Attidude of many forum members regarding Arma 3

[vilas 477]

I wonder why people are so... "intelligent" and expect A3 to be the all-in-one game of their dreams, which surely has all of their own wishes and requests... Oh come on...

maybe because we love so much OFP and CWC and we have enough of "another super modern shooter" ?

why people do moan ? for most of us first thing is military realism

i thing many would love to see:

- working bulletproof vests

- good realistic dammage (not shooting 15 magazines from M16 to blow-up tank shooting in it's wheel)

- better wound/vital organs simulation

- not bringing too much CoD kids , cause many people in this community are/were real soldiers, not 12 yo fat gammers watching Rambo

- making future placement is sensless - will AI use FLIR ? will AI be blinded by smoke grenade ?

future or modern warfare is not "like fields of WW1 but with SCAR and Multicam", but engine which we know are more for historic games not for modern (lack of many things , wrong simulation of vehicle dammage)

Arma engine we know is best for field infantry war (WW1, WW2, CWC)

in A2 you cannot GPS-lead bomb,

we afraid that instead of realistic simulator we will get "A2 repacked" to "2025 mod" with limits (who need scuba diver if AI won't use FLIR ? or if AI will see you behind bush although it has no FLIR, who need diver if 2 shots in leg kill man, if 300 5.56mm shots in wheel blow up tank, who need super uber APC from 2025 if AI will stuck again in the town without using rear gear )

Edited May 28, 2011 by vilas

[Andre 10]

.....

Edited August 14, 2011 by Andre

[instagoat 133]

maybe because we love so much OFP and CWC and we have enough of "another super modern shooter" ?

why people do moan ? for most of us first thing is military realism

i thing many would love to see:

- working bulletproof vests

- good realistic dammage (not shooting 15 magazines from M16 to blow-up tank shooting in it's wheel)

- better wound/vital organs simulation

- not bringing too much CoD kids , cause many people in this community are/were real soldiers, not 12 yo fat gammers watching Rambo

- making future placement is sensless - will AI use FLIR ? will AI be blinded by smoke grenade ?

future or modern warfare is not "like fields of WW1 but with SCAR and Multicam", but engine which we know are more for historic games not for modern (lack of many things , wrong simulation of vehicle dammage)

Arma engine we know is best for field infantry war (WW1, WW2, CWC)

in A2 you cannot GPS-lead bomb,

we afraid that instead of realistic simulator we will get "A2 repacked" to "2025 mod" with limits (who need scuba diver if AI won't use FLIR ? or if AI will see you behind bush although it has no FLIR, who need diver if 2 shots in leg kill man, if 300 5.56mm shots in wheel blow up tank, who need super uber APC from 2025 if AI will stuck again in the town without using rear gear )

I also hope that A3 won´t be A2 repacked as a 2025 mod, but instead actually will bring functionality into the new features it introduces, and enough polish to existing features to make them actually useable. Bullet proof vests would be awesome too, and I think the damage model has been fixed: now you can´t blow up tanks with rifle ammo anymore. A more detailed damage system for them would be nice though...

Thing is, there is something such as making a constructive, helpful suggestion, and being straightout rude and demanding. Sometimes there´s a thin line there, but it helps to keep in mind that the people you´re adressing (The developers) probably know what they´re doing. If they´re doing it right or wrong, we´ll only see on release day.

[coder4crack 10]

flashnews: A2/A3 are not flight sims, and never will be. Even if the flight part of the game gets an upgrade (coming from TOH most likely), you won't see the details available in FSX, Falcon or DCS, and i am sure you know it

well as long as the cockpits are interactive via mouse button clicks, and i can have a wingman, i am satisfied

[metalcraze 290]

Vilas got it right.

OFP-ArmA = the only series of games that offer anything close to a simulation for an average joe (aka civilian gamer). And didn't get dumbed down to reach "wide audience" (i.e. your typical raging CoD kiddie). Obviously we want to see the game do its job better.

Losing a CoD clone is easy because there are many CoD clones.

There is only one ArmA.

[max power 21]

well as long as the cockpits are interactive via mouse button clicks, and i can have a wingman, i am satisfied

Out of all of the things you can reasonably expect out of the aircraft improvements, clickable cockpits are probably at the bottom of the list.

At least it should be decent to the point where it does actually take some form of skill to fly. The flight model as is is atrocious.

And to think that the early criticisms were that they were too hard to fly.

Edited May 28, 2011 by Max Power

[Hurby 0]

Well part of the ranting craze is obviously caused by the fact that this is the Internet and there is the overall "This right here is my opinion, it matters to me and it should also matter to you" impression you get pretty much everywhere you look on it, which is not always bad, but however brilliant your point might be, if you decide to write it like some 8 year old brat, why the hell should anybody care about it. Generally the standards of communication on the Internet are pretty f***ing sad And it's certainly not an invention of this community.

[instagoat 133]

Vilas got it right.

OFP-ArmA = the only series of games that offer anything close to a simulation for an average joe (aka civilian gamer). And didn't get dumbed down to reach "wide audience" (i.e. your typical raging CoD kiddie). Obviously we want to see the game do its job better.

Losing a CoD clone is easy because there are many CoD clones.

There is only one ArmA.

I really doubt that BI are going to dumb the game down... and assuming so because they´re letting their imagination run wild and put their artists to actual work instead of copying real life down to the last rivet is kind of far fetched.

We´re talking about BIS here. Arma has problems: none of them are related to how the seams on the characters ammo pouches are true to their RL counterparts.

What the game needs more urgently are other things, for example in the fields of AI coordination, damage depiction and simulation, and useable high-tech equipment that also works with/for the AI.

For example, as an SP player, the glowsticks in ACE are completely pointless for me, unless some heavy scripting is involved. The AI also doesn´t communicate between squads, and generally operates in a complete deorganized fashion.

But again, this is no reason to get rude at the devs or fellow forum members, and being a demanding dunce with a heightened sense of entitlement. Wait until they release some info, and constructively respond to it, instead of ragequitting the internets forever.

[NZXSHADOWS 0]

personally I dont care to much for the rants an rude "Get it Right" type threads or post. Kinda makes me feel embarrassed for the poster. Since BIS has the experience an background in Mil-Sim software. Its not like you can just make shit happen over night. But I wont go into detail about my rant on this. But topics of post should be deleted of locked thats just my opinion doesn't mean much though.

Edited May 29, 2011 by NZXSHADOWS

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Some people seem to have a large sense of entitlement.

BIS should start charging a subscription fee for forum access. That'll teach people about entitlement. At least then if people still made stupid (otherwise useless) threads BIS would still be making money off of it. :p

---------- Post added at 09:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:42 PM ----------

Obviously we want to see the game do its job better.

But everyone here has a different opinion of what its job should be. For example, IMO ArmA should aspire to be more like OFP; not extrordinary sim-like, but give a realistic enough and entertaining experience. There are some details that are just not important (like trying to make the game into a full-blown flight sim).

Edited May 29, 2011 by Big Dawg KS

[gammadust 12]

BIS should start charging a subscription fee for forum access. That'll teach people about entitlement. At least then if people still made stupid (otherwise useless) threads BIS would still be making money off of it. :p

That is a wild suggestion! No... BIS is making an indirect investment in the forum, no matter how out of touch so many threads you can find, they're still valuable, they gauge the proportion of how realism-arcady their audience is, that would limit the sampling.

When uselessness is rampant... Mods intervene (seen some examples recently).

But everyone here has a different opinion of what its job should be. For example, IMO ArmA should aspire to be more like OFP; not extrordinary sim-like, but give a realistic enough and entertaining experience. There are some details that are just not important (like trying to make the game into a flight sim).

Agree with main point but disagree with the example given. Flight sim part can and should be upgraded, they'r gaining the knowledge (TOH). Though I admit to have been an hardcore flight simmer, as it currently is, does feel too simple.

In many public servers you find dedicated pilots. To add a level of realism (not talking about clickable cockpits but Flight Model at least and a reasonable ammount of controls), this would benefit clans and community in general I think.

Edited May 29, 2011 by gammadust

[Innomadic 10]

I think we should drop the whole "CoD kiddies" tirade, since its quite obvious to anyone who has some form of intelligence that 13-15 years is NOT the only age bracket in which CoD is played, and that at launch many more 24+ people turn up to buy the game.

While their intelligence in their game of choice is lacking, it is neither cool nor correct to call all CoD players "kiddies".

Just sayin.

well as long as the cockpits are interactive via mouse button clicks, and i can have a wingman, i am satisfied

Wingman and proper formations yes, interactive cockpits no. No need for FSX style VC's.

It takes some form of skill to fly well, that's the important part. How long can you go in a game without wasting a chopper? Minutes? Hours? Weeks? It's very easy for a new player to overcook a landing and clip a tree line, and at the same time it takes a lot of focus to land perfectly in a tight spot, often under fire, time and time again.

Nah the game still has some leverage where its still simple enough you'll get people jumping in them who don't 100% know what they're doing, but doing a good enough job at staying in the air they can't fight. Flying and Fighting in an aircraft are two completely different things

Essentially what i mean is some incentive for people who don't know how to fly to simply not do it online, take some time out to practice offline since those who don't and waste air assets get incredibly irritating.

For example i would like to see auto-rudder dropped to allow those with joysticks/pedals to have complete independent control over the aircraft.

[coder4crack 10]

In addition to realistic flight model, another way to way to add realism and professionalism to the flight experience is to have persons actually learn the aircraft they are in.

All aircraft have a pre-flight and flight checklist that has to be followed before the plane even starts up!

It doesn't say much, then, that for ALL aircraft, all you have to do is right click, select 'on' from the pop-up menu, and take of... this is a real realism killer if you ask me. Plus, any jack-ass with half a brain can do it. I definitely don't want this kind of person in the same airspace as me!

On the other hand, if you force the flyer to go through actual to semi-actual steps in spooling up engines, setting flaps, instruments, radio, trimming, etc, you will achieve greater immersion, and more skilled pilots in the air, i should think. Also, I will know that who ever is in the air with me took the time to learn a little more of the details involved in what they are doing.

I am not saying model FSX to 100% accuracy. What I am suggesting to BIS is to use some of the better features from the game... especially this one. The opportunity exists, and it should be seized... by the balls.

Interactive and 'click able' cockpits is the way to go to to get the realism we are looking for. The last place you should be setting flaps and spooling engines is from the pop-up menu on right-click. The FAA would go mental if they got wind of this...

I would gladly wait a month or two if they would just put this feature in!

Edited May 29, 2011 by coder4crack

[max power 21]

personally I dont care to much for the rants an rude "Get it Right" type threads or post. Kinda makes me feel embarrassed for the poster. Since BIS has the experience an background in Mil-Sim software. Its not like you can just make shit happen over night. But I wont go into detail about my rant on this. But topics of post should be deleted of locked thats just my opinion doesn't mean much though.

I agree 100%.

[celery 8]

On the other hand, if you force the flyer to go through actual to semi-actual steps in spooling up engines, setting flaps, instruments, radio, trimming, etc, you will achieve greater immersion, and more skilled pilots in the air, i should think. Also, I will know that who ever is in the air with me took the time to learn a little more of the details involved in what they are doing.

Lolno. Currently the flying skill level of the crushing majority of players in Arma 2 is low, even with the current arcade system. They can take off and lock missiles but that's about it. I don't know what you think but I wouldn't find it immersive when only an AI or 1‰ of the playerbase can conduct a successful air support mission without the looming risk of some stupid screwup.

From a mission making point I don't want to weigh the possibility that a pilot role can be filled as intended only in a fraction of the instances a mission is played.

[sw1 10]

I like the current flight system- sure it can still be refined, but I think it's really fun and it's set at a good difficulty level- it isn't easy, yet at the same time it's a long way from the tedious diffiuclty of flying a real plane.

If people want a flight sim they'll play a flight sim :D.

[Innomadic 10]

Lolno. Currently the flying skill level of the crushing majority of players in Arma 2 is low, even with the current arcade system. They can take off and lock missiles but that's about it. I don't know what you think but I wouldn't find it immersive when only an AI or 1‰ of the playerbase can conduct a successful air support mission without the looming risk of some stupid screwup.

Thats the point...those who don't know how won't because its too complex for them...

[celery 8]

Thats the point...those who don't know how won't because its too complex for them...

And that's the problem. Most Arma 2 players know how to fly and do basic things with aircraft, albeit not always very expertly. It's preferable to a scenario where each mission's balance or difficulty has to be carefully considered in the probable case that no-one is able to fly aircraft, or only one side has an able pilot.

Aircraft are in a support role in Arma 2. The realism in their case should be based on the outcome of a pilot's intention and not on their detailed mechanics.

[2nd ranger 282]

Thats the point...those who don't know how won't because its too complex for them...

So you are suggesting that BIS make an already complex game even more complicated? There are already people who would label the Arma series 'inaccessible', and it's not in a developer's interest to alienate potential players.

[gammadust 12]

Thats the point...those who don't know how won't because its too complex for them...

Not sure exacly that is the most probable outcome of increased complexity. I would bet on increased crashes. :D

[Westsailor 10]

Defunkt put it best:

In my opinion, threads that contain ALL CAPS, multiple !!!!s or ????s or the words "for gods sake!" or similar in the title should be deleted on sight.

You can add any reply that sounds like a refugee from that stupid cat site 'I haz a cheezeburger'.

Cripes people... you already blew your education, don't broadcast it.

[Innomadic 10]

So you are suggesting that BIS make an already complex game even more complicated? There are already people who would label the Arma series 'inaccessible', and it's not in a developer's interest to alienate potential players.

Compared to even YSFlight Arma 2 is simple, and in some cases works against the player.

[max power 21]

I think the bigger simplification regarding aircraft is their ability to target and ripple-fire missiles. If they made that aspect more complicated there would be less cheesy helicopter domination.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

That is a wild suggestion! No... BIS is making an indirect investment in the forum, no matter how out of touch so many threads you can find, they're still valuable, they gauge the proportion of how realism-arcady their audience is, that would limit the sampling.

When uselessness is rampant... Mods intervene (seen some examples recently).

I hope you didn't think I was being serious. Although I wouldn't be totally opposed to it, it was entirely sarcastic.

Agree with main point but disagree with the example given. Flight sim part can and should be upgraded, they'r gaining the knowledge (TOH). Though I admit to have been an hardcore flight simmer, as it currently is, does feel too simple.

In many public servers you find dedicated pilots. To add a level of realism (not talking about clickable cockpits but Flight Model at least and a reasonable ammount of controls), this would benefit clans and community in general I think.

Aircraft and the flight aspect of the game IMO require the least amount of attention at the moment. While there are some specific improvements that would be great to have, as it is right now it is (unfortunately) inconsistantly superior to the ground combat aspects, which is where the focus of the series should be. My point is, before ArmA can become more like a flight sim, it needs to become a much better ground combat sim first (and I use the term simulation very loosely; realistic but not boring).

[gammadust 12]

I hope you didn't think I was being serious. Although I wouldn't be totally opposed to it, it was entirely sarcastic.

yep... my brain must have missed some exit condition in my answer for loop routine. :p

Aircraft and the flight aspect of the game IMO require the least amount of attention at the moment. While there are some specific improvements that would be great to have, as it is right now it is (unfortunately) inconsistantly superior to the ground combat aspects, which is where the focus of the series should be. My point is, before ArmA can become more like a flight sim, it needs to become a much better ground combat sim first (and I use the term simulation very loosely; realistic but not boring).

My bolds. Pretty debatable that "superior" part. My opinion on this is:

Of course, prioritize and get the combat aspects right first (AI improvement specially, fixes and new features), import know how from TOH experience into Arma, keep it simple enough not to become impenetrable for a keyboard pilot while improving realism. Tough compromise to strike yes but can be translated to "just up the flight sim aspect a notch".