Jump to content
Dwarden

Development Blog & Reveals

Recommended Posts

In the interests of saving any more brainache, I've created a thread in the OFFTOPIC section for this :P I guess you guys are welcome to continue there!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the post-release features, I think BIS should divide them into 3 groups:

1. Features they know they will be able to deliver to Arma 3 post-release (without ETA..)

2. Features that may make it into the patches but without any promises

3. Features that definitely wont be in Arma 3

Because currently, almost everything belongs to 2nd category and it is causing a lot of, lets say heat in the community. I know that there are some things that even BIS is still not decided about, but come on, they know what they wont be able to deliver in Arma 3 and it should be defined. :)

Maybe a stupid idea but whatever, just my 2 cents...

Edited by Pauliesss
gramma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I highly doubt that BIS would develop entirely new planes for a faction if they haven't done by now, future jets will probably be a paid DLC.

An F-35 is more likely to be finished, however if wont be fair to other factions since the F-35 would obliterate the L-159. Still, much better than having only one jet. Perhaps the F-35 could be for OPFOR and BLUFOr, and L-159 for greenfor.

But optimally, BLUFOR should have An F-22, F-35 and maybe a Eurofighter. Greenfor should have an L-159 and and an F-35. OPFOR should have a Sukhoi PAK FA or J-20

Concerning the F-35 and the L-159, We shouldn't get jets just for balance. Sure the f-35 can win, but it's much more satisfying to win in the L-159. Try having more L-159 aircraft and one F-35.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Regarding the post-release features, I think BIS should divide them into 3 groups:

1. Features they know they will be able to deliver to Arma 3 post-release (without ETA..)

2. Features that may make it into the patches but without any promises

3. Features that definitely wont be in Arma 3

Because currently, almost everything belongs to 2nd category and it is causing a lot of, lets say heat in the community. I know that there are some things that even BIS is still not decided about, but common, they know what they wont be able to deliver in Arma 3 and it should be defined. :)

Maybe a stupid idea but whatever, just my 2 cents...

This!

Yay!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile DayZ gets item degradation among other things.

Now I realize why ArmA3 stopped being advertised as a simulation. Two of them competing among themselves is too much, need only one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Meanwhile DayZ gets item degradation among other things.

Now I realize why ArmA3 stopped being advertised as a simulation. Two of them competing among themselves is too much, need only one.

Item degradation is just one aspect of the awesomeness that has become possible in DayZ, since every item in that game is now treated as an object with its own properties.

Having this in Arma3 would have been very useful, but I fear it's too late for that now. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You will always be able to put in new stuff in DayZ faster, since they do not have to teach any AI how to use the new properties. DayZ is not really an argument that has any merit (apart from cheap forum laughs, of course)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Concerning the F-35 and the L-159, We shouldn't get jets just for balance. Sure the f-35 can win, but it's much more satisfying to win in the L-159. Try having more L-159 aircraft and one F-35.

The problem with such massive imbalance is that it limits the kinds of scenarios you can have with them, especially when it comes to PVP where players instinctively try to have even-numbered teams. The L-159 stalls even in moderate horizontal turns; the F-35 doesn't stall even if you fly straight up. Even multiple L-159s have no chance against the F-35 if the latter's pilot has anything resembling competence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whathehellisthatthing

Apart from it being quite scary, isn't all that mass around the turrett an easy way to be hit? I mean, if I had to choose between using terrain to leave only the turret exposed (don't remember how this tactic is called, shame on me) with that tank or a more common M1A1 style tank I'd choose the latter!

Yay!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem with such massive imbalance is that it limits the kinds of scenarios you can have with them, especially when it comes to PVP where players instinctively try to have even-numbered teams. The L-159 stalls even in moderate horizontal turns; the F-35 doesn't stall even if you fly straight up. Even multiple L-159s have no chance against the F-35 if the latter's pilot has anything resembling competence.

Arma isn't just about PvP, one thing I know about players is they don't instinctively try to balance teams. It would be the mission maker who decides player counts on each side, and if you have seen the Cheetah then you know the F-35 is toast.

The F-35 doesn't have to be the only Jet NATO has either, trust me though that there are many players who could beat the F-35 in one to one combat with the L-159. But then again there is no reason to balance the F-35 against an aircraft mostly used for training pilots to use jet engines.

---------- Post added at 19:19 ---------- Previous post was at 19:18 ----------

That's the unholy offspring of an Ifrit and a T-100.

I think there are some Marid genes as well in there if you look closely!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is so much stuff on that turrett, I really think it'll make for an excessively easy target to spota and to hit...

And why was my post reported! :(

Yay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't that a bug from the T-100 colliding with an Ifrit? No reason for it have wheel arches and wingmirrors.

There's an old A3 screenshot of the T-100 crossing swords with the Merkava. Looked like some of the concepts for the T-95.

http://i818.photobucket.com/albums/zz101/irfanalya/beaglel.jpg

You're right. Damn.

Yay!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that a major problem in ArmA is vehicles not taken as "stealth".

I mean the Comanche was supposed to be, as is the Ghosthawk or the F-35.

In gameplay, they are as easy to detect as any other vehicle...

Well, the Ghosthawk is more of a "Stealth Hawk"-derived transport trading stealth for armament, that's the only way that having Miniguns sticking out the sides constantly due to permanently-open windows makes sense. :p
Regarding the post-release features, I think BIS should divide them into 3 groups:

1. Features they know they will be able to deliver to Arma 3 post-release (without ETA..)

2. Features that may make it into the patches but without any promises

3. Features that definitely wont be in Arma 3

Because currently, almost everything belongs to 2nd category and it is causing a lot of, lets say heat in the community. I know that there are some things that even BIS is still not decided about, but common, they know what they wont be able to deliver in Arma 3 and it should be defined. :)

Maybe a stupid idea but whatever, just my 2 cents...

The disguise system, satchel charges, fast roping and 3D editor all seem to be in #3, or at least all but satchel charges were publicly and specifically axed while the current project lead and creative director have never revisited them publicly, while satchel charges I believe a dev were always only demonstrated in scripted form and never actually went anywhere so it got quietly axed?
Item degradation is just one aspect of the awesomeness that has become possible in DayZ, since every item in that game is now treated as an object with its own properties.
Oh yeah, from what I recall Rocket said that it took a lot to get working. Edited by Chortles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arma isn't just about PvP

I know that. Did you know that imbalanced assets or missing an asset for a specific role can also negatively affect the potential variety of other kinds of missions as well?

one thing I know about players is they don't instinctively try to balance teams.

Assuming what you say is fact, what makes you so sure that players will pick the side with the shittier vehicles?

It would be the mission maker who decides player counts on each side, and if you have seen the Cheetah then you know the F-35 is toast.

The mission maker can't force anyone to join a specific team.

trust me though that there are many players who could beat the F-35 in one to one combat with the L-159.

There are even more players who could beat an L-159 with the F-35. What was your point again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way: which one of the vehicles on the list is the UGV ? CRV-6e Bobcat tracked engineering vehicle ? It was shown in the PC Games.de video, so I assume that it will be in

"Stomper & Saif attack/recon UGV variants"

*Facepalm* never mind. It's not bolded, though, so I didn't notice... but maybe that means it will still come into beta ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Stomper & Saif attack/recon UGV variants"

*Facepalm* never mind. It's not bolded, though, so I didn't notice... but maybe that means it will still come into beta ?

I believe that the second content package for beta is supposed to be UAVs/UGVs, but there was never an ETA on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe that the second content package for beta is supposed to be UAVs/UGVs, but there was never an ETA on that.

RiE mentioned in the dev branch AI thread that UAVs/UGVs had some unexpected issues that the programmers needed to fix this week, and that next week they will continue working on AI again so im guessing ETA will be next week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RiE mentioned in the dev branch AI thread that UAVs/UGVs had some unexpected issues that the programmers needed to fix this week, and that next week they will continue working on AI again so im guessing ETA will be next week.

If we're also going off of past content additions, they always come at the end of all the patches. So next week seems about right with ETA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know that. Did you know that imbalanced assets or missing an asset for a specific role can also negatively affect the potential variety of other kinds of missions as well?

Assuming what you say is fact, what makes you so sure that players will pick the side with the shittier vehicles?

The mission maker can't force anyone to join a specific team.

There are even more players who could beat an L-159 with the F-35. What was your point again?

Arma should never have vehicles and weapons balanced. The F-35 and L-159 are in two different leagues and do not share the same role. To compare the two aircraft doesn't make sense. We shouldn't even be having this conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×