Arma 3: Confirmed features | info & discussion

[metalcraze 290]

Well you have all the things which you described already in game even like RO2 ( with tank interiors, does not matter if only 2 tanks but still ) except those planes and few other things, but...

Too many buts

RO2 is Battlefield with pseudo-realistic gimmicks (wounding system in a game where it's better to just die and respawn 5 seconds later 20m away, tank interiors? but they offer nothing, running for 10 seconds tires you, everything on soviet side mostly mirrors german side due to arcade balancing etc)

I don`t know, but current stage of Arma 2 ( i hope not Arma 3 sooner or later ) simply looks really like some arcade to me though.

In that case there is not a single game that isn't arcade - because I can say that Steel Beasts is arcade too because infantry rockets spawn out of thin air and in ArmA2 they are fired from launcher tubes. Not every button in tank cockpit can be pressed and in Falcon 4 it can. Falcon 4 is arcade itself

Things are relative. There's no point in making planes pop into parts in a game where they see use 0.1% of the time (due to maps being too small for them) and that use is a scripted drop of a bomb in an infantry mission. Just like there's no point in making infantry have real ballistics in a game about F-16. It's about being realistic in what you expect. RO2 was in development for as long as ArmA2 yet it has 2 tanks with cockpits that have no use while ArmA2 has more without. But ultimately ArmA2 tanks offer much more game mechanics wise (FLIR and NV, different types of ammo, laser range finder and they also can be controlled by AI, heck you can kill an infantry guy by quickly turning your turret and slapping him with a barrel)

Edited February 11, 2013 by metalcraze

[raptor90 1]

Steel Beasts is arcade too because infantry rockets spawn out of thin air and in ArmA2 they are fired from launcher tubes.

So ? Does arma 2 calculates the aftermath of it ? No ?

So you prefer visual effects in "Ultimate Military Simulator" ala Arma 2 before the realism is that correct ?

[metalcraze 290]

So you prefer visual effects in "Ultimate Military Simulator" ala Arma 2 before the realism is that correct ?

Are you seriously writing this?

I'm done here.

[raptor90 1]

I think we should close this discussion with words like "everyone believes into what he wants to to believe..."

[slatts 1978]

Why did I read the last few pages..my head hurts.

[nodunit 397]

Even with the current system, having slopes or armor thickness effect a projectile would add a great deal of gameplay. As it stands vehicles will soak in regardless of its orientation to you, thus making armor designs obsolete.

The curious thing is that armor is strangely limited despite the engines capabilities, for example having a projectile pass through a weak spot and into a crew member or something that would trigger the "Sys" damage. I say this due to the fact that in OA you are able to penetrate the armor of a lightly armored humvee in from the back with even the M4, killing the occupants without blowing it up.

However the armored humvee requires a greater caliber to get through, yet tanks for example reason are a case of hit with explosive X times to blow tank up, with the occasional module damage outside the tank, there is no way to kill the occupants without obliterating the tank itself.

Edited February 12, 2013 by NodUnit

[metalcraze 290]

It is still possible to wound the crew inside without obliterating the tank (although probably not kill - at least in vanilla). For example if you will fire Metis at the turret of M1A1 from the left side of it it will wound only the commander and the loader (who is turned in btw since CCP addition) but leave the driver and the gunner unharmed. And the tank will still remain relatively functional (considering the round).

Then again ACE does it way better. Which says that there is directional damage and penetration, it's just not done well enough in vanilla.

[On_Sabbatical 11]

This has indeed a very high impact on infantry gameplay! In Vanilla Arma you need only a few RPGs to blow up any tank. It doesn´t matter if you attack it from the front or not. Now try the same using ACE. Shooting a T-90 or M1A1 with RPGs from the front is an extremely bad idea. You need to think of ways to get behind it, or at least on its flank.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWBkBBUzqs8

[fragmachine 12]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWBkBBUzqs8

So this shot shows RPG hitting in ammunition compartment od M1A2 TUSK which leads to it's destruction?

Does that means it's realistic? No. Ammunition compartment in M1A2 have additional armour protecting crew and tank itself from being fully destructed.

IMO ACE2 did it fine.

[metalcraze 290]

At least some crew did survive there (you can see a crewman escaping before the tank explodes)

[On_Sabbatical 11]

My point was somehow to show that it actually matters where you shoot tanks in arma ,realistic or not is another story :P

[raptor90 1]

Thats not very satisfying for ... eehm Arma 2 OA.

Please see this video and compare it with Qazdar`s post...

[slatts 1978]

Please bare in mind that Arma's main focus has always been more towards infantry and their tactics with vehicles being mere playable assets. While I would to have more realistic damage models on vehicles, I always keep that in mind.

BF3's damage model isn't perfect either ;) I can hit a tank in the tracks with a rpg and it will still move as fast and straight. At least in Arma is damages the track and effects the tank.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Slatts

[raptor90 1]

BF3's damage model isn't perfect either ;) I can hit a tank in the tracks with a rpg and it will still move as fast and straight. At least in Arma is damages the track and effects the tank.

BF3 has a perfect damage model for an arcade though.

But its too damn bad that damage models of this two games are very close to each other...

[nodunit 397]

So this shot shows RPG hitting in ammunition compartment od M1A2 TUSK which leads to it's destruction?

Does that means it's realistic? No. Ammunition compartment in M1A2 have additional armour protecting crew and tank itself from being fully destructed.

IMO ACE2 did it fine.

While the abrams does have armor on the front and sides, the direct back of the compartmen is thinly armored http://media.moddb.com/images/groups/1/3/2074/Abrams_armor.jpg The point where the RPG hits could potentially do the damage shown in the video, remember abrams was built for the cold war with the idea that armor is mostly in the front, and that your back should never be to the enemy.

That said, there is the sliding door shield and blast panels that would re-direct the blast force upward rather than into the crew...but that only works if the door is closed. If it is opened, and since there is no interior we'll just assume it always is which would explain why the crew want to bail out so quickly, it would engulf the cabin...disabling the tank one way or another.

I wouldn't say BF3 and Arma 2 have similar damage engines, in BF3 you hit a tank enough it just crawls and eventually blows up, doesn't matter where you hit it as long as you hit it enough. Arma you have damage to "destroyed" tracks and gun. Certainly there is room for more but I'm not expecting steel beasts, though it may be possible that an engine module will be added...that said, it would still be nice if armor design actually had a purpose.

For most games it's still a pretty good damage system, but it's been left in the dust and is in dire need of an update of SOME sort rather than still following the OFP limits.

Edited February 15, 2013 by NodUnit

[Smurf 12]

Men of War series comes to mind.

Anyway, their are modeling armor values for vests, helmets and even eyewear, one can dream with something more authentic.

[metalcraze 290]

BF3 has a perfect damage model for an arcade though.

But its too damn bad that damage models of this two games are very close to each other...

Just like BF3's and WW2 online damage model. Why don't you complain there?

BF3's damage model isn't perfect either ;) I can hit a tank in the tracks with a rpg and it will still move as fast and straight. At least in Arma is damages the track and effects the tank.

Bro don't you get it.

Visually they are the same - when you hit the barrel of Abrams in BF3 and ArmA2 it doesn't break off so it must mean damage models are the same.

What else plays the role in a damage model but visuals?

Dude was explaining to me for 2 pages about how ArmA2 is not a sim because plane's wings don't break off when it's hit (just like in that arcade game Falcon 4.0)

Edited February 15, 2013 by metalcraze

[chortles 263]

For what it's worth, BF3 only has four vehicular damage states: "fully functioning", "destroyed" being reduced to a certain HP percentage causes the "disabled" state -- which for ground vehicles means a mobility kill and for aircraft means reduced responsiveness/maneuvering, and slowly depleting Health for both -- and at about 20% HP they outright catch fire, although the Extinguisher specialization for aircraft pilots lets them put out engine fires and return the vehicle Health to just over the "disable" threshold... but there's no, say, "tracks still operate but the vehicle turret no longer moves around and the main gun cannot fire".

[-Coulum- 35]

I think arma has the potential for "good enough" component based damage. My guess is that they just didn't put much effort into it when making all the vehicles so you can't fully appreicate (just a guess i really don't know).

BIS seem to be making less vehicles but more detail so maybe this will help make component based damage play more of a role? One of the early E3 vids where the narrator immobilizes a car by destroying the engine through the hood with a single anti-material round looked promising...

[raptor90 1]

Just like BF3's and WW2 online damage model. Why don't you complain there?

Complain about what ? Where ?

Dunno what about do you typing here.

[chortles 263]

I think arma has the potential for "good enough" component based damage. My guess is that they just didn't put much effort into it when making all the vehicles so you can't fully appreicate (just a guess i really don't know).

BIS seem to be making less vehicles but more detail so maybe this will help make component based damage play more of a role? One of the early E3 vids where the narrator immobilizes a car by destroying the engine through the hood with a single anti-material round looked promising...

One upside to Arma 3 as opposed to Arma 2/OA is that "component-based damage" will be in from the beginning instead of the situation where, say, CO would just have A2 vehicles only have Hull for a component.

Oh yeah, and BF3 does simulate the reactive armor concept when using the Reactive Armor specialization or using the AAV-7A1 AMTRAC (which does not have specialization unlocks and thus comes with front and side armor equipped by default) -- albeit in arcadey fashion it's "sacrifice the struck panel to negate damage to the vehicle", though striking that same side again will deal normal damage and APFSDS-T Shells will ignore said Reactive Armor, and in "typical arcadey" fashion, an Engineer can replace the reactive armor panels by using the repair tool on the previously-struck side after fully restoring the vehicle's HP.

[toxim 0]

This might belong here:

Improved radio protocol

The infamous "2, MOVE TO THAT TREE AT 2 O'CLOCK" is gone now. Radio protocol improvements in #Arma3 are likely to disappoint many trolls ;)

Source: Karel Mořický @ twitter

https://twitter.com/KarelMoricky/status/301981622448816128

It was mentioned earlier in this thread, but i guess this kinda confirms it.

Edited February 15, 2013 by Toxim

[maddogx 13]

This might belong here:

Improved radio protocol

The infamous "2, MOVE TO THAT TREE AT 2 O'CLOCK" is gone now. Radio protocol improvements in #Arma3 are likely to disappoint many trolls

Source: Karel Mořický @ twitter

https://twitter.com/KarelMoricky/status/301981622448816128

It was mentioned earlier in this thread, but i guess this kinda confirms it.

And Jay's follow up on that:

We're experimenting with the identities system for radio protocol, having 'human names' for squad members, within certain restrictions.

We look forward to talking more/ getting feedback about the refinements to this feature in the next couple of months.

It will be interesting to see how else the radio protocol has been improved. Names instead of numbers is the "who" part - that leaves the "what" and the "where".

Also, the "certain restrictions" part is rather ambiguous. :D

[toxim 0]

Most likely the "certain restrictions" might mean for having names for the important characters only (from campaign), maybe with a few extra common first names (Steve, Bob etc) or typical (silly) nicknames (Psycho, Rock, Mad Mike, Hammer etc) for players to use in their own missions.

(Also, damn i had completely missed that it was mentioned in ARMA 3 development blog & reveals -thread already)

Edited February 15, 2013 by Toxim

[Ezcoo 47]

I also hope that they have, or will record many versions of numbers (start - in middle of - end of series and do the same with different moods, like scared, calm etc.). Relatively small work but increases the immersion greatly, when the bots reciting numbers don't sound like machine voice.