they would take the time to model and script an aircraft that never went into production and never flew a single combat mission.

I guess "The Ultimate Military Simulation" really does not give a hoot about realism when it comes right down to it.

[maddogx 13]

There are "Close shaves" and then there are complete rip-offs. There is simply no excuse to virtually mirror the titular character from another highly successful military shooter.

I guess the developers really do live in a vacuum.

And that is simply sad that they would take the time to model and script an aircraft that never went into production and never flew a single combat mission.

I guess "The Ultimate Military Simulation" really does not give a hoot about realism when it comes right down to it.

No, it doesn't. So just give it a fucking rest.

[Zipper5 74]

Sure is butthurt in here, but I can't figure out why. Something about Mitchell sounding close to Miller, which it doesn't.

Edited June 12, 2011 by Zipper5

[77Lupin1 10]

There are "Close shaves" and then there are complete rip-offs. There is simply no excuse to virtually mirror the titular character from another highly successful military shooter.

I guess the developers really do live in a vacuum.

And that is simply sad that they would take the time to model and script an aircraft that never went into production and never flew a single combat mission.

I guess "The Ultimate Military Simulation" really does not give a hoot about realism when it comes right down to it.

Bitching: Because it solves everything.

[2nd ranger 282]

The Comanche is a helicopter that fires missiles to blow things up. So will be whatever chopper someone uses in the inevitable replacement addon. There, problem solved.

[-GR-Operative 10]

BF3 has the USMC Sgt. Miller. I think Miller is simply a common surname, that's being overused. Simple coincidence.

There's a study in the incidence of names in the US population. If we look for Scott and Miller they will be probably by the top of the list.

[wiggie 24]

I've noticed alot of my suggestions have already been posted, but I will post the major ones I would like to see;

1: Full customization; The ability to mod weaponary is in, but I would like to be able to make my soldier appear totally unique, from gloves, to shirts, kneepads to helmets, and even the pouch layouts, addons such as marking strobes, helmet cams and headsets, all with some viable abilities (Such as a helmet cam having the ability to playback video of the moments before a soldier was killed, so that players can see where ambushes came from and such.).

2: Squad deligation. I am a fair squad commander and enjoying leading AI teams. However, I would like to be able to tell my assault team to flank right and then have the fireteam leader deligate targets, move points and other micro orders to his team members instead of having to do it all myself. It would make the whole process more intuative and natural.

3: More combat effects; From sudden ambushes putting troops into a panic mode, to stray rounds causing unaware soldiers to dive for cover or flinch, up to smoke and gas choking soldiers and explosions knocking people to the floor, I would really like to see the battlefield come to life and to feel even more real an intense.

4: I would like to see the medical system revamped, as Tom1 said, with a really detailed first aid system, but as for AI usage, I would like to be able to order my men to drag and carry the wounded away, and to actually do it on they're own. So that in battle, I can lay down supression and smoke whilst my medic's and riflemen evacuate the wounded.

5: Ability to tell squad mates to use grenade launchers, rockets and other equipment. Whilst they should do it themselves, I would like to be able to yell to my Team Leaders to shoot some flares or smoke grenades off at certain points to cover my retreat.

6: A simple and intuative building clearance order; Depending on the buildings size, and the number of men I deligate to clear it, the AI will automatically breach and clear the building in a dynamic fashion, using multiple entry points, grenades and even absailing and such to enter and clear the building.

7: More co-operative moves. Such as boosting friendlies over walls, pulling them up ledges and sharing ammo and gear between eachother. This also includes an order for every member of the squad to gather up and distribute they're gear so that everybody is evenly equipped. Hopefully AI would do this on the fly as well, so if one soldier runs dry on 5.56, he'll call out and another squadie will resupply him instantly.

8: More Warfare; I'd like to see Warfare back on a bigger scale and with deeper gameplay. I love it when my recon team is stuck out in the wild somewhere, and I have to call in my brother with his helicopter to pick us up. However, I would like to see AI and commanders doing this too, issuing pick up and ressuply orders to pilots and such. I would also like to see a practical use for Civilians, maybe making them useful by winning they're favour with SecOps so that they disclose useful intel to your side.

9: Interface changes: I like the action menu for some things but for modifying weapons, using vehicles and such, there needs to be some custom, easy to use interfaces so that it is all very clear.

And Finally.

I do not want to be stuck with just one simple faction again. I would like to see both East and West being made up of several factions that will give the battlefield an overall feeling of diversity, and also, the ability to choose which troops and factions I wan't to fight with, in custom campaigns and missions. Sure U.S Army in Takistan were cool, but I would have killed for BAF or USMC to be as diverse, and to also have had all the features like backpacks, and units like engineers.

Just a few of my ideas.

[Nielsen 10]

Dunno if this has been thrown out there, but:

Please give auto-walk, pls! :P

You can toggle so many things in this game. I really would like to be able to toggle-walk! Would make patrols much more fun.

Also, it would be awesome if you could preserve spent mags in a dump-pouch, and refill empty mags from ammo crates.

Edited June 12, 2011 by Nielsen
Ideas in bold

[Undeceived 392]

In an E3 video the BI rep says that the Comanche was not shitcanned in the Armaverse.

That ^ should set this miserable discussion about how unrealistic and out of place the chopper is and [other moaning subjects] are to an end.

[SPC.Spets 21]

Dunno if this has been thrown out there, but:

Please give auto-walk, pls! :P

You can toggle so many things in this game. I really would like to be able to toggle-walk! Would make patrols much more fun.

Also, it would be awesome if you could preserve spent mags in a dump-pouch, and refill empty mags from ammo crates.

toggle walk? did you tried double tap click in the walk key?

[Steakslim 1]

Yeah I toggle walk all the time. Dunno what Nielsen is yammering about.

[antoineflemming 14]

toggle walk? did you tried double tap click in the walk key?

pretty sure double-tap walk is sprint. But not sure of Nielsen's settings. I know for me the default was double Shift.

[Eclipse4349 0]

If you are walking and holding shift to run, double-tapping shift makes you run by default, and hold shift to walk. And vice-versa

[instagoat 133]

And that is simply sad that they would take the time to model and script an aircraft that never went into production and never flew a single combat mission.

I guess "The Ultimate Military Simulation" really does not give a hoot about realism when it comes right down to it.

I think when you complain about this, you should also complain about the merkava being BOTH the main MBT of the Eastern faction, as well as the NATO, and the eastern faction apparently using a mix of Israeli heavy equipment and western equipment. Iran, using Namers? They wouldn´t touch any zionist gear with a ten foot stick, irl. But like I said before, wether you like this or not´s a matter of personal preference, and to what makes Arma what it is, it does not matter.

What´s important is the gameplay. If you can still execute a squad level assault on an enemy hiding in a village, it doesn´t matter whose gear your squad is using. All that matters is general technology level if quantum leaps have been made, which won´t be the case for this game. (No homing bullets for the individual infantryman, no stealth shields despite them being in actual development right now, etc.)

As for the wishes, I´d like for the gameplay to become even more tactical and refined, with the Units communicating in between each other and coordinating, and working HC AI.

That´d be rad, BI. Thx!

[AstroMan 10]

Just thought of the Merkava being both MBT for both sides for arma 3, that would be a hilarious sight to see in multiplayer.

Edited June 13, 2011 by AstroMan

[SPC.Spets 21]

pretty sure double-tap walk is sprint. But not sure of Nielsen's settings. I know for me the default was double Shift.

yes, I mean the walk mode key "SHIFT" by default

[dreday 1]

Iran, using Namers? They wouldn´t touch any zionist gear with a ten foot stick, irl. But like I said before, wether you like this or not´s a matter of personal preference, and to what makes Arma what it is, it does not matter.

I am not so sure about this. If the Arab nations and Iran were to overrun Israel, as I am guessing the ArmA3 storyline implies, I don't see why they wouldn't use advanced Israeli military technology... It would be silly not to! It has already been pointed out that the Iranian armed and security forces are using the IMI Uzi and they have also continued to improve/modernize the American equipment that had been sold to them prior to the revolution.

What´s important is the gameplay. If you can still execute a squad level assault on an enemy hiding in a village, it doesn´t matter whose gear your squad is using. All that matters is general technology level if quantum leaps have been made, which won´t be the case for this game. (No homing bullets for the individual infantryman, no stealth shields despite them being in actual development right now, etc.)

As for the wishes, I´d like for the gameplay to become even more tactical and refined, with the Units communicating in between each other and coordinating, and working HC AI.

That´d be rad, BI. Thx!

This I completely agree with. In addition, my personal wish is for a better simulation of the entrenched/fortified position where the AI actually knows how to use them properly - that can have a huge impact on the gameplay!

Peace,

DreDay

Edited June 13, 2011 by DreDay

[trips 10]

Definitely, Dre. I think there's big room for improvement in the infantry combat. Giving the AI the ability to effectively use buildings & bunkers, both on map and user placed, would really up the tactics needed. At the moment the only option I know of is to weld the AI to the floor (disableAI "MOVE") and force them into the right stance to get them to fire back from inside a building. It ends up meaning that instead of using four Fs most missions played against AI really just use two, find the enemy and finish the fight by shooting them. Sometimes I feel like i'm playing a shooting gallery. They don't duck when they get shot at or otherwise use the great cover they have effectively. Maybe we need a 'defend' or 'occupy' waypoint so the AI know they're supposed to stay put and survive, not run out in the open or try to flank and attack.

Not just buildings but I think the AI should be taught to use terrain cover more effectively as well, but first the cover has to be there.

Has anyone fought on the cliff in southern Chernarus between Chernagorsk and Elektrozovadosk? It's in the first campaign mission but you're not so much fighting in it as picking off targets from the summit. Take a look at the terrain there, maybe give yourself a fireteam and put an enemy patrol there. When you get to the top look back west at the opposite hill face. Compare the number of pockets of cover you have up here to what it looks like basically everywhere else on the map. It's smooth hills basically everywhere else. I don't know of any place on any other map, official or user made, where the terrain is as good as on those ten hectares in Chernarus. A map shouldn't all be like that, open plains has a value, but going in a forest and having to hide behind thin trees like in a cartoon got old real fast. I imagine that it's a lot less graphically, memory and CPU intensive to use the terrain map to generate cover instead of objects. I think terrain is a lot of the time easier to use as cover too 'cause it's not fixed at waist height, you can inch forwards and pop up, take a shot and move back.

On that point I think a 'cover system' wouldn't go amiss. It doesn't have to be like Gears of War or Red Orchestra (although that kind of system wouldn't be too bad), it could just be something simple like the mouse lean in the Tom Clancy games but also applied to how far your character is kneeling/squatting/raising their head above the ground. Just something that lets us use a wider range of objects as cover. Let's leave crouching behind thigh-high stone walls with your head and shoulders sticking out behind.

Finally, can the suppression 'system' be made a little more accurate? I only really have two complaints with how it is at the moment but I think changing one or both of these things could have a significant impact on infantry combat:

• At the moment rounds passing overhead don't suppress, only rounds that hit around you/your target.
  
• AI don't stick behind cover when being suppressed, i.e. they can't be pinned.
  

Hopefully someone reads that. At least i've finally put it in writing.

[4 IN 1 0]

First thing I would like BI to address, is the amateur animation they used (especially handgun related ones), they are at best "amateur" (or at worst: inefficient, un-professional, slow, wired)

Then there is the fire team control and interface, right now all the unit still spread like randomly after assigned to a fireteam, it take far too much space (a few page in team element display) and time (going through a few pages back and forth) to negivate through, what would be a better idea is to combain the units in same colour team into one icon, taking place at the top page just next to player avatar icon (F2-F5 position), individual unit within that team should be access by double tabing F keys and use ~ key to go back to normal page

[nikiller 18]

hi,

I would like to see:

- new animations.

- new physic. (it seems to be pretty good as far as I saw)

- new voices.

- new weapons sounds.

- improved MP code.

- better overall performances.

Other than that, BIS keep up the good work you did with ArmA2! (beta patch and so on...)

BTW, I have the real feeling that BIS listened to the community.

Can't wait! ArmA3 fuck yeah!!

cya.

Nikiller.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Nikiller

[antoineflemming 14]

Radial Menus. Some people say it's too much like OFP:DR and that because OFP:DR had a terrible menu, then all radial menus are now bad. You could do a radial menu the same as with the standard menus, bunch of options, one button for "more" if all available actions don't fit on the particular menu. It could work. But, oh well. I do think a radial menu would be good at least for attachments and weapon selection, like these radial menus from AA3 (America's Army 3; Armed Assault 3 is ArmA 3...):

http://manual.americasarmy.com/images/7/77/4blademenu.jpg

http://manual.americasarmy.com/images/2/2e/8blade.jpg

http://manual.americasarmy.com/images/5/57/Commoradial.jpg

http://manual.americasarmy.com/images/4/4b/Weaponradial.jpg

http://manual.americasarmy.com/images/0/06/Grenradial.jpg

And, if they were like the AA3 menus, the middle yellow button could be a button for more options, like more commands or actions. It could work and still be just as complex as the current system.

[terox 316]

I would like to see (for a change)

a) A release candidate that is actually playable to a decent standard. (Every version released to date has been very poor in this area)

b) World release on the same day

c) Dedicated servers available with the release candidate (Linux and Win)

I don't think that's what we'll get but who knows

[Sgt. Exodus 10]

Definitely, Dre. I think there's big room for improvement in the infantry combat.....

......Hopefully someone reads that. At least i've finally put it in writing.

Agreed completely.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Agreed completely.

I must say i do agree too.