Development Blog & Reveals

[Alwarren 2767]

seems i'm not everybody, bis said, they want arma 3 be more open towards new players, so that means, it had to be made simpler in some parts. I don't think a newcomer, will get much of a clue, why his bullets fly 10 meters to the right or left from the target, and how to measure wind and set it properly for the scope.

I talked to a physics student a while ago and he didn't know that bullets drop to the ground when they left the barrel. CoD doesn't model bullet drop at all. Accessible doesn't necessarily mean to carter for ignorance. I would have loved to see this feature being part of the difficulty setting, i.e. Regular -> no wind deflection, Veteran -> all-inclusive.

[dm 9]

But now most Arma 2 players stopped playing Arma 3.

Aww yeah, gotta love:

* sweeping generalisations

* newguys coming in and making comments on behalf of the entire "community"

* comments that are patently wrong.

Trifecta of awesome

[antoineflemming 14]

I talked to a physics student a while ago and he didn't know that bullets drop to the ground when they left the barrel. CoD doesn't model bullet drop at all. Accessible doesn't necessarily mean to carter for ignorance. I would have loved to see this feature being part of the difficulty setting, i.e. Regular -> no wind deflection, Veteran -> all-inclusive.

Then he wasn't paying attention in class lol. Wonder what physics he was learning.

---------- Post added at 12:24 ---------- Previous post was at 12:22 ----------

Some Lynx in real life have skids, you can check in my previous post for photos. Not exactly the ones in the new model, but anyone with a little bit of knowledge of military equipment know that that in every country the military customize its vehicles as they please.

BTW, Armies like the Cyprus one have all kinds of modern weapons and are not superpowers... For the matter take Israel itself, is a really small country and has Atomic bombs. All depends on the country's budget and big bros...

You ask for realism, and the truth is that most of the Arma series content its realistic ( some things are simplified, and others are adapted or mixted, but all are based in reality ).

I mean, Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons, and they're more like 2nd/3rd world countries.

[Alwarren 2767]

Then he wasn't paying attention in class lol. Wonder what physics he was learning.

Imagine my surprise when he told me that...

[da12thMonkey 1943]

I studied physics at university (many moons ago), and one thing that became abundantly clear to me from interacting with my fellow students was that some supposedly very bright people, sometimes have a complete lack of common sense. :D

[papanowel 120]

But now most Arma 2 players stopped playing Arma 3.

For example, most of the french team are moving (or going to in the next few months) to Arma 3, I presume it's the same for other communities... Unless you have a crystal ball, I'd like to have a proof of that.

Edited November 28, 2013 by Papanowel

[metalcraze 290]

It's as based on assumptions as the claim that the forums are representative of the whole game-playing community. However, it has the addition of common sense, which states that typically the more involved/dedicated fans participate on forums, while the more casual fans don't. That's human nature. You're free to substantively counter that or provide your own stats. Or you can disagree with human nature. Your call.

How do you know any of that? Why won't you provide stats to back up your claims?

The only stats of any kind that give dry numbers are available are on a feedback tracker.

What do you want exactly?

Isn't it obvious? OPFOR not being a reskinned BLUFOR for starters?

I think I've subtly made the point in this thread that real-world militaries "copy-pasta" all the time.

Do they? I don't see Russia or China using exactly the same drones as NATO, exactly the same ammo as NATO, exactly the same turrets as NATO etc. Even closest US allies use vastly different weapons.

But in ArmA3 Iran is armed exactly with the same things US is.

This is a cheap way of balancing and has nothing to do with reality.

And somehow the Iranians had F-14s in Iran-Iraq despite being a pissant 3rd-rate power. And somehow the Argentinians had weaponry to sink British warships in the Falklands. And somehow North Vietnam had recent jet fighters, Mi-8s, and up-to-date Chinese tanks during the US-VN war despite being a country of mired-in-poverty mud-farmers. That "somehow" is what's not explained, but it doesn't mean there can't be an explanation.

Are you seriously comparing a country the size of a very small island to Iran/Argentina? As for Vietnam - they had direct support from USSR/China for years incl. russians actually flying those planes.

Even then no country will give away its top-notch stuff. And AAF is nobody.

And yet the recent dev-branch update gave them a tank which is a copy-pasted 1:1 clone of T-100 with a different skin. A small island is on a tech level of a superpower. Laughable.

[bakerman 247]

I can't take it when people shout out this ridiculous "copy-pasta" garbage when they have no idea what they're talking about.

The MBT-52 Kuma is not a copy and paste from previous armored vehicles in the game, simple as that. Ignoring the new completely new model, the new tank has a new engine, transmission, other PhysX properties and sounds. In fact most of the major config values have been changed for this new tank.

The Kuma vs T-100 is the complete opposite of the M2A1 vs T-100, on the stable branch those two tanks are identical on multiple levels. For example they share the same engine, transmission, weight, drive, armor and more than a few other config values. The M2A1 only distinguishes itself with its troop transport capability. Only in the development branch are some issues resolved, for example the ~20 tonne weight difference which wasn't there. PS Thanks Bohemia for fixing that one.

[Alwarren 2767]

The MBT-52 Kuma is not a copy and paste from previous armored vehicles in the game, simple as that. Ignoring the new completely new model, the new tank has a new engine, transmission, other PhysX properties and sounds. In fact most of the major config values have been changed for this new tank.

Nobody ever claimed that the MBT was copy-paste. It was about the Lynx/Warrior and the Merkava chassis.

Something to consider before you call someone else's opinion "garbage".

[bakerman 247]

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't this statement "the recent dev-branch update gave them a tank which is a copy-pasted 1:1 clone of T-100 with a different skin" conflict with what you just said? If I'm wrong I'll happily retract what I said. I love being wrong when it's about something negative. :)

[2nd ranger 282]

They should have just made the AAF tank a Challenger 2. It would have been in keeping with the BAF theme, and a nod to all the people who complained that the BAF DLC didn't have one.

[Alwarren 2767]

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't this statement "the recent dev-branch update gave them a tank which is a copy-pasted 1:1 clone of T-100 with a different skin" conflict with what you just said? If I'm wrong I'll happily retract what I said. I love being wrong when it's about something negative. :)

Ah you mean that... The model is certainly new, and I like it a lot. I do think, however, that the armament lacks variety, because they all more or less share the same gun and tank rounds. I would have liked to see the T-100 being more traditionally like a russian tank, i.e. weaker gun with optional guided shells. That is a general thing, major players use the same ammo, static weapons, drones, and 70% of the launchers. A bit more variety in equipment would go a long way, that is what the poster meant with copy-paste.

[dnk 13]

How do you know any of that? Why won't you provide stats to back up your claims?

The only stats of any kind that give dry numbers are available are on a feedback tracker.

I think you missed my point. The person making the initial claim (that the forums are somehow representative) needs to substantiate that. It's easy to simply come in and say "no, the opposite" (what I've done). Neither side is really verified without statistics, and there are none. Note that I'm primarily casting doubt on this other position. The fact that the other side cannot respond in a manner that doesn't equally undermine its own position is basically proof that its position is at least as garbage as my own (so what's your opinion of mine?).

Except that it's far more unrealistic to claim that a given forum's active user base is close to an ideal representation of the total user base, especially when most people don't use forums (even as lurkers, certainly as active commenters), and I think typical forum users as a general population are more slanted towards non-casual gamers, particularly in a forum such as this which serves a niche customer base (traditionally), but now is increasingly serving a more mainstream (and more casual) one. A casual community that simply doesn't care about a lot of this minutiae and technicalities and whatnot. Casual users aren't going to rant or really care about not having bipods or wrong calibers. They're just out to have fun and shoot things, perhaps with teammates, and to socialize. I would think their primary concern right now would be MP performance.

The closest statistics are MP players: how many are playing casual/gamey/arcadey missions and how many are playing COOP? That's at least representative of the MP community, which is the closest you're going to get to representative stats. Currently, major servers (20+ players) have 704 casual mission players and just 122 COOPers. I wonder how much the Breaking Point and KOTH players care about grass rendering techniques and vehicle model copy-pastaing...

Do they? I don't see Russia or China using exactly the same drones as NATO, exactly the same ammo as NATO, exactly the same turrets as NATO etc. Even closest US allies use vastly different weapons.

But in ArmA3 Iran is armed exactly with the same things US is.

This is a cheap way of balancing and has nothing to do with reality.

Except when the US is friends with someone first, exports arms to them equal to their own army's, then the other country has some sort of revolution, say a religious leader comes into power, and then the two countries are enemies all of a sudden. That has never happened, though, and certainly you didn't quote such an example from my last post below... /s

Are you seriously comparing a country the size of a very small island to Iran/Argentina? As for Vietnam - they had direct support from USSR/China for years incl. russians actually flying those planes.

Even then no country will give away its top-notch stuff. And AAF is nobody.

How do you know these things are top-notch; are you an expert on BI's fictitious 2035 military technology? How do you know this island was isolated for a long time as an independent country; are you expert on this island's fictitious history? How do you know they haven't been receiving lots of direct support since they're a "flashpoint"? I may be wrong, perhaps this is all explained in the campaign (I didn't get into it much), but this is like complaining that the houses don't all have solar panels or the cars are all still gas-based. Come on...

[progamer 14]

Wonder if we will ever see a Arma game again that isn't trying to be balanced so the BF and COD crowd can have fun. With the proper modern vehicles and weapons instead of the mosh pit we have now.

And real names so people can't use the stupid "but it's fictional because of the name" card anymore.

---------- Post added at 01:36 ---------- Previous post was at 01:33 ----------

I said what I said before because all my friends who used to play Arma don't really anymore. For the reasons I outlined above. What BI does next will determine whether they play anymore Arma games. You know it's not like we can just shell out massive amounts of cash to play VBS3 on the RV4 engine. But the general Arma games have shifted towards the "realistic but balanced fun" players from other games. Before Arma was more "realistic but not too extreme".

---------- Post added at 01:42 ---------- Previous post was at 01:36 ----------

But I seriously wonder because this new "it's the future" attitude seems a lot more lazy than past Arma games. If it was a realistic future, no one would complain, but it's not, it's just a way to balance the game and add fictional stuff to draw a lot of new players.

Thought a lot of new fans come in and then this is how things are currently and they fight for it to stay like this eventually to the point were they overwhelm the other players and the game is no longer realistic.

---------- Post added at 01:45 ---------- Previous post was at 01:42 ----------

It's like we need to versions of Arma:

1. The realistic but not too extreme version.

2. And the realistic but balanced version.

Edited November 29, 2013 by ProGamer

[NeuroFunker 11]

we just need more hardcore options for elite difficulty, anything else can stay at it is now i say.

[ziiip 1]

I have tried the new AAF assets and I'm very impressed. ;D

[progamer 14]

The current content doesn't really make buying and DLC appealing... Vehicles that are missing things, or have random things added "because it's the future" aka magic. The weapon types are few and echo a "balance" approach compared to Arma 2. Fake names apparently mean anything is possible even if the laws of physics are broken. As someone who really enjoyed Arma 2, Arma 3 is more f a side grade towards a somewhat different market at the moment.

---------- Post added at 08:36 ---------- Previous post was at 08:34 ----------

we just need more hardcore options for elite difficulty, anything else can stay at it is now i say.

What about the fictional names and the current "balanced hardcore arcade game approach?" That Arma 3 currently echos? How does difficulty fix that?

[dnk 13]

Well, you could make "weapon/body inertia" an option (currently it's always off). You could make ballistics an option (currently always on). You could make penetration an option (ditto last). You could make grenade throwing method an option (instant or realistic/slow). Weapon sway can be a slider (full=realistic, to off=none). Health level can be a slider (like 5x to 1x, include option for impairment for certain wounds).

I would love that. I've said this many times on many forums, options are the way to please everyone. The fans can have their cake and eat it too. It also saves people from having to mod things or deal with addons or just not get what they want at all.

[dale0404 5]

The current content doesn't really make buying and DLC appealing... Vehicles that are missing things, or have random things added "because it's the future" aka magic. The weapon types are few and echo a "balance" approach compared to Arma 2. Fake names apparently mean anything is possible even if the laws of physics are broken. As someone who really enjoyed Arma 2, Arma 3 is more f a side grade towards a somewhat different market at the moment.

---------- Post added at 08:36 ---------- Previous post was at 08:34 ----------

What about the fictional names and the current "balanced hardcore arcade game approach?" That Arma 3 currently echos? How does difficulty fix that?

Your talking about DLC already? The game has only been out less than 3 months...

[Varanon 892]

Your talking about DLC already? The game has only been out less than 3 months...

Yeah, three months... in today's industry, that usually means all DLC for a game is already released and support has been discontinued ;) (And yeah, I'm looking at Codemasters on this on specifically)

[chortles 263]

Yeah, three months... in today's industry, that usually means all DLC for a game is already released and support has been discontinued ;) (And yeah, I'm looking at Codemasters on this on specifically)

Mind you, Codemasters ended up pulling out of shooters altogether (albeit closing a studio in the process :( ) to focus on racing games, while BI made it as far as Arma 3, as well as Arma Tactics and Take On Mars... the best revenge? ;):lol:

Considering how the campaign was outright characterized as both free DLC* and as part of stable branch updates (i.e. the "SURVIVE update"), I'm not worried about what the future holds as far as Arma 3 paid DLC goes, as far as value-per-dollar for customer-players. :)

* I'll note that this term isn't always a marketing ploy; Sleeping Dogs for example not only had a high-res texture pack but also multiple Valve-themed shirts on PC, as well as a Community Gift Pack (not just attire but also a higher-performance car variant) and a certain pack of hats, both of which were on the PSN Store and Xbox LIVE Marketplace as well.

[antoineflemming 14]

Well, your big AAA games usually put out DLC within 6 months to a year of release. Good thing about ArmA series is that that'll be a couple years of DLC. Can't wait for the inevitable Pacific-related standalone expansion (if they're doing that with ArmA 3). But it is too early to talk about DLC or to presume that the way ArmA 3 currently is, is the way it's going to stay.

[Tomater 10]

I mean thats why i love the arma series nothing like activision or EA trying to get as much money as possible.

[Alwarren 2767]

I'm not worried about what the future holds as far as Arma 3 paid DLC goes, as far as value-per-dollar for customer-players. :)

.

The only thing I am "worried" about would be that there isn't enough of it. I would have wanted more DLC for Arma 2, I hope for more on Arma 3.

[chortles 263]

More paid DLC? ;) Seeing as that is what you quoted...