Development Blog & Reveals

[Varanon 892]

You honestly think most players care? Most players are either:

SO, why are you still here in the forum posting about Arma 3 when you don't care ?

And to think that I am called a hater by most here--- surely gets some giggles

[Alwarren 2767]

as i remember, many people who complained about lack of content in arma 3, said, they wish bis would used all arma 2 conent instead. So BIS does, now they still arent happy.

As I said, they're mash-ups. It's not a WIldcat, it's a Hellcat. It's not a Warrior, it's a Mora. I would be happy if they took ALL the content from Arma 2 into Arma 3, but call it an Abrams, an Apache, a Wildcat, and a HMMWV, Why is it called an Mk18 instead of a Mk14 even if it is the same gun? By all means, I'd love to see more content from Arma 2 taken into Arma 3, it's just that all these fantasy names for existing hardware that annoys me, personally.

Granted, these might not be issues for you, and if they aren't, all the better for you, but those that complain about this, and I include myself here, DO think it is an issue.

The second issue is that of "quality over quantity". I do agree that all the assets that are new in Arma 3 are of very good quality, but there is a lot of recycling going on. assets being copy-pasted, like the myriad of units that are just Merkava tank chassis with bolted-on (the MLRS being a prominent example for that) do come across as a bit lazy. Things like the Warrior being re-used as a new (unrelated) vehicle DO come across as lazy. No interiors for tanks does contradict the Quality over Quantity mantra. Mind you, these aren't gamebreaking issues, they just make things sour.

Most of all, though, blindly defending everything against any critique, and trying to downplay issues as "people are never happy", does not serve anybody.

[ravenholme 50]

It might also be that people are a bit tired of seeing recycled assets. It's not only all the Merkava-based armour and same turret on all vehicles, it's also recycled assets from Arma 2. A lynx with skids looks weird, and IMO breaks immersion. Seeing real-life vehicles under different names is weird. That is why people complain.

Reality says hi! Hellcat is based on the Wildcat due to go into service next year, and there may well be variants of that with skids too in the next 23 years. Also, it often happens that when foreign militaries induct new hardware from other states into their service that they rename it to their own tastes.

[Alwarren 2767]

People did ask for some more contemporary stuff, and they're getting it, but I think they expected and wanted that to be for BLUFOR, and not the AAF.

It doesn't matter who's side is on. It isn't contemporary stuff. It's fictional stuff made out of recycled assets.

---------- Post added at 18:03 ---------- Previous post was at 18:02 ----------

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/lynx-mk7/images/1-lynx-helicopter.jpg

Reality says hi!

Compare it to the picture, and tell reality I said Hi too.

[mistyronin 1181]

lynx with skids looks weird, and IMO breaks immersion.

Why is that? In real life some have skids...

[metalcraze 290]

You honestly think most players care? Most players are either:

A) playing the campaign and random user missions (and not being terribly picky)

B) playing Wasteland/Life/KOTH

C) back to DayZ on Arma 2

Please give me your source of these stats. No way you are basing it all on your own assumptions, right?

I personally like the ArmA2 recycled stuff. They look great so why not use them? Besides, the balance between old and new assets is good now.

The problem is that BIS wastes time on a yet another copy-pasta instead of replacing ArmA3 stuff with something unique for once.

All that talk of quality over quantity and ArmA3 has neither.

And AAF totally needed a tank and IFV (which most likely will follow all other assets into a BF-like balance land) instead of being unique / worse than superpowers. All AAF has is a small island to call home but somehow they have enough finances to hold a top notch hi-tech army? Is BIS kidding?

Edited November 27, 2013 by metalcraze

[roberthammer 582]

Well on HellCat , those are actually a UH-1 skids - not proper ones from Lynx

[Alwarren 2767]

Why is that? In real life some have skids...

http://www.airpowerworld.info/helicopters/westland-lynx.jpg

Different ones, and please compare the pcitures. It isn't a Lynx, and it isn't called a lynx, it just looks remotely like one, just like the Katiba looks mostly like a KH2002 with a lowered rail. As I said before, that does disturb me, I find this to be immersion breaking, like most of the 2035 scenario which I greatly dislike for exactly that reason - the game is full of mash-ups that are called "Slammer" (probably named after General Jack Slammer?) instead of Merkava. As I said before, it might not be an issue for you, but it is for me.

[dm 9]

Different ones, and please compare the pcitures. It isn't a Lynx, and it isn't called a lynx, it just looks remotely like one, just like the Katiba looks mostly like a KH2002 with a lowered rail. As I said before, that does disturb me, I find this to be immersion breaking, like most of the 2035 scenario which I greatly dislike for exactly that reason - the game is full of mash-ups that are called "Slammer" (probably named after General Jack Slammer?) instead of Merkava. As I said before, it might not be an issue for you, but it is for me.

you know... Arma2 still works perfectly fine :)

[mistyronin 1181]

Different ones, and please compare the pcitures. It isn't a Lynx, and it isn't called a lynx, it just looks remotely like one, just like the Katiba looks mostly like a KH2002 with a lowered rail. As I said before, that does disturb me, I find this to be immersion breaking, like most of the 2035 scenario which I greatly dislike for exactly that reason - the game is full of mash-ups that are called "Slammer" (probably named after General Jack Slammer?) instead of Merkava. As I said before, it might not be an issue for you, but it is for me.

I think we are a bit close minded ( I include myself ). We expect the same vehicles with the same configurations that we are used to see on the catalogue pics, movies etc. But in reality, armies adapt/customize a lot their vehicles, there are even changes that are made to fit specific missions.

Just check photos of Hummves, from the first years of Afghanistan war to the adaptions that have been made recently, and they look really different. Besides that in each unit they make different changes to make it more suitable for the crew.

[da12thMonkey 1943]

A lynx with skids looks weird

Why weird? The UK have been operating variants of Lynx with skids for over 30 years. In certain roles, skids are preferable to wheels - AFAIK the UK's Joint Special Forces Air Wing still prefers the Lynx AH.7 over the AH.9/9a because it's easier to rappel/abseil from an aircraft with skids.

It's mostly the fact that the aircraft has seen more export success as a Naval helicopter that wheeled versions of the helicopter would seem more common. The AAF don't appear to utilise much of a naval focus (weird for an island I know) so giving them an altered Lynx more in common with the old "Army Lynx" doesn't seem that bad to me.

Major reason that the British Army's new Future Lynx/Wildcats have heavy, wheeled undercarriage is to maximise commonality with the Navy version and keep the overall fleet costs down. Wildcat's really a Royal Naval helicopter being shoe-horned into Army service.

[ravenholme 50]

you know... Arma2 still works perfectly fine :)

I think that's really the only advice you can give to someone like Alwarren.

ArmA 3 is not for you - It's even more of a hypothetical than the previous ArmA 2 games with their slightly different parallel Earth. It's an extrapolation of combat and gear 22 years into the future.

If you can't handle that. A2CO is always waiting for you.

Me? I personally love that they're having a pretty good and realistic bash at what things might be like in 22 years time. If anything, I'm disappointed that their view is so conservative, but that's another kettle of fish.

[ProfTournesol 956]

I think that's really the only advice you can give to someone like Alwarren.

ArmA 3 is not for you - It's even more of a hypothetical than the previous ArmA 2 games with their slightly different parallel Earth. It's an extrapolation of combat and gear 22 years into the future.

If you can't handle that. A2CO is always waiting for you.

Me? I personally love that they're having a pretty good and realistic bash at what things might be like in 22 years time. If anything, I'm disappointed that their view is so conservative, but that's another kettle of fish.

Or just wait a little until the community ports/creates 2013 assets.

[Alwarren 2767]

you know... Arma2 still works perfectly fine :)

Well, yeah, and that must be the reason why I am still playing more Arma 2 than I play Arma 3.

---------- Post added at 19:18 ---------- Previous post was at 19:15 ----------

I think we are a bit close minded ( I include myself ). We expect the same vehicles with the same configurations that we are used to see on the catalogue pics, movies etc. But in reality, armies adapt/customize a lot their vehicles, there are even changes that are made to fit specific missions.

Which is the reason why I dislike the 2035 scenario in the first place. I find it hard to relate to anything in the game, because it tries to be quite different from the "real world". I never had a problem to relate to Takistan because it is essentially modern day Afghanistan. Same with Chernarus, although I think mostly of former Yugoslavia when I see the conflict depicted. Not so in Arma 3. You get a "real world" scenario that you have no connection to. This is worse for me than e.g. Mass Effect which doesn't try to be "close" to reality. With Arma, it just keeps pulling me out of the game.

---------- Post added at 19:20 ---------- Previous post was at 19:18 ----------

Why weird?

Because it looks like a mash-up of a lynx with a Huey. It's like with the MLRS, an old turret on a different chassis.

---------- Post added at 19:26 ---------- Previous post was at 19:20 ----------

I think that's really the only advice you can give to someone like Alwarren.

ArmA 3 is not for you - It's even more of a hypothetical than the previous ArmA 2 games with their slightly different parallel Earth. It's an extrapolation of combat and gear 22 years into the future.

This, dear sir, is utter bollocks. The usual "this game is not for you". I do exercise my right to criticize the game, nothing else. I do not stick my head into the sand and just repeat "everything is going to be alright" like others seem to do. I have 350 effing hours in the game, and I do think it became much better in recent weeks.

However, that doesn't mean I should shut up every time someone like you comes along and says there is no problem. I perceive it as a problem, and I am trying to voice that in a constructive way, not some nonsense "this game is not for you".

And I can already see the "hater" card being played again, or the "community will fix it" card. If you don't agree with me, fine. ARGUE your point. But do come up with a better argument than "this game is not for you", that is, I am sorry to say, bollocks..

[NeuroFunker 11]

i think you don't like word "mashup" in general. Skids looks weird, wow man, seriosly, the skids at least for me, is the last thing to look at.

[antoineflemming 14]

Different ones, and please compare the pcitures. It isn't a Lynx, and it isn't called a lynx, it just looks remotely like one, just like the Katiba looks mostly like a KH2002 with a lowered rail. As I said before, that does disturb me, I find this to be immersion breaking, like most of the 2035 scenario which I greatly dislike for exactly that reason - the game is full of mash-ups that are called "Slammer" (probably named after General Jack Slammer?) instead of Merkava. As I said before, it might not be an issue for you, but it is for me.

Kinda sad that we are having this discussion again, but if in the real world the US bought the Merkava and Namer (like they've looked at in the real world) and renamed them the Slammer and the Panther, or if Greece bought the Lynx, added skids, and renamed it the Hellcat, you'd probably not have a problem with it. If the Iranians today modified the KH2002 with a lowered rail, you'd probably not complain to much. If the US came up with a new rifle called the MX in the real world , you'd probably not have a problem with that either, because it's in the real world. What makes Arma 3 so hard to believe? Is it simply because it doesn't exist as of 1400 27 NOV 2013? Is that really the issue? Or is it that you specifically don't like the assets themselves and their use by specific factions?

I understand the argument about what the AAF should or shouldn't have. I understand the arguments about armaments and cargo spaces that shouldn't be on certain vehicles. What I don't understand is the issues with fictional equipment, yet realistically and functionally designed equipment. Before there was an ACR, if a game had come out with a rifle that was functionally and aestetically similar to the ACR, would you have a problem with it? Maybe so. Then again, I guess the real question is this: Is your problem any other the above, or is the real issue the fact that BI is trying to guess the future?

You have a right to criticize any element in the game, just trying to figure out what the root cause of the issue is. Because it's certainly not a issue with the proposed functionality of any asset in the game.

[windies 11]

i think you don't like word "mashup" in general. Skids looks weird, wow man, seriosly, the skids at least for me, is the last thing to look at.

Devil is in the details for some people and I agree to an extent with a general dislike of some of the mashups in ArmA 3 and how I personally perceive them. As for the Lynx, it's kind of odd seeing the UH-1 skids on there, I agree with Alwarren that it does look kind of odd. I personally hope they are just placeholder and they will actually design some skids that flow or blend with the design of the helicopter and don't look like a lazy rip from other assets.

I also want to say that I don't have a issue with fictional names as much as I do with if an asset looks good or plausible for a real world counterpart.

[antoineflemming 14]

Devil is in the details for some people and I agree to an extent with a general dislike of some of the mashups in ArmA 3 and how I personally perceive them. As for the Lynx, it's kind of odd seeing the UH-1 skids on there, I agree with Alwarren that it does look kind of odd. I personally hope they are just placeholder and they will actually design some skids that flow or blend with the design of the helicopter and don't look like a lazy rip from other assets.

I also want to say that I don't have a issue with fictional names as much as I do with if an asset looks good or plausible for a real world counterpart.

What would you say if today the UK came out with the Lynx with UH-1 skids? Would that make it ok because it's in the real world or would it be a problem because it looks odd? Not saying either opinion is correct or not correct, just trying to figure out what it is exactly that you, and Alwarren, want. And, no, the answer certainly isn't realism, because odd-looking or not-odd-looking skids isn't an issue of realism.

[ravenholme 50]

Kinda sad that we are having this discussion again, but if in the real world the US bought the Merkava and Namer (like they've looked at in the real world) and renamed them the Slammer and the Panther, or if Greece bought the Lynx, added skids, and renamed it the Hellcat, you'd probably not have a problem with it. If the Iranians today modified the KH2002 with a lowered rail, you'd probably not complain to much. If the US came up with a new rifle called the MX in the real world , you'd probably not have a problem with that either, because it's in the real world. What makes Arma 3 so hard to believe? Is it simply because it doesn't exist as of 1400 27 NOV 2013? Is that really the issue? Or is it that you specifically don't like the assets themselves and their use by specific factions?

I understand the argument about what the AAF should or shouldn't have. I understand the arguments about armaments and cargo spaces that shouldn't be on certain vehicles. What I don't understand is the issues with fictional equipment, yet realistically and functionally designed equipment. Before there was an ACR, if a game had come out with a rifle that was functionally and aestetically similar to the ACR, would you have a problem with it? Maybe so. Then again, I guess the real question is this: Is your problem any other the above, or is the real issue the fact that BI is trying to guess the future?

You have a right to criticize any element in the game, just trying to figure out what the root cause of the issue is. Because it's certainly not a issue with the proposed functionality of any asset in the game.

Pretty much what I was going for, I just did so in a far more brief fashion.

[antoineflemming 14]

Pretty much what I was going for, I just did so in a far more brief fashion.

Well, thank you. In response to you, and Alwarren, and Windies, I'd ask this: If you don't like the assets (the mashup content), if you don't like the story (the 2035, future scenario), if you don't like the environment (Chernarus and Takistan being familiar) and, @metalcraze, if you don't like factions (the overpowered, oversupplied AAF), then what do you like about Arma 3? The engine improvements? Because it really sounds like Arma 3, well the most of it, isn't your cup of tea. Because Arma 3 is all about the 2035 scenario.

[ravenholme 50]

Well, thank you. In response to you, and Alwarren, and Windies, I'd ask this: If you don't like the assets (the mashup content), if you don't like the story (the 2035, future scenario), if you don't like the environment (Chernarus and Takistan being familiar) and, @metalcraze, if you don't like factions (the overpowered, oversupplied AAF), then what do you like about Arma 3? The engine improvements? Because it really sounds like Arma 3, well the most of it, isn't your cup of tea. Because Arma 3 is all about the 2035 scenario.

No, I mean I agree with you, I was saying that, albeit more briefly, to Alwarren et al. My one problem with ArmA 3 is that I feel they have been a bit too conservative with the technology available to at least the NATO side for a 2035 setting.

[windies 11]

What would you say if today the UK came out with the Lynx with UH-1 skids? Would that make it ok because it's in the real world or would it be a problem because it looks odd? Not saying either opinion is correct or not correct, just trying to figure out what it is exactly that you, and Alwarren, want. And, no, the answer certainly isn't realism, because odd-looking or not-odd-looking skids isn't an issue of realism.

I would say it's ugly and I dislike it, same as I'm saying right now. Who said it's about realism, it's about immersion. If it's ugly and immersion breaking, well it's ugly and immersion breaking.

All I'm saying is it doesn't look right, and because of that it's immersion breaking. It would be like trying to sell me on Chevy's new concept in Need For Speed or iRacing or rFactor by sticking a stang ass end on a vette chassis. Go ahead and do it but it's gonna be butt ass ugly, it's not gonna fit right and you're going to catch a lot of flak because it's very far fetched and hard to believe, hence immersion breaking.

[Smurf 12]

An ugly aircraft now is immersion breaking?

ah.....................cmon.

[windies 11]

An ugly aircraft now is immersion breaking?

ah.....................cmon.

No man, I love ugly and uninspired copy pasta mashup content. Bring moar of that on! :rolleyes:

[Alwarren 2767]

Kinda sad that we are having this discussion again

Why is that sad? It's a valid discussion.

but if in the real world the US bought the Merkava and Namer (like they've looked at in the real world) and renamed them the Slammer and the Panther, or if Greece bought the Lynx, added skids, and renamed it the Hellcat, you'd probably not have a problem with it.

Of course (although I doubt that they would call it Slammer, unless there is a General Slammer). The point is not whether it is impossible, the point is whether it is credible. You can explain everything unless it isn't too far fetched. It doesn't mean it sounds convincing. I am not convinced.

If the US came up with a new rifle called the MX in the real world , you'd probably not have a problem with that either, because it's in the real world.

You might notice that I never had an issue with the MX. Because it is a different rifle. The Mk18? Not so much, it's an Mk14 EBR. Why not call it like that?

What makes Arma 3 so hard to believe? Is it simply because it doesn't exist as of 1400 27 NOV 2013? Is that really the issue? Or is it that you specifically don't like the assets themselves and their use by specific factions?

It isn't so much about believing as being immersive.

What I don't understand is the issues with fictional equipment, yet realistically and functionally designed equipment.

Why are you arguing then? I have already said so, if you don't take issue with that, great.

You have a right to criticize any element in the game, just trying to figure out what the root cause of the issue is. Because it's certainly not a issue with the proposed functionality of any asset in the game.

Well, let's see.

All static MG's are American-made MG's. They are used by both sides.

The UAV'S are the exact same models for all factions.

BLUFOR and OPFOR use the same 6.5 caseless ammo.

All BLUFOR armor is the same chassis with different addons. Some of them look alien. The MRLS has an artillery holding ring in front. Yes, you can explain that all use the same chassis, it still looks like copy-paste.

You say for example "What would you say if today the UK came out with the Lynx with UH-1 skids?". Well, how credible is that? What do you think is the probability of this happening? If you say anything else but "rather unlikely", you're fooling to yourself. Yes, it is possible that the US all of a sudden buys Israeli tanks and adopts a new weapon after fifty years of using the M16 from a company that produces tactical bacon, but how likely is it? How likely is it that the US buys Merkava chassis and mounts the turret of an M270 on it? What is the more likely explanation, "In the future, US will mount the M270 turret on the Merkava", or "We didn't have time to produce other assets so we went copy-paste"?

THAT is my issue with this.

Of course, it is possible that Iran, US and Greek buy the same drone. But the more likely explanation is "We didn't have time to produce other assets so we went copy-paste".

Which is fine, it's as good an explanation as any and I can perfectly accept it. However, why are there still people trying to convince me that this is "a vision of the future"?

And for the record, when it comes to adding assets to the game, I would rather see civilians and civilian vehicles added, and more effort put into the modding tools.

To answer the other question you ask:

In response to you, and Alwarren, and Windies, I'd ask this: If you don't like the assets (the mashup content), if you don't like the story (the 2035, future scenario), if you don't like the environment (Chernarus and Takistan being familiar) and, @metalcraze, if you don't like factions (the overpowered, oversupplied AAF), then what do you like about Arma 3? The engine improvements? Because it really sounds like Arma 3, well the most of it, isn't your cup of tea. Because Arma 3 is all about the 2035 scenario.

The only issue I have with the island/landscape is the number of wrecks. Nothing else. I like Altis, but I dislike the fact that the ruins cannot be removed (yes I know you can hide the cars but the collision mask remain, so you crash vehicles into them). It makes it difficult to make a believable "pre-war" scenario. The lack of civilian side items (cars, females, normal clothing that don't look like tourists) make it difficult to get a believable island, and the lack of the Ambient Civilian module makes most scenarios I have played so far look more sterile than in Arma 2. Other than that, the island is great, the lack of inland water is a taint though.

The Hunter and Iffrit looks stunning, as does the Merkava and the T-100. What is new is certainly good, also the Leopard 2 looks good from the picture. The shortcuts annoy me. The MLRS turret on the Merkava chassis annoys me. The fact that all vehicle turrets are the same annoy me. I dislike the 2035 scenario mostly because I feel out of touch with it, there is little background story. There wasn't much background in Arrowhead either but since it was rooted in the current situation it didn't need that.This one does, because it has to fill a 20 year gap, and I miss that.

I disagree about the "Arma 3 is all about the 2035 scenario". By that logic, CWR2 and I44, or Unsung/VTE, or Hell in the Pacific, have nothing to do with Arma 2. I look forward to the release of the Arma 2 assets and I hope they get integrated into the game in a way that makes them mostly indistinguishable from the content that is already in (i.e. weapon attachments, uniforms instead of baked-in classes etc). As long as the core mechanics of the game are good (which as I said before, has drastically improved IMO in recent weeks), I am fine with that. I prefer a modern-day or Cold War setting over this, and the choice of time period I found rather surprising and unfortunate, but that is something I cannot change.

However, that still means I dislike the future scenario and what I perceive as shortcuts to making the game appear bigger, especially with the "Quality over Quantity" mantra.

But I never said that I hate Arma 3, and the fact that I am still discussing this shows that I am either completely crazy, or passionate about it (take your pick). The problem with discussion on the forum is that, apart from your post, they mostly blindly try to defend something without actually discussing it. If I say "I dislike X", they say "then Arma 3 isn't the game for you". I am automatically labelled a hater, just because I critizie certain aspects of the game.

@Ravenholme

I was saying that, albeit more briefly, to Alwarren et al

No, that isn't what you did. You told me to stay away from the game. antoineflemming tries to argue his point, you don't.

and...

My one problem with ArmA 3 is that I feel they have been a bit too conservative with the technology available to at least the NATO side for a 2035 setting.

Changes in the military go slow, just look how long the M16 is in service. I find it hard to predict what happens in 20 years, more so since (from what I understand) there was a major economical crisis. Which is one of the reasons I wouldn't have wanted this scenario in the first place.

Edited November 27, 2013 by Alwarren
Need to get used to my new keyboard -_-