Confirmed features now cancelled - your thoughts?

[nodunit 397]

conformist

Err...if they were conformist then they would be doing what EA did with battlefield and try to make it more like a generic shooter with regenerating health and things like that, to conform means to fit the standards, which they aren't doing.

[onlyrazor 11]

Err...if they were conformist then they would be doing what EA did with battlefield and try to make it more like a generic shooter with regenerating health and things like that, to conform means to fit the standards, which they aren't doing.

But they've got bloody screens (SO REAL) and on the fly weapon customization and a futuristic setting. Can't you see? They're clearly copying Crysis to get a bigger audience! Guhhh!

Quite honestly, I'm more than satisfied that there are so many features added, though I was quite hopeful to see some underground structures. Win some, lose some.

[Scoggs 1]

...two new islands, ... the other is 400 km^2...

When did this happen? last time I checked it was 300

also does that 300 include the water or is it 300 land only?

[paecmaker 23]

When did this happen? last time I checked it was 300

also does that 300 include the water or is it 300 land only?

Its land only, with the water it would me much more.

[papanowel 120]

I think it's 900 or 800 km² with the water to play arround.

Choki, when you will have the chance to play Arma 3, I can tell you that it will blow your mind ;)

[On_Sabbatical 11]

As i've said since ArmA 3 had been announced,Arma 2 has a lot of imcomplete features that have never caught the devs attention ,and will be the case for the most of them in ArmA 3 (as i expect since no one said something about them),so no need for more imcomplete features in the game that will just feed our disappointement and make future game mods and addons be fixes more than being new content and gameplay addition.

If ArmA 3 fixes all ArmA 2 broken stuff,i'll be more than happy,then we'll talk a bout new things!

Edited September 12, 2012 by On_Sabbatical

[ProfTournesol 956]

If ArmA 3 fixes all ArmA 2 broken stuff,i'd be more than happy,then we'll talk a bout new things!

Not me, i don't care of the remaing bugs as there will always be some in a game, i want new features and those i see are pleasing me.

[On_Sabbatical 11]

Not me, i don't care of the remaing bugs as there will always be some in a game, i want new features and those i see are pleasing me.

Yes,but do it decently or don't do it .. this is my main idea !

[katipo66 94]

Yes,but do it decently or don't do it .. this is my main idea !

Yep, one example bug is the su25 still crashing into the stupid tree on take off on Chernarus, it just seems dumb, I don't care anymore about any ragdoll or pretty lights ( I used to with a passion)

It would be nice if they didnt try to make all the things but instead make all the things work.

Arma2 seems to have so much life still left in her I wouldn't care if they keep delaying to polish as much as possible.

[chortles 263]

It would be nice if they didnt try to make all the things but instead make all the things work.

Fortunately that seems to be a design priority by the dev team, and according to InstaGoat that's what they're going to (try to) do for the AI. :)

Arma2 seems to have so much life still left in her I wouldn't care if they keep delaying to polish as much as possible.

What's the saying about only so much lipstick you can put onto a pig or so much you can polish a turd? For example, based on InstaGoat's talks with BI at Gamescom it sounds like trying to fix the AI for ARMA 2 may well be something of a dead end, considering what was said about the plan for ARMA 3 AI basically being "no new major features, the goal is to get the AI working consistently".

[dmarkwick 261]

trying to fix the AI for ARMA 2 may well be something of a dead end

the goal is to get the AI working consistently".

These two are at direct odds with each other. I should say that getting the AI to work consistently represents AI improvement.

[On_Sabbatical 11]

Yep, one example bug is the su25 still crashing into the stupid tree on take off on Chernarus, it just seems dumb, I don't care anymore about any ragdoll or pretty lights ( I used to with a passion)

It's a huge map design error that i noticed as soon as i played on chernarus ... there is no airfield in the world built with High trees or buildings right at ithe end of the runway.

[chortles 263]

I see it as more a case where "oh hey it'll be a nice bonus for people who stick to ARMA 2, and we can use it to trial CONCEPTs, but as far as anything actually useful goes, that'd only be in ARMA 3". I'm basing my view off of InstaGoat's old comments from Gamescom about the problems with AI development:

new features had been added, while old ones basically were carried over. As old developers went and new ones came, documentation was neglected, so at times, the people currently working on the AI themselves don´t know what part does what. The result of that is the AI in Arma 2 is as clunky as it is sometimes: it´s not because it is bad, it´s just that it is made of lots of parts that were left unadjusted. So, what they are doing with Arma 3 is apparently one big spring-clean trough the AI framework, building and confirming documentation, constructing up-to-date tools to adjust and test the AI, and iron out the bugs.

Less if any features expansion and more focus on on getting configs right (so that the AI doesn't do "baby mistakes"), and I'm not so sure how possible the latter is in ARMA 2.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

When did this happen? last time I checked it was 300

also does that 300 include the water or is it 300 land only?

Conflicting info: either 300 or 400 for landmass. Papanowel is correct, though, the whole map is 30 x 30 km with surrounding water included, makes for 900 sq. km area. :D :D :D

[katipo66 94]

What's the saying about only so much lipstick you can put onto a pig or so much you can polish a turd?

Well I don't see it as bad as a pig or turd, even in the context you use, there are so many factions, enviroments and full armies including the ww2 error that I could play this game for a very long time... Especially with mods like hac, dac and upsmon etc, maybe they have something similar in mind for a3 :)

Off course I look forward to number 3 especially on a MP level hopefully it can finally deliver some unique Arma pvp, and also the ability for non coder/scripters to have a few more options in the editor.

But other than that I'm tired of seeing all the A3 OMG threads and the same underwater fighting scenes, I just want to tune out until 3months after it's release date where hopefully the forum won't be littered with "BIS please fix (insert typical bug here)

... there is no airfield in the world built with High trees or buildings right at ithe end of the runway.

I consider it a game breaker out of the box that will never get fixed... Also the guard waypoint, tbo I'm not sure if it was like that on release or introduced with patches but it's a pretty significant waypoint (as are all of them i guess) So you get the idea that BIS are always busy fixing/developing other things that some bugs are just not worth their time fixing, so it would be awesome if all the things that should work, work

Edited September 13, 2012 by Katipo66
guard waypoint

[ruhtraeel 1]

My thoughts:

The 3D editor is going to be released in it's current state, and possibly be updated in the future. At least it will be released; 3D editor opens up a world of possibilities, especially for CQB.

The underground structures I think are also quite important, because it too, like the 3D editor, affects gameplay. Having small vents to crawl through into a facility + larger tunnels to have battles/ambushes in (like Damavand Peak in BF3), adds to the gameplay experience in general.

Something like ragdoll physics IMO isn't as important, because it doesn't affect gameplay. Regular physics does, such as destructible environments, but IMO ragdoll physics are more for aesthetic purposes, something I would value less than gameplay affecting features.

[Nicholas 5]

If we've gone 11 years without underground structures, I image that you can probably wait more.

I can understand why most developers have little interest in what their userbase thinks. Most people today are demanding and harsh.

[nodunit 397]

A bit too harsh. "We don't need X Y Z" without much thought as to the fact that features X and Y are two separate teams. Likewise there seems to be a great air of "I didn't want this" surrounded by self entitlement. Features are announced, they shoot for the stars, unexpected delays can crop up, such is the way of development, at least they had the decency to say "Well it may not be there" or that it won't rather than playing it up until release only to let you discover that it is not there.

[dmarkwick 261]

Something like ragdoll physics IMO isn't as important, because it doesn't affect gameplay. Regular physics does, such as destructible environments, but IMO ragdoll physics are more for aesthetic purposes, something I would value less than gameplay affecting features.

It's all entirely subjective: I don't have much use for underground structures (which IMO starts to turn ArmA into a different sort of game) but I do have a lot of use for ragdoll, which introduces random poses for units who, previously, you would immediately identify as safely dead due to their limited number of death poses. It will force you to play slightly different in that shapes must be better scrutinised and possibly shot at, rather than dismissed.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Something like ragdoll physics IMO isn't as important, because it doesn't affect gameplay. Regular physics does, such as destructible environments, but IMO ragdoll physics are more for aesthetic purposes, something I would value less than gameplay affecting features.

Lost me here. Ping Pong must be the pinnacle of gameplay then. Immersion and smooth game mechanics, who need em? Eh. Flying tanks, flying infantry down the stairs in a linear projection, control lock-ups everytime your character gets off the ground by 1 mm and then lands and comes to a stop etc - nope, no, the current "physics" (LOL) engine in ArmA II is not affecting gameplay features. :icon_mrgreen:

---------- Post added at 13:14 ---------- Previous post was at 13:09 ----------

P.S. Some people never leave the Editor in this game.

BIS are quite generous for some reason, providing a platform for film-makers, wannabe modders, programmers, who are just starting out and many others, though that list doesn't include the Player.

---------- Post added at 13:22 ---------- Previous post was at 13:14 ----------

sGnFy5NzNjA

J7wcAAitfCk

QDwp6QeYveg

Can't do the last bit without gimmicky scripts - says a lot about gameplay. ROFL @ Chinook exploding at 0:50.

Edited September 13, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin

[ruhtraeel 1]

Lost me here. Ping Pong must be the pinnacle of gameplay then. Immersion and smooth game mechanics, who need em? Eh. Flying tanks, flying infantry down the stairs in a linear projection, control lock-ups everytime your character gets off the ground by 1 mm and then lands and comes to a stop etc - nope, no, the current "physics" (LOL) engine in ArmA II is not affecting gameplay features. :icon_mrgreen:

---------- Post added at 13:14 ---------- Previous post was at 13:09 ----------

P.S. Some people never leave the Editor in this game.

BIS are quite generous for some reason, providing a platform for film-makers, wannabe modders, programmers, who are just starting out and many others, though that list doesn't include the Player.

---------- Post added at 13:22 ---------- Previous post was at 13:14 ----------

[youtube ]sGnFy5NzNjA

[youtube ]J7wcAAitfCk

[youtube ]QDwp6QeYveg

Can't do the last bit without gimmicky scripts - says a lot about gameplay. ROFL @ Chinook exploding at 0:50.

DMark brings up good points about identifying bodies from a distance, but I don't really understand what you're trying to say either. I didn't really understand your Pong analogy, as for the other stuff, that's not ragdoll physics, that's physics in general.

Edited September 13, 2012 by [FRL]Myke

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

It's okay. We'll make it all better, no need to worry.

---------- Post added at 15:56 ---------- Previous post was at 15:27 ----------

a8EExGmf5OA

TRraq0UdWU4

[-Coulum- 35]

I think ruhtraeel was strictly speaking about the racgdoll physics, which, to me is pretty much only for immersion (and of course sick fun with explosives). Other than Dmarckwicks point, I don't see any gameplay value to them. Although they do look to be much more responsive than arma 2 - no more shooting a guy in the face six times and having him drop after 3 seconds. Is that due to ragdolls or some other feature?

Anyways, All the other physics is very important, and I am sure it will have a huge but subtle impact on gameplay. It I think that people saying arma 3 is just arma 2 with some better physics don't really realise how big a difference there is.

[chortles 263]

If we've gone 11 years without underground structures, I image that you can probably wait more.

The story I heard was that VBS2 AI was somehow able to handle it but ARMA 3 AI couldn't handle underground, so underground had to go.

I can understand why most developers have little interest in what their userbase thinks. Most people today are demanding and harsh.

I'd suggest it's rather "because their userbase is split, chooses to only play part of the overall ARMA experience (whatever they prefer), have differing priorities, and sometimes directly contradict each other".

[-Coulum- 35]

I'd suggest it's rather "because their userbase is split, chooses to only play part of the overall ARMA experience (whatever they prefer), have differing priorities, and sometimes directly contradict each other".

We're all selfish spoilt little freaks. BIS is the best developers I know of and yet we still find things to complain and bitch about.