Development Blog & Reveals

[progamer 14]

AttachTo is your friend :icon_twisted:

And nocollision!

[Alo Keen 7]

Imagine the action menu :)

[nodunit 397]

AttachTo is your friend :icon_twisted:

Ooor is it

[JSj 12]

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.

So true. Arma is not an RTS where the sides and units need to be "balanced". Naturally, weapons and equipment should just be as close to the real life performance as possible. Balancing is the job of the mission designer.

[metalcraze 290]

Ironically RTS like Starcraft have an asymmetry between sides to a degree about which ArmA3 can't even dream in its current state

[progamer 14]

Ironically RTS like Starcraft have an asymmetry between sides to a degree about which ArmA3 can't even dream in its current state

Arma isn't an RTS though, Arma has and needs to have realistic weapons and vehicles.

[JSj 12]

And balanced doesn't imply "identical", so Starcrafts assymetry doesn't mean the sides are unbalanced. They just have different strengths and weaknesses. But these strengths and weaknesses needs to be balanced against each other, unlike in Arma, where the mission designer will adapt the number of units according to the mission and the capabilities of the different factions and equipment.

[instagoat 133]

Ironically RTS like Starcraft have an asymmetry between sides to a degree about which ArmA3 can't even dream in its current state

They don't have an asymmetry. When played to their strengths, they are equals, ideally. The test for the player is to construct a tactical situation where he can play his faction to their strength while keeping the enemy from developing his.

Further, the factions aren't symmetric. They maybe have technological parity, but probably not even that (at least as far as the fluff goes). And ultimately, it is up to the mission designer, too. But eh.

The core content seems to be nailed down by now anyways, and it's just filing away rough edges. How about doing away with that silly action menu and adding reload animations for the launchers?

[Tyl3r99 41]

Arma isn't an RTS though, Arma has and needs to have realistic weapons and vehicles.

it would be an awesome mod though...

altis is big enough to hold that sort of gameplay.

so its a RTS based GUI.

- place HQ

- build barracks

- build airport

vice versa...

taking control of sectors gains you extra points per min or something.

i would funny enough like that :/ just a little bit of fun isnt it

[comp_uter15776 1]

it would be an awesome mod though...

altis is big enough to hold that sort of gameplay.

so its a RTS based GUI.

- place HQ

- build barracks

- build airport

vice versa...

taking control of sectors gains you extra points per min or something.

i would funny enough like that :/ just a little bit of fun isnt it

That's called: Warfare

:v

[Tyl3r99 41]

That's called: Warfare

:v

i meant like company of heroes sort of thing mate

[celery 8]

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.

Do you realize that balancing can also mean including comparable vehicles in the first place, and not just mirroring the configs of two completely different ones like you seem to think? I agree that this discussion is stupid, but what can you expect when one of us says that L-159 against F-35 (if it'll even be in the game) is great because of a selfish desire for a good challenge over good mission making possibilities.

[Bee8190 10]

http://twitter.com/KarelMoricky/status/350613770315390976/photo/1

The model is stunning, top work

but man, this is going to be such sabot magnet I wonder if the usability of this will be any better then one big steel coffin.

Imagine the action menu

goddammit I rather won't

[JSj 12]

Do you realize that balancing can also mean including comparable vehicles in the first place, and not just mirroring the configs of two completely different ones like you seem to think?

Have to disagree about that. What weapons and vehicles are included should be based on the faction. What level of technology do they have access to? Where does their equipment come from? What would be reasonable for them to use, given the backstory? There's no need for "balancing" through what weapons and vehicles are included. Giving a guerilla faction advanced aircraft just because another faction has that, for instance, would be a very bad idea.

I'm repeating myself, but all balancing in Arma should be done within the mission.

[windies 11]

Have to disagree about that. What weapons and vehicles are included should be based on the faction. What level of technology do they have access to? Where does their equipment come from? What would be reasonable for them to use, given the backstory? There's no need for "balancing" through what weapons and vehicles are included. Giving a guerilla faction advanced aircraft just because another faction has that, for instance, would be a very bad idea.

I'm repeating myself, but all balancing in Arma should be done within the mission.

He's talking about the fact that NATO won't have the F-35, so he's basically saying what you are saying but from the opposite perspective. Also comparable doesn't mean unrealistic.

[purepassion 22]

http://twitter.com/KarelMoricky/status/350613770315390976/photo/1

The model is stunning, top work

but man, this is going to be such sabot magnet I wonder if the usability of this will be any better then one big steel coffin.

Just to avoid any confusion, the model as it stands there is not how the real tank looks like ;) It was a funny answer to this request via twitter

Need this in #Arma3 #Heli #Tank pic.twitter.com/Dv0JZbyudu

. It's a attachTo, nocollision mashup of the Ifrit, Marid and the real T-100 tank which is inspired by the T-95 Black Eagle design

[Bee8190 10]

lol ok thank you for the clarification PP. I couldn't distinguish what exactly am I seeing and the panic mode must have kicked in :o

[celery 8]

Have to disagree about that. What weapons and vehicles are included should be based on the faction. What level of technology do they have access to? Where does their equipment come from? What would be reasonable for them to use, given the backstory? There's no need for "balancing" through what weapons and vehicles are included. Giving a guerilla faction advanced aircraft just because another faction has that, for instance, would be a very bad idea.

The whole premise of the game is a high-tech Western army facing a high-tech Eastern army. Making it asymmetric warfare all over again to please a customer segment who wants to blast poorly armed guerrillas in an RAH-66 Comanche (or feel heroic by "beating the odds") would be the unreasonable choice here.

I'm repeating myself, but all balancing in Arma should be done within the mission.

There's not much balancing to be done if there's only one plane in the game, or it's facing a vastly superior adversary that's beyond simple 1 vs. [required number of shitty planes] measurement. Anyone who preaches about balance like it's the most natural thing to achieve through mission editing with some simple & easy tricks has unsurprisingly never made a balanced PVP mission that someone actually wants to play.

[metalcraze 290]

They don't have an asymmetry. When played to their strengths, they are equals, ideally. The test for the player is to construct a tactical situation where he can play his faction to their strength while keeping the enemy from developing his.

Exactly this. But this is how it was in World Wars and Cold War too - you'd never see any sides being equal, wielding the same weapons. They always came with their own stuff and exploited enemy weaknesses.

The point is that Starcraft completely ditches any symmetry and mirroring and yet still remains perfectly balanced for PvP. Yet in case with ArmA3 sides are very much 1:1 copies of each other with the difference being mostly in fluff (this vehicle is exactly like that but can swim, this vehicle is exactly like this but has 2 AA missiles etc)

[progamer 14]

The whole premise of the game is a high-tech Western army facing a high-tech Eastern army. Making it asymmetric warfare all over again to please a customer segment who wants to blast poorly armed guerrillas in an RAH-66 Comanche (or feel heroic by "beating the odds") would be the unreasonable choice here.

There's not much balancing to be done if there's only one plane in the game, or it's facing a vastly superior adversary that's beyond simple 1 vs. [required number of shitty planes] measurement. Anyone who preaches about balance like it's the most natural thing to achieve through mission editing with some simple & easy tricks has unsurprisingly never made a balanced PVP mission that someone actually wants to play.

Never said mission making was easy. We shouldn't change the game because in your opinion you think mission makers suck at balancing. It takes time to make good missions and it takes skilled mission makers. There were many missions me and my freinds loved to play and thought were balanced. If you want the most balance, Kju makes a mod called PvPScene which is for balanced PvP.

[cannonouscrash 12]

So, anyone else downloading a 4.1gb update for A3?

[progamer 14]

So, anyone else downloading a 4.1gb update for A3?

What? Seriously!?! I am just about to start boarding my plane for a two week vacation and I miss this new update! :(

[Colossus 2]

No update here. Even so, it would be very strange if they had an update on a Saturday.

[cannonouscrash 12]

This not mine, but a clan buddies, taken at 17:03GMT http://i.imgur.com/EYaePuQ.jpg

[purepassion 22]

What? Seriously!?! I am just about to start boarding my plane for a two week vacation and I miss this new update! :(

No, there has been no such big update scheduled