Is Arma3 still the "Flagship"

[ruhtraeel 1]

Sadly, I'm at the point where I don't care if resources were moved to day z. It doesn't look like A3 has any more of a hope of being a fun multiplayer game than OFP, Arma, or Arma 2 were.

Although I haven't played day z yet, it looks like it might actually be fun to play with and against human players. Who would have thunk it would ever happen.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Mother of god, the infection is spreading. "Hooray let's all jump on the DayZ bandwagon!"

If they manage to focus more on PvP in multiplayer, and if the community can make game modes where it is easier to jump into a fast game of conquest or TDM in a smaller area, I think the multiplayer would be much more successful. I'll still be playing the longer multiplayer modes though.

[instagoat 133]

The reason that I personally am not as excited about A3 anymore as I was when it was announced is that so far, all stuff shown has exclusively been technological demos. Nothing about the story, and when the story was mentioned, it was always painted as merely being "so we can implement fun vehicles and guns." Nothing exciting, no passion.

I don´t care if its a relatively simple story. I don´t care if it´s an MGS 2 style canon-destroyer. But at least make something where you can feel that somebody put -thought- into it, and passion. I´d like to see OFP:Res/EW/OA:DLC style excellence.

[chortles 263]

The reason that I personally am not as excited about A3 anymore as I was when it was announced is that so far, all stuff shown has exclusively been technological demos. Nothing about the story, and when the story was mentioned, it was always painted as merely being "so we can implement fun vehicles and guns." Nothing exciting, no passion.

I don´t care if its a relatively simple story. I don´t care if it´s an MGS 2 style canon-destroyer. But at least make something where you can feel that somebody put -thought- into it, and passion. I´d like to see OFP:Res/EW/OA:DLC style excellence.

Unfortunately I can only say that:

#1: The tech demos SHOULD be what they're showing, because they're showcases of what justifies ARMA 3 as being a separate game offered at full price instead of simply yet another ARMA 2: OA/CO DLC, as well as what justifies evolving Real Virtuality instead of abandoning it for a new engine altogether.

#2: How can they show off the story in a tech demo/showcase beyond a single mission (i.e. "Deterrence" at E3 2012) without spoiling? I think they've come to realize that the majority of the fanbase isn't interested in the story and plans on just making their own missions, so that they have to show off the elements that mission makers and players of these missions would be more interested in.

#3: Considering what you said about "so we can implement fun vehicles and guns", based on what Jay Crowe has said at E3, in showcases and GameStar interviews, I think that he and Ivan Buchta have got a very specific focus and intent for the campaign... it may just not be what your intent would have been. Theirs seems to be for the campaign's primary goal being to supplement the 'MAKE ARMA 3 USABLE' strategy that Jay and Ivan seem... adamant about.

(By which I mean, "no more reviews that include 'how do I open my inventory'!!! DayZ exposed this problem, we must fix it!" Oh hey, I guess DayZ influenced ARMA 3 development after all... by making it blatantly clear what happens when a new player gets their hands on ARMA but then has no mentor to teach them how to play. :p)

Edited August 13, 2012 by Chortles

[chortles 263]

If they manage to focus more on PvP in multiplayer, and if the community can make game modes where it is easier to jump into a fast game of conquest or TDM in a smaller area, I think the multiplayer would be much more successful. I'll still be playing the longer multiplayer modes though.

You just said "fast game" and "TDM" and "PvP in multiplayer", prepare the barricades against the pitchforks and torch crowd that believe no one will love ARMA like they do! :p

Seriously though, I'm good with this.

[SASrecon 0]

The reason that I personally am not as excited about A3 anymore as I was when it was announced is that so far, all stuff shown has exclusively been technological demos. Nothing about the story, and when the story was mentioned, it was always painted as merely being "so we can implement fun vehicles and guns." Nothing exciting, no passion.

I don´t care if its a relatively simple story. I don´t care if it´s an MGS 2 style canon-destroyer. But at least make something where you can feel that somebody put -thought- into it, and passion. I´d like to see OFP:Res/EW/OA:DLC style excellence.

I get where you're coming from and am sorta feeling it too, I think the marketing strategy has changed this time around however, with the community alpha announced and DayZ being so successful I guess if they make any campaign trailers at the moment they would go unnoticed, the

video seems to be doing especially well in attracting new players to the series (just look at the rating), as well as the

and

, remember back when there were loads of 'hacks' to BIS pages and 'puzzles' for the community to solve? Well I'd say seeing as they put so much effort into revealing some story/campaign news through that, they will almost certainly mention some news at/after gamescom, or whenever they feel the time is right, the fact that they haven't posted any recently almost certainly doesn't mean that they have forgotten about it :P

I don't know if this has already been mentioned (it's one of those things which I probably saw ages and ages ago but have completely forgotten about) but I only noticed it a few days ago, there's loads of info on ARMA3 campaign personnel on the ARMA3 website, looks pretty detailed/well -thought- out to me!

[metalcraze 290]

You just said "fast game" and "TDM" and "PvP in multiplayer", prepare the barricades against the pitchforks and torch crowd that believe no one will love ARMA like they do! :p

Seriously though, I'm good with this.

Yes because it's impossible to play fast game, TDM and PvP in ArmA multiplayer thus far. I feel you man, I wish ArmA had stuff like AAS, Warfare, PR and whatnot. I wish it was possible to click on Multiplayer button in its menu.

[Taylor422 1]

I definitely think there would be a market for CQB, say Battlefield 3 style. The thing holding it back is the mouse controls. I was reading about them being a bit wonkey in another thread. Anyway, the grizzled veterans could still play their way, and the Battlefield crowd could have something to draw them in (CQB) and then expand from that, sort of how people started with DayZ and then expanded in to all of ArmA2.

[Ekko 1]

I definitely think there would be a market for CQB, say Battlefield 3 style. The thing holding it back is the mouse controls. I was reading about them being a bit wonkey in another thread. Anyway, the grizzled veterans could still play their way, and the Battlefield crowd could have something to draw them in (CQB) and then expand from that, sort of how people started with DayZ and then expanded in to all of ArmA2.

I agree, there is actually nothing to lose if they add in more game modes, it would just benefit the players and BIS. You know what, I think I would like to try some CQB in ArmA 3, even though it might not be realistic(the laws of physics are actually on CQB's side sometimes, so it is possible), it can still be fun!

Edited August 14, 2012 by Ekko

[Vespa 1]

Is Arma3 still the flagship...?! In Soviet Bohemia, the community trolls YOU :p

[metalcraze 290]

I definitely think there would be a market for CQB, say Battlefield 3 style. The thing holding it back is the mouse controls. I was reading about them being a bit wonkey in another thread. Anyway, the grizzled veterans could still play their way, and the Battlefield crowd could have something to draw them in (CQB) and then expand from that, sort of how people started with DayZ and then expanded in to all of ArmA2.

Yeah and obviously they now demand ArmA3 to be turned into this

Thanks but no thanks. You have your Call of Battlefield Honor: Modern Warfighter already, go play it.

[whisky 1]

Is Arma3 still the flagship...?! In Soviet Bohemia, the community trolls YOU :p

hahahaha, dude, you are awesome!

I wonder what Celery would say to that...

[4 IN 1 0]

is arma3 still the flagship...?! In soviet bohemia, the developers trolls you :p

fixed

[chortles 263]

Taylor: I don't agree on specific details, but Vespa HAS answered you re: "mouse controls" in that mouse controls thread.

Yeah and obviously they now demand ArmA3 to be turned into this

None of us do, I don't, and how can you even claim to speak for disenchanted BF3 players who are taking a look at ARMA 3? (I say disenchanted because I doubt satisfied BF3 players would give ARMA 3 a look.)

Thanks but no thanks. You have your Call of Battlefield Honor: Modern Warfighter already, go play it.

No... no we don't, not yet... especially not when DayZ showed the world glimpses of what's possible... (That's right, I said DayZ instead of ARMA 2.)

Call of Battlefield Honor: Modern Warfighter are no longer ENOUGH, such is the power of the ARMA concept.

Yes because it's impossible to play fast game, TDM and PvP in ArmA multiplayer thus far. I feel you man, I wish ArmA had stuff like AAS, Warfare, PR and whatnot. I wish it was possible to click on Multiplayer button in its menu.

I didn't say anything about it being IMPOSSIBLE to in ARMA 2 play "fast game" (okay I kind of feel this... but then I picked up SMK Animations), TDM (isn't this an OA Editor template?) or PVP.

For perspective: As I've previously mentioned, my all-time favorite ARMA 2 moment was a PVP free-for-all match where upon respawn the player was given a a randomly-selected weapon/attachment combo which would persist until changing/dropping weapons or death/the next respawn... that is to say, I felt that in this I had found in ARMA something better than any immediately-coming-to-mind multiplayer match type in a conventional FPS/twitch shooter, and NOT because of "realism" or accuracy of simulation.

I'm willing to give AAS a try, but PR is a mod (I'm concerned with the vanilla mod-less experience), and I won't miss Warfare, which is apparently gone from ARMA 3 altogether as a default match type (I expect someone to make their own, which again is okay by me).

EDIT: I think I get you, but we really ought to discuss this by PM... after all, CQB doesn't need a game mode to itself, nor a scenario to itself, it's a range of combat that transcends mere game "modes".

Edited August 14, 2012 by Chortles

[Ekko 1]

Yeah and obviously they now demand ArmA3 to be turned into this

Thanks but no thanks. You have your Call of Battlefield Honor: Modern Warfighter already, go play it.

Haha, I knew someone was going to do this! :D Some people can't understand that CQB can be different from BF3 or call of duty. What you are saying is that if ArmA 3 would have like a CQB game mode, the WHOLE FRICKIN GAME would be turned in to this, because this is what you think CQB is! ArmA is a milsim like we all know, and in war there is CQB now and then, CQB would merely just be a small game mode or a scenario, and I would be happy to welcome another aspect of war to the game(It allready is in ArmA, it just needs to be perfected) Just pathetic...

I hope people understand what I am saying... or else, future milsims are gonna be repetetive.

Edited August 14, 2012 by Ekko

[batto 17]

IMO very good example of realistic CQB in ArmA2 is PR Insurgency on Zargabad. Huge CQB PvP fun (40 on 40 yay!). It's not so CQB (as you don't fight inside buildings so much), but rather street fights. Still, it's closer than in other non-DM PvP games.

Edited August 14, 2012 by batto

[Ekko 1]

IMO very good example of realistic CQB in ArmA2 is PR Insurgency on Zargabad. Huge CQB PvP fun (40 on 40 yay!). It's not so CQB (as you don't fight inside buildings so much), but rather street fights. Still, it's closer than in other non-DM PvP games.

This is what I want to do in Myrina in ArmA 3 and I've sometimes done this in Zargabad(its fun!). But, the question is, could it be improved? I will stay positive about it.:cool:

[chortles 263]

batto's got it right, although I would say that both the inside-buildings fights AND street fights can be/are CQB... so there's no need for a separate mode, not when you can incorporate "CQB concepts" into a wider-scale mission on a big map, the OA user-made SP mission The Battle of Zargabad (I got it off of Armaholic) is an interesting example of how this can be achieved, by setting the objectives in areas with differing lines of sight, leading to almost no indoors shooting but plenty of "street fight" distance encounters in built-up areas with enemies at longer range in open areas.

For other examples of mistaking specific-scenario improvements drawn from more conventional shooters as somehow affecting the whole of the game, see the Multiplayer Balance thread. :rolleyes:

batto, Ekko, check out the "CQB?" thread!

[rye1 21]

"CQB" is an acronym for Close Quarters Battle. It was coined by the British SAS as far as I know and formed a catch-all category to throw anything to do with fighting in or around buildings. Since "fighting in and around buildings" is a mouthful by anyone's standards, people use the British term (which has now moved onto FIBUA, FISH and CHIPS military acronyms and so on). Reference: Suarez International. *Rye vanishes back into the darkness*

Anywhoo, with gamemodes you can only 'isolate them'. It's hard to isolate it to only long-range fighting unless the map, terrain and equipment allows otherwise the player will make those decisions, and that may mean getting closer. In terms of "CQB gamemodes" you find that mission makers isolate you to city terrain with restrictions for movement in cases, or with a spawn in buildings or streets keeping you close at arms. With those types of maps there is heaps of room-to-room battles and fights within buildings, again Arma let's it down in multiple ways -- i.e. blocked in doorways or stairwells, clipping off the invisible barrier 1-2inches from the wall. That doesn't mean it's not fun, but sometimes it can be frustrating, most of the time Arma is fine, there is room for improvement. Room for room fighting improvement? :p

[KEVINMGXP 20]

"CQB" is an acronym for Close Quarters Battle.

Kinda of topic but,

As per information both CQB and CQC exists from ancient times way before Captain William Fairbairn introduced the technique as we know it now. Fairbairn's role was to analyze the methods and practices from the late 18 hundreds as such he became well versed and proficient in many Eastern systems giving him a vast knowledge in the mastery of fighting arts of the world. It was with this knowledge that Fairbairn, Sykes, Apple-gate trained the most elite operatives of the 2nd WW.

However I don't want to argue the fact that it was coined by the brits from the start, but I do believe it is evolved from ancient techniques and without that knowledge CQB and CQC would not have existed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_E._Fairbairn

http://www.cqcsa.co.za/history.htm

Kind regards

Edited August 15, 2012 by KBourne

[keefehb 0]

Why does it need a game mode?

Why can't somone just make a TDM mission set in one of the towns/cities?

[Smurf 12]

Why does it need a game mode?

Why can't somone just make a TDM mission set in one of the towns/cities?

Because out of the box ready to play. First impressions counts, A LOT.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Because out of the box ready to play. First impressions counts, A LOT.

Deffo. Warfare has been sustaining PVP for a loong time since Armed Assault 1, Berzerk creator abandoned/left his project, CTF never took off and some obscure TvT scenarios have been created on private communities.

Regarding OP,

http://images.idgentertainment.de/images/idgwpgsgp/bdb/2337637/bigimage.jpg

http://images.idgentertainment.de/images/idgwpgsgp/bdb/2337643/bigimage.jpg

http://images.idgentertainment.de/images/idgwpgsgp/bdb/2337638/bigimage.jpg

http://images.idgentertainment.de/images/idgwpgsgp/bdb/2337649/bigimage.jpg

More here - http://www.gamestar.de/index.cfm?pid=1674&pk=46950&fk=93058&i=1 Hope that answers the question whether or not it still is. :icon_mrgreen:

[dmarkwick 261]

So for "gamemode" we can read "mission" :)

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

So for "gamemode" we can read "mission" :)

It is rather an elaborate "mission", requiring the full attention of whomever is responsible for it. :p

[ruhtraeel 1]

Ok. It is up to BI to create the more elaborate game modes such as Warfare, and to provide us with the tools to create. It is up to US to use those tools to make the simpler ones, like elimination, where two teams try to eliminate all the members of the opposite team in each round, ie. no respawning.