Confirmed features now cancelled - your thoughts?

[nodunit 397]

What do you mean? OA has an intertial system that causes the player body to slide, raise, push forward and push backwards already, and A3 is improving upon this.

[chortles 263]

There's nothing wrong with improving on that so long as it's not at the expense (framerate/stability) of other functions!

Incidentally, it'll be interesting for me to see/wonder -- if such a surface boat has divers as passengers, then what will it looks like when a diver disembarks into the water? :eek: That's pretty interesting to imagine...

[SnuffyTheEvil 1]

Fixing basic gameplay in accordance with available technology is the utmost priority, everything else can be added in expansion packs and DLCs.

I wouldn't exactly say "fix everything with DLC", but I agree that basic stability and polish are absolutely needed, but not as important as post-launch support. We don't need Arma 3 to go down the same path as Cliffs of Dover and Red Orchestra 2.

[BasileyOne 10]

This x1000.

Personally it drives me crazy as a Computer Science major when people assume something non-standard and expect everyone to cohere. Even more so since I am taking Software Engineering 301, which is about project management.

Again, I think if BI prioritizes stuff well in their development process, the feature cutting process will have minimal impact on gameplay experience.

yep.

you also forget to include "improving/fixing existed [previously]features (into usable state) as one of features, too, btw :)

one of most important, probably.

more GFX stuff offloaded to GPU[but no DirectX11[ony DX10] feats confirmed yet, which make benefits TREMEDOUS], game had improved[more or less]Physics, AI become scalable/miltithreaded[unsure BIS ability to learn/utilize MPI/ERlang so there would be engineering/coding bottleneck for long time]

i mean - "think positive" !! ie, its Arma3: "would-be better than first two and OFP together" ;-) say that mantra every-night and everything would b ok

[nodunit 397]

I wouldn't exactly say "fix everything with DLC", but I agree that basic stability and polish are absolutely needed, but not as important as post-launch support. We don't need Arma 3 to go down the same path as Cliffs of Dover and Red Orchestra 2.

Why not? DLC doesn't insinuate pay for, just look at the DLC recently released for TKOH that integrates it with Arma 2 CO.

[b00ce 160]

That and the NoiseControllers DLC. ;)

[BasileyOne 10]

AmBX support with DLC ?? :P

[native]Stereo3D support with DirectX11.1/WDDM 1.2 support in DLC/side-patch ? :)

FreeTrack/OpenTrack simplified support ? :)

[noubernou 77]

I would consider lack of entrenched fighting positions something that has been a core game bug since OFP. Yes I consider it a bug, because it is a feature that when lacking severely limits many styles of combat to the point of frustration.

So the lack of underground terrain features, or placeable features that can distort the terrain (as in clip it for trenches, etc) a core game feature that needs to be fixed.

[onlyrazor 11]

I would consider lack of entrenched fighting positions something that has been a core game bug since OFP. Yes I consider it a bug, because it is a feature that when lacking severely limits many styles of combat to the point of frustration.

So the lack of underground terrain features, or placeable features that can distort the terrain (as in clip it for trenches, etc) a core game feature that needs to be fixed.

I agree wholeheartedly. Trenches are sorely lacking from the series, especially since they're an ancient form of fortification.

[BasileyOne 10]

all other engines, presently unable to reproduce detailed-enough landscape on commercially-available hardware.

both UE, CE, Unity and other engines - wasn't able to do that TOO.

and only one team reporting to be working on it, i mean Crytek. overpromoted DICE bitching about terrain feats sadly remain scam/myth, while Volition approach solely based on FX-side of terramorphing, low-resolution one and non-functional[much].

[chortles 263]

I wouldn't exactly say "fix everything with DLC", but I agree that basic stability and polish are absolutely needed, but not as important as post-launch support. We don't need Arma 3 to go down the same path as Cliffs of Dover and Red Orchestra 2.

Mildly contradicting yourself here, aren't you? That is, in saying that basic stability and polish are "absolutely" yet "not as important" as basic post-launch support... how about all three are absolutely needed?

I would consider lack of entrenched fighting positions something that has been a core game bug since OFP. Yes I consider it a bug, because it is a feature that when lacking severely limits many styles of combat to the point of frustration.

So the lack of underground terrain features, or placeable features that can distort the terrain (as in clip it for trenches, etc) a core game feature that needs to be fixed.

A bug is a feature not working, not the feature being not there at all. :p

This one's an interesting "missing feature", though by no stretch of the imagination do I consider it core (I'd even say that you're misusing the word "core"), but I believe that BI already explained to Old Bear at Gamescom why underground is still not in... because the ARMA 3 devs just couldn't get the AI in RV4 to make use of it, even though the AI in RV2 or RV3 (VBS2 version) could.

[Nicholas 5]

This one's an interesting "missing feature", though by no stretch of the imagination do I consider it core (I'd even say that you're misusing the word "core"), but I believe that BI already explained to Old Bear at Gamescom why underground is still not in... because the ARMA 3 devs just couldn't get the AI in RV4 to make use of it, even though the AI in RV2 or RV3 (VBS2 version) could.

That's because the AI in VBS2 is not the same as the AI in the ArmA series.

People need to stop comparing ArmA to VBS. VBS is designed for military customers, not the civilian population. Just because VBS gets a new feature, does not mean that ArmA will get it as well.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Nicholas

[chortles 263]

I already know that difference. :) I wasn't the one who took offense to the part you boldfaced, that was the OP:

WTF ?! BIS?! whats wrong with you ?! even when the AI does not work underground, you can add underground structures just for the players + then you are some steps forward, you can fix all these problems maybe in a patch or when you work on a DLC for arma 3 or you want to bring out later ArmA 4, you can fix these problems but maybe cancel underground structure features just because AI problems ?! thats a bad idea !

Here's what he was responding to, from Old Bear's report:

In fact, if I understood correctly, BIS made lots of tests that work more or less well. Ivan told me that for example in VBS, they found a way to include objects underground to tunnels, passages ... and it works in VBS, but in Arma3 environment , AI perceives the object hidden in the ground as a barrier and tends to avoid it... which is not the goal .... Furthermore, the IA refuse to engage in tunnels created. So for the moment, no underground objects in Arma3.

I'm imagining that the lack of "entrenched fighting positions" or "underground terrain features" is what was meant by Old Bear's description of the lack of "underground" in ARMA 3.

[noubernou 77]

Mildly contradicting yourself here, aren't you? That is, in saying that basic stability and polish are "absolutely" yet "not as important" as basic post-launch support... how about all three are absolutely needed?A bug is a feature not working, not the feature being not there at all. :p

This one's an interesting "missing feature", though by no stretch of the imagination do I consider it core (I'd even say that you're misusing the word "core"), but I believe that BI already explained to Old Bear at Gamescom why underground is still not in... because the ARMA 3 devs just couldn't get the AI in RV4 to make use of it, even though the AI in RV2 or RV3 (VBS2 version) could.

So fortifications that have literally been around for thousands of years and are mentioned in pretty much every doctrinal piece of information in how to fight is not something core, especially in a game that is billed as being "the most realistic"?

I wouldn't even mind if they were considered static weapons, just being able to have objects clip the terrain so you can actually have entrenched fighting positions that don't stick out like a sore thumb would be a million miles more effective than what we have now.

[chortles 263]

So fortifications that have literally been around for thousands of years and are mentioned in pretty much every doctrinal piece of information in how to fight is not something core

You think it's core and fundamental, but going by what Old Bear reported BI evidently disagreed.

a game that is billed as being "the most realistic"?

... AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA at anyone who actually believes this.

[dmarkwick 261]

So fortifications that have literally been around for thousands of years and are mentioned in pretty much every doctrinal piece of information in how to fight is not something core, especially in a game that is billed as being "the most realistic"?

Although I would like to see underground structures & negative terrain objects like trenches, I wouldn't count them as core. Trenches might be good for the type of mission where you're simulating a long-entrenched position but for general middle-range battlefield use, during the course of the vast majority of mission timescales, they're not essential.

Still would like them though, even with the AI caveat :)

I wouldn't even mind if they were considered static weapons, just being able to have objects clip the terrain so you can actually have entrenched fighting positions that don't stick out like a sore thumb would be a million miles more effective than what we have now.

I think bomb/artillery craters would be the big thing. But I also think about how those spawnable negative terrain objects would affect the AI :)

I guess we await for BIS to solve the AI pathfinding issue for this. My hope is that after release & a few stabilising patches, that they will eventually work this in.

[wiggie 24]

As an Aspiring Games Designer, currently working on a small project with a small team, I can tell you that even the simplest of features require a hell of a lot of work. My team role at present is as a character modeller and animator, and from animating characters at college that have to act on a preset sequence of actions, to trying to build and animate a character that will look believable whilst the player tries to make him run in twelve different directions at once is far more than I bargained for. I'm progressing slowly, but making sure everything works, looks good and runs smoothly can be a nightmare at times, for those with little expirience such as myself. Now, back onto topic.

ARMA II was described by many critics as one of the most ambitious game projects ever undertaken, and I must say, I agree. Trying to build a product that pitches in as much detail as possible, the full scope and scale of warfare must be a production nightmare. Now imagine that on a new scale for ARMA III. If a major feature is cut for a stupid reason, for instance; "Swimming has been removed from the game at launch as we cannot get the flippers to stop clipping, and it doesn't do us proud", then fair enough, its enough to raise hell about, but when a feature is cut because of a legitimate issue, then you can't get up in arms just because the AI will not dissapear down a spider hole, or a helicopter won't fly in the most complex of manners.

Whether they were promised or not, we live in a world where promises have to be broken, sure, I'm a little dissapointed that I won't be be building missions involving clearing out underground mountain strongholds, or crying with laughter whilst watching my friends try to land a helicopter on the back of a boat during a storm with realistic flight physics, but at the end of the day, I would much rather have a clone of ARMA II that runs the way it was invisioned than a brand new game with sparkle sparkle, sequin magic ammounts of features in it.

I'm not saying A3 will be an A2 clone, by the way, but from one of the many comfirmed features lists that was posted in this tread a few pages back, all of which were comfirmed at Gamescon this year, I have to say I'm generally happy with what ArmA 3 will deliver. I'm not really looking for a broader spectrum expirience myself, I mainly play infantry, so for me, its all about depth, and I would rather have AI that could work in an urban environment, character customization and improved physics over space combat simulation, the Mines of Moria and driveable submarines.

Sorry if I digressed there, I do that a lot, one of my many flaws, but making even a basic game takes a hell of a lot of time, effort and dedication, so just be thankful for what you are getting, and stop bitching about what your not. So what if it was "Promised", if its off the table, its for the greater good, and I garuntee that you'll buy ARMA III anyway, even without the features you so desperately crave, and you'll think its the greatest thing of all time anyway.

Edited September 24, 2012 by wiggie

[PsychoPigeon 10]

Another confirmed thing which I KNOW will be in ArmA 3:

Warping. For some reason ArmA stresses servers to the point people and AI warp all over the place. It'll be here in ArmA 3 I bet you.

[celery 8]

I can confirm that the same happy community will also be featured in Arma 3. :)

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Hey, don't ban people for posting in the wrong threads and forum sections and we might expand with new blood. Take a look at dayzforum - lots of cool swag people and :coolface: all round, I wanna hang out with cool people. :cool:

It's like a self-sustaining engine, even if it leaks oil, it keeps on pumping.

---------- Post added at 06:25 ---------- Previous post was at 06:22 ----------

Another confirmed thing which I KNOW will be in ArmA 3:

Warping. For some reason ArmA stresses servers to the point people and AI warp all over the place. It'll be here in ArmA 3 I bet you.

Warping is like a moonwalk. Only even more cool.

[maddogx 13]

Warning mateys, there be trolls abound!

[PsychoPigeon 10]

From what I've heard (which is nothing) fast roping is still here.

[onlyrazor 11]

From what I've heard (which is nothing) fast roping is still here.

Actually, I think the same community member whose name I forgot that reported underground terrain had been suspended (not aborted!) due to AI difficulties also reported that some other features were in limbo, including fast roping. I'll look up his report.

[Steakslim 1]

There was a video I believe where Ivan himself said that fast roping may not be included at release for a number of reasons, one of them being namely that it isn't realistic, which is true for the most part. That's not to say modders can't do it, not to say the duties to make such a feature should fall on the backs of the modders.

[Nicholas 5]

There was a video I believe where Ivan himself said that fast roping may not be included at release for a number of reasons, one of them being namely that it isn't realistic, which is true for the most part. That's not to say modders can't do it, not to say the duties to make such a feature should fall on the backs of the modders.

Not included in release or not included in the beta? It seems a lot of people have been mixing the two up recently.