Arma 3: Confirmed features | info & discussion

[maddogx 13]

Well, option or not, I'd rather have the developers spend their time on usefull things, rather than wasting it on useless stuff like an incoming bullet indicator.

I find a bullet indicator could be quite useful (provided it is optional), mainly to lower the bar of entry for new players. Like it or not, BIS have an interest in opening their games up to a wider audience, and optional features that will ease up the learning curve a little are the way to go.

If there was unlimited development time available, then sure, put in all the options that anyone can think of, the ability of soldiers to fly, jump over buildings or whatever. As long as this can be turned off, I wouldn't care. But with limited development time, I want this time to be spent on improving the game and creating useful features, not wasted on turning Arma into an arcade game.

This is the typical "I don't care about feature X, therefore it's just a waste of time!" argument, which isn't really an argument at all. Basically you're just wasting your time reiterating your opinion in different words without adding any more weight to it.

The people who want these kinds of features will never play Arma 3 anyway, they will stay with games like Battlefield, Call of Duty, Medal of Honor or something like that.

The people who want these kinds of features don't play Arma because it doesn't have these kinds of features yet, which is exactly why BIS is implementing them. Again, the point is to lower the bar of entry, ease new players into the game and nudge them onto the learning curve. You may not have noticed, but a lot of the features BIS are implementing are designed to attract a wider audience, and they have even said that this is their intention.

[JSj 12]

Fun fact: systems that detect gunfire and report the direction are pretty much standard feature on all vehicles in Afghanistan. They are very common and I think it's a matter of years and not even decades before they are miniaturized and placed on individual soldiers.

Yeah, and I'd love to have a realistic simulation of any of these systems in the game. But not an unrealistic arcade version.

[neokika 62]

Yeah, and I'd love to have a realistic simulation of any of these systems in the game. But not an unrealistic arcade version.

Why don't you disable these "arcade" features in the difficulty settings then?

Is it that hard to understand that this will all be optional?

_neo_

[JSj 12]

Why don't you disable these "arcade" features in the difficulty settings then?

Is it that hard to understand that this will all be optional?

_neo_

Is it that hard to read what I wrote? I will disable these features, but it's still wasted development time that could have been used to improve some other feature of the game.

I'd hate to see another great game series (like for instance Silent Hunter and Rainbow Six) be destroyed because the developers make the mistake of making the game "more accessible" (read: more arcade features), just to try to attract the twitchy CoD crowd. You can not make a game that will attract both players that are interrested in a realistic simulation and a 14 year old looking for a mindless action game. You'll end up losing both groups. Arma can not compete with Battlefield or Call of Duty, and should not attempt to do that.

As virtually the only modern realistic infantry game, realism should be the main focus of Arma, as that is what sets it apart from the hundreds of mainstream shooters out there. If not, why don't we all just pick up a copy of Battlefield 3? It has better graphics after all.

[maddogx 13]

1. Realism and accessability are not mutually exclusive.

2. Increased accessability != arcade.

[Alex72 1]

Is it that hard to read what I wrote? I will disable these features, but it's still wasted development time that could have been used to improve some other feature of the game.

I'd hate to see another great game series (like for instance Silent Hunter and Rainbow Six) be destroyed because the developers make the mistake of making the game "more accessible" (read: more arcade features), just to try to attract the twitchy CoD crowd. You can not make a game that will attract both players that are interrested in a realistic simulation and a 14 year old looking for a mindless action game. You'll end up losing both groups. Arma can not compete with Battlefield or Call of Duty, and should not attempt to do that.

As virtually the only modern realistic infantry game, realism should be the main focus of Arma, as that is what sets it apart from the hundreds of mainstream shooters out there. If not, why don't we all just pick up a copy of Battlefield 3? It has better graphics after all.

Although i agree 100% i dont think the idea is to do it that way. I think BIS want to make it a bit easier for newcomers to get into the game, and not another BF3 on the easy setting.

[instagoat 133]

Is it that hard to read what I wrote? I will disable these features, but it's still wasted development time that could have been used to improve some other feature of the game.

I'd hate to see another great game series (like for instance Silent Hunter and Rainbow Six) be destroyed because the developers make the mistake of making the game "more accessible" (read: more arcade features), just to try to attract the twitchy CoD crowd. You can not make a game that will attract both players that are interrested in a realistic simulation and a 14 year old looking for a mindless action game. You'll end up losing both groups. Arma can not compete with Battlefield or Call of Duty, and should not attempt to do that.

As virtually the only modern realistic infantry game, realism should be the main focus of Arma, as that is what sets it apart from the hundreds of mainstream shooters out there. If not, why don't we all just pick up a copy of Battlefield 3? It has better graphics after all.

I facepalmed all the way trough this post.

What is it with you rivet counters and your obsession for taking out anything -you- deem to be "unrealistic". You´re sitting in front of a computer screen, with stereo headphones. The screen is tiny, the screen resolution is abysmal, you most likely don´t have directional sound, and not as sensitive sound either as you´d have in real life. You have no sense of touch, no sense of smell, no general situational awareness outside of what you can see on your TINY screen.

Bullet direction indicators, peripheral vision blobs and crosshairs are tools that ENABLE you to "sense" things you couldn´t sense without, because of the woefully limited perceptive range you get from your average PC. Why the hell did they add bullet direction indicators to VBS2, do you think? Because it replaces the precise sense of hearing and increased visual awareness that is NONEXISTENT IN A GAME.

Really, every time you hardcore rivetcounters pop up, you grate my nerves to no end. It´s a game, ffs. Even the most realistic solutions in the commercial sim market have these features. But I guess instread of thinking about the lack of haptic access to the gameworld, it´s easier for you to just go "HURR ITS UNREALISTICCC TAKE IT OUT".

Sorry about my tone here, but I really have strong opinions about this.

And as the others said, if you don´t like it, turn it the fuck off. Easy. as. that. And stop cluttering the forums with your thoughtless nonsense. If you feel threatened by the developments, vote with your wallet. That´s all I have to say about that.

Cheerio

Insta

[paecmaker 23]

Is it that hard to read what I wrote? I will disable these features, but it's still wasted development time that could have been used to improve some other feature of the game.

I'd hate to see another great game series (like for instance Silent Hunter and Rainbow Six) be destroyed because the developers make the mistake of making the game "more accessible" (read: more arcade features), just to try to attract the twitchy CoD crowd. You can not make a game that will attract both players that are interrested in a realistic simulation and a 14 year old looking for a mindless action game. You'll end up losing both groups. Arma can not compete with Battlefield or Call of Duty, and should not attempt to do that.

As virtually the only modern realistic infantry game, realism should be the main focus of Arma, as that is what sets it apart from the hundreds of mainstream shooters out there. If not, why don't we all just pick up a copy of Battlefield 3? It has better graphics after all.

Bohemia is a company that needs money, and to earn more money they need to give the games bigger crowds. And what do you get from more money, possibly bigger and better games. I say that if more people start to play Arma 3 I dont care if they have "follow" signs everywhere as long as you can turn it off.(and maybe we can learn cod gamers to play tactically, cause even if its easier with help its not a cod game) If everything is scalable it can be as hardcore as you want and the ACE mod will disable the "bad" things and make it to the hardcore shooter you want.

And things like the hud and incoming fire stuff isnt the hardest stuff so I dont think they have like full teams just to make incoming fire alerts.

Edited August 18, 2011 by paecmaker

[JSj 12]

1. Realism and accessability are not mutually exclusive.

Right, they don't have to be. You can make the game more accessible by improving the tutorials and training/bootcamp missions. But that does not seem to be the way BIS is going, instead choosing to implement features like an incoming bullet indicator. How is this going to help? If you don't learn how to spot enemies and how not to get shot at in the first place, you're going to be just as lost when you turn this indicator off.

Why not make a tactics tutorial mission instead, giving hints and tips about how to move, where to look and where to point your weapon? Arcade features that destroys the realism is not going to teach you how to become a better player in the game.

[maddogx 13]

Right, they don't have to be. You can make the game more accessible by improving the tutorials and training/bootcamp missions. But that does not seem to be the way BIS is going, instead choosing to implement features like an incoming bullet indicator.

Actually, they're making better tutorials too. See latest interviews. There is no "instead" here.

How is this going to help? If you don't learn how to spot enemies and how not to get shot at in the first place, you're going to be just as lost when you turn this indicator off.

Apparently the idea of a learning curve means nothing to you. A visual indicator is a tool that improves your awareness. Just because it exists doesn't mean people won't learn to spot enemies the hard way, but it will help them out in the beginning, when they don't yet have that much experience.

Why not make a tactics tutorial mission instead, giving hints and tips about how to move, where to look and where to point your weapon? Arcade features that destroys the realism is not going to teach you how to become a better player in the game.

Tutorial missions and game features are not made by the same people. Again, there is no "instead" in this case. And the reasoning for including such an indicator has been explained pretty well by InstaGoat.

[dmarkwick 261]

I facepalmed all the way trough this post.

What is it with you rivet counters and your obsession for taking out anything -you- deem to be "unrealistic". You´re sitting in front of a computer screen, with stereo headphones. The screen is tiny, the screen resolution is abysmal, you most likely don´t have directional sound, and not as sensitive sound either as you´d have in real life. You have no sense of touch, no sense of smell, no general situational awareness outside of what you can see on your TINY screen.

Bullet direction indicators, peripheral vision blobs and crosshairs are tools that ENABLE you to "sense" things you couldn´t sense without, because of the woefully limited perceptive range you get from your average PC. Why the hell did they add bullet direction indicators to VBS2, do you think? Because it replaces the precise sense of hearing and increased visual awareness that is NONEXISTENT IN A GAME.

Really, every time you hardcore rivetcounters pop up, you grate my nerves to no end. It´s a game, ffs. Even the most realistic solutions in the commercial sim market have these features. But I guess instread of thinking about the lack of haptic access to the gameworld, it´s easier for you to just go "HURR ITS UNREALISTICCC TAKE IT OUT".

Sorry about my tone here, but I really have strong opinions about this.

And as the others said, if you don´t like it, turn it the fuck off. Easy. as. that. And stop cluttering the forums with your thoughtless nonsense. If you feel threatened by the developments, vote with your wallet. That´s all I have to say about that.

Cheerio

Insta

Yowza :)

---------- Post added at 02:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:20 PM ----------

Right, they don't have to be. You can make the game more accessible by improving the tutorials and training/bootcamp missions. But that does not seem to be the way BIS is going, instead choosing to implement features like an incoming bullet indicator. How is this going to help? If you don't learn how to spot enemies and how not to get shot at in the first place, you're going to be just as lost when you turn this indicator off.

Why not make a tactics tutorial mission instead, giving hints and tips about how to move, where to look and where to point your weapon? Arcade features that destroys the realism is not going to teach you how to become a better player in the game.

Not yowza.

Like others, I'm pretty fed up reading the same unreasoned crap from "realism" crowds, where realism only means removing things, never ever means replacing things. Realism of this kind is in fact less than realism, because you're taking away vital cues.

But hey, falls on deaf ears. Even the notion of "optional" is not good enough.

Edited August 18, 2011 by DMarkwick

[Bee8190 10]

Although i agree 100% i dont think the idea is to do it that way. I think BIS want to make it a bit easier for newcomers to get into the game, and not another BF3 on the easy setting.

It is great news that BIS is trying to improve manual and all for newcomers and i wish i had all that when i 1st loaded arma and pressed every button on my keybord to find out what each button does:p

but i personally never had any issues figuring out where fire is coming from (well not always of course ) but even though i openly admit that i dont have a clue how such incoming bullet indicator ''works'' i personally, would probably feel like mentally challanged using such feature in arma as we/i know it

( i do apologize but couldn't help posting this )

[pathetic_berserker 4]

Is it that hard to read what I wrote? I will disable these features, but it's still wasted development time that could have been used to improve some other feature of the game.

I'd hate to see another great game series (like for instance Silent Hunter and Rainbow Six) be destroyed because the developers make the mistake of making the game "more accessible" (read: more arcade features), just to try to attract the twitchy CoD crowd. You can not make a game that will attract both players that are interrested in a realistic simulation and a 14 year old looking for a mindless action game. You'll end up losing both groups. Arma can not compete with Battlefield or Call of Duty, and should not attempt to do that.

As virtually the only modern realistic infantry game, realism should be the main focus of Arma, as that is what sets it apart from the hundreds of mainstream shooters out there. If not, why don't we all just pick up a copy of Battlefield 3? It has better graphics after all.

+1 to all those voices of reason who have shot this post down in flames. Something I'd like to add though.

The feature wont come with any guarantee to atract COD players, but does keep those beginers about a little longer. So hopefully they can get used to the rest and decide to stay. The ArmA series is most famous for its learning curve. Though its readily acknowledged it's worth the effort to learn to play. Its not always so easy to do so.

So asuming that this fuction will be optional acording to difficulty. Whats the point of of purposefully making it more difficult?. Once a person has learnt how to play and has decided to keep playing, wouldn't it be natural for them to end up playing at higher difficulty levels and like many of us run about without so much as crosshairs?

Must remember , sometimes its the destination, not the journey.

[NoRailgunner 0]

BIS only have to make a good + userfriendly mp browser where info's about such activated options/features are shown. In that way everyone can choose to join or to continue searching for sim/"hardcore" servers. :)

Guess most if not all A3 public mp servers will run on the lowest common denominator (= easiest level) for at least one year. There are many players who don't like to learn anything through SP tutorials/missions. They just want to have fun shooting everything, blowing stuff up, killstats + achievements. Maybe simple mp tutorial or test missions could help a bit to sort - who is interested in military stuff and who will be just a omgl33tD3lt1shooter? ;)

[frostwyrm333 1]

there are looots of people who are turned off when they realize the complexity of the game and some are not even able to digest how easy is to die.

It is very easy to beat the campaigns and still do not know half of the game features, tutorials are helpful but they don't cover everything.

Its easy to forget the complexity if you are playing for "10 years".

I don't really think that arma 3 will change something about the game concept.

[PeterBitt 10]

Like others, I'm pretty fed up reading the same unreasoned crap from "realism" crowds, ...

disgusting how you just insult everyone with different opinions who dont just say "yes and amen" to everything BIS is doing.

we "realism crowds" state our opinion here (mostly) reasonable and objective whilst you fanboys just say shit like "dont buy it", "it can be disabled", "go buy your own server and set it up as you wish" ... 3rd person view thread comes to mind :j:

you want to tell us that we have no chance to play the game properly without crosshair, 3rd person view, advanced map and onscreen markers, bullet indicators and stuff like that and i say i DONT need this!

[Smurf 12]

you want to tell us that we have no chance to play the game properly without crosshair, 3rd person view, advanced map and onscreen markers, bullet indicators and stuff like that and i say i DONT need this!

So what? Im not using it either and Im not complaining about it.

Might be useful for someone new to the series until the "get" the game and play it as it "should".

[Guess Who 10]

you want to tell us that we have no chance to play the game properly without crosshair, 3rd person view, advanced map and onscreen markers, bullet indicators and stuff like that and i say i DONT need this!

Well, actually he ain't telling you that. If you actually read his post, you would know ... Options is all we ask. And really, what is so bad about that? Care to explain?

[instagoat 133]

disgusting how you just insult everyone with different opinions who dont just say "yes and amen" to everything BIS is doing.

we "realism crowds" state our opinion here (mostly) reasonable and objective whilst you fanboys just say shit like "dont buy it", "it can be disabled", "go buy your own server and set it up as you wish" ... 3rd person view thread comes to mind :j:

you want to tell us that we have no chance to play the game properly without crosshair, 3rd person view, advanced map and onscreen markers, bullet indicators and stuff like that and i say i DONT need this!

I would be interested in reading how you reason that depriving yourself of gameplay tools that are substituting for senses and perception you are lacking in the gameworld (as opposed to the real world) makes the game more realistic. I for one would claim that it does quite the opposite.

As long as that point isn´t adressed, I maintain that your points are void. And I also don´t see how the suggestions of voting with your wallet (ie, not buying. If your crowd had any serious buying power, and thus business value to BIS, it would make a difference.) or setting up the game as you prefer it (which BI has always allowed in their games), and playing it with your friends as you desire it are invalid points.

Instead you are proposing to DITCH these features in favour of your skewered perception of realistic gameplay, despite their obvious value to newcomers, and people who care about the realism where it counts, such as the combat and application of combat tools itself. Insofar, YOUR points are being unreasonable, so quit playing the victim here.

I suggest trying to counter a point with a point of your own, instead of trying to invalidate what the "bis fanboys" saying with claims of victimization, and hollow arguments that do nothing to adress the point but to eliminate it alltogether.

My two cents.

[dmarkwick 261]

disgusting how you just insult everyone with different opinions who dont just say "yes and amen" to everything BIS is doing.

we "realism crowds" state our opinion here (mostly) reasonable and objective whilst you fanboys just say shit like "dont buy it", "it can be disabled", "go buy your own server and set it up as you wish" ... 3rd person view thread comes to mind :j:

you want to tell us that we have no chance to play the game properly without crosshair, 3rd person view, advanced map and onscreen markers, bullet indicators and stuff like that and i say i DONT need this!

I'm not trying to tell anyone how to play the game. I'm for the option. Always the option. You seem to be complaining that as most servers don't set their games up as you would like them to be set up, that BIS simply remove the options that you find objectionable. I find that to be unreasonable behaviour.

Edited August 18, 2011 by DMarkwick

[PuFu 4600]

you want to tell us that we have no chance to play the game properly without crosshair, 3rd person view, advanced map and onscreen markers, bullet indicators and stuff like that and i say i DONT need this!

If you don't need it, or don't want it, you always have the OPTION to DISABLE it. As Markwick said, i am pretty content that BIS gives their players options to set up and play their game as they want to.

If you want to bring up the MP part of the game again, and how EVIL foreign admins DARE to set up their servers per their needs, my suggestion will always be the same...

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Actually, no, you can't just disable it as long as server will dictate your settings in MP and not be able to have it more difficult if you want to. Bullet indicator does seem a bit too much to me too, but if it's only available for recruit setting, then I don't care.

This could be expanded to Veteran too (as long as server dictates my setting) wrt crosshair, 3rd person and extended map info. Now that AI finally isn't able to see through grass (since latest betas), the advantage you gain from 3rd person and crosshair is so that you can just ignore grass. I'm sorry, but I don't get that Veteran vibe here, and all Veteran servers I've tried lately have had both these "arcady features" enabled. It shuts me out from playing the game on public servers.

That being said, I think we do need to attract the CoD players to the game. Some of them will not add to the experience and "keep CoD'ing" :p, but some of them will "see the light" and adopt a better suiting playstyle.

As for "evil admins" (lol), that's the result of nearly full freedom of the settings. Other, even more arcady, games, doesn't even have 3rd person (unless glitched, special game modes designed around it, or using dev tools to activate it) yet the games are still being played and enjoyed. Do you really think our game wouldn't be played because it has limitations in the settings that made more sense than full freedom for the admins?

Again, the biggest issue for me is how servers dictate my settings to be easier than I want. I want to be able to change mid game. If server allows crosshairs, I want to be able to remove them while infantry, and enable them while side gunning a BMP3. I'd also want difficulty settings to become a lot more nuanced than simple on/off switches (where applicable). Like "crosshair": Infantry, sniping, throwing, lockable, vehicles, or "AI control method": both, map, 3rd person, none, which btw should only be there when you have AI in your squad. So if you make some kind of RTS system where 3rd person is unavoidable, you'd have to setup mission centric difficulty settings to match that, without affecting how an AI-less coop is setup.

I know I'm speculating all over the place, but to me, the allowed freedom is a big pain. I don't know if my ideas are any good, but I'd prefer discussion and suggestion around the issue rather than blindly accepting the (slightly outdated) difficulty system.

And for the love of God, please stop using that "OPTION to DISABLE it" argument. Unless you run your own server, there is no such thing as disabling it.

[PeterBitt 10]

aint you guys with the 1000+ posts are actualy good at playing arma?

do you realy need those helpers to come along in this game?

just think back to old OFP days, did you ever felt the need for colored circles to highlight your enemy or even direction indicators wich show the direction you get fire from?

those helpers belong to the very lowest difficulty setting and be disabled for veteran (god damned this mode is called VETERAN!).

they are helpful for new players, no doubt, but so many players use it even if they have the skill to not use it, just because it makes life easier.

if you actualy had to select the noob mode to have these features, iam sure you will think twice.

because thats what it is - features for new players.

(iam talking about fire direction indicator, crosshair, 3rd person, enemy indicator, map markers)

we "realism crowds" state our opinion here (mostly) reasonable and objective ...

thanks carlgustaffa for validating this

Edited August 18, 2011 by PeterBitt

[ScratcH1 10]

because thats what it is - features for new players.

(iam talking about fire direction indicator, crosshair, 3rd person, enemy indicator, map markers)

Exactly and BIS wants to attract new players to the ArmA game series (which company doesn't want to attract more players?). They implement those features for the new players and if you're a veteran player, you choose the veteran difficulty setting where such little helpers aren't available. Nothing to discuss here.

[instagoat 133]

I think reviewing the difficulty settings and their particular effects is a reasonable demand.

As far as MP goes, though, I can´t say. I am not a multiplayer person, everything I say is with regard to the singleplayer aspect of the game.

And I still think that these options don´t just belong to the lowest difficulty setting, but to every setting as an option. Like I said, the senses are woefully limited due to the platform used, for example unless you have a proper surround sound system, you can´t exactly tell where a shot came from. That´s what the indicators are for, to replace senses that are lost due to the limitations of the platform (PC).

And I doubt that everyone has a complete surround sound system, multi-monitor setups and mega-resolution capable screens (and equipment.) that enable them to see, hear and feel their environment the same way they would in real life.