Balancing?

[Anachoretes 10]

Yes, but I'm not saying that he did not respond. :rolleyes:

[pettka 694]

pettka, I have a better question for you: The reason I ask this is because it sounds like the AI deficiency you described before was the cause of this controversial original 'balance change', but also because it sounds like a prerequisite to undoing/changing that 'balance change' -- that is, doing something first instead of just arbitrarily changing it without regard for the AI because "GM6 has slower-than-real-life ROF" breaks some people's immersion so they don't like your fix :rolleyes: -- was to finally "fix the AI"... so how can we see that you've "achieved the desired state" as far as the AI goes? How can we test the claimed AI changes? It seems that one of the de facto prerequisites of getting a ticket looked at and even fixed is a repro... so if you could return the favor, how can we "repro" the fixes mentioned in the June 17th changelog and compare them against the prior situation? ;)

Come to think of it, pettka, I imagine that "AI is now better able to adjust shots at longer distances" means that they are better at zeroing beyond 800 meters* (the specific range that was mentioned earlier) but I am requesting more clarification of what "AI is better in choice of weapons" actually is supposed to mean -- what observable behavior difference are we supposed to be seeing??

* Admittedly I don't believe that it was coincidental that 800 meters is also the maximum zero distance on the iron sights for the long guns that came with the initial public alpha release...

Well, there is actually no way to reproduce it now. The fix is partially in engine itself and part of the fix lies in game data - the values for friction won't fix themselves without changes in addons. That means you have to wait a while for dev branch data update scheduled soon-ish as pre-beta. For more intel on the update topic, wait for promised SITREP by Master lord Joris himself :icon_twisted:

As soon as there is the data, the repro is pretty straightforward - put yourself as a sniper 1000 meters away from enemy sniper and spotter team (AI always works better in teams), reveal yourself by shooting at them and watch for incoming fire. You are now dead, thank you for using suicide booths :icon_twisted:

As for the second part, about choice of weapons, there were several issues of AI using grenades to spot enemies far away and such things, making them grenade-locked and not shooting at all. It is possible and expected that the fix would solve some more problems in this area. This issue was found by our new TFB member, who found a reliable repro and helped programmers a lot by doing so. Not bad after a week in new work, I would say :icon_twisted:

[Alwarren 2767]

Plus it is kind of in vain to try and deter the shinies from swarming to AMRs... again, irrespective if they're any good at using them, or even if AMRs are any good within the game rules, it's going to happen.I took a look at pettka's initial response, which said "right for time being, but we are still developing and enhancing the game :icon_twisted:" even with no ETA, I never took it as what was meant for final release, just "this is the current situation".

Let me give you an example. There's a couple of issues that are, let's say, interesting that I haven't seen mentioned. For example, the absence of a gear dialog in the briefing. I suppose this is because the inventory was/is experimental/WIP, but without a confirmation, right now, there isn't any gear dialog in the briefing. Will that stay? I certainly hope not. But there is no confirmation, and the "known issues" page is vague on such detail.

Oh, you can say your opinion...

Wow... thank you XD

but what I saw was the thread degenerating into the old griping about casuals, sniping at dev competence (in particular at Jay Crowe), tone-deaf pleading (this was admittedly hilarious) and just a dissonance seeming inability to comprehend that the devs might have a different idea of what they're supposed to be doing and basically repeating some of the same themes that I've heard on these boards ever since DayZ went big and obviously had an affect on BI.

Obviously, personal insults are never in order, and quite frankly, I don't really know why Jay Crowe got so much flak-

However, having a different idea is something different than "tone-deaf pleading". Some people have been with this series for a long time, abd yes, they are going to complain about it when they think the series is taking the wrong direction, and while obviously the form of some of these complaints was inaccessible, there is no need to be so smug about it.

[chortles 263]

Obviously, personal insults are never in order, and quite frankly, I don't really know why Jay Crowe got so much flak-

However, having a different idea is something different than "tone-deaf pleading". Some people have been with this series for a long time, abd yes, they are going to complain about it when they think the series is taking the wrong direction, and while obviously the form of some of these complaints was inaccessible, there is no need to be so smug about it.

I believe a bunch of the flak came from him being both creative director (and thus openly having a decision-making role as far as gameplay) and being a spokesman for/the face of, both this year and last year, the "let's not be afraid of that word, streamlined" direction... and it reminds me of several personal attacks against BI people this year, from someone calling Maruk's remarks re: Steamworks "blatant lies" to complaining that DnA was the project lead (this poster held a grudge against DnA over Take On Helicopters), to what more recently were plain accusations of Arma 3 devs being dishonest, and I've also seen less-individual remarks re: the devs in the IRC channel as well.

I'll agree that having a different idea is something different than "tone-deaf pleading", but I did feel that some people did indeed descend into hilariously tone-deaf pleading, and yet others into seeming-ragequitting-Arma.

Obviously, personal insults are never in order, and quite frankly, I don't really know why Jay Crowe got so much flak-

However, having a different idea is something different than "tone-deaf pleading". Some people have been with this series for a long time, abd yes, they are going to complain about it when they think the series is taking the wrong direction, and while obviously the form of some of these complaints was inaccessible, there is no need to be so smug about it.

I believe a bunch of the flak came from him being both creative director (and thus openly having a decision-making role as far as gameplay) and being a spokesman for/the face of, both this year and last year, the "let's not be afraid of that word, streamlined" direction... and it reminds me of several personal attacks against BI people this year, from someone calling Maruk's remarks re: Steamworks "blatant lies" to complaining that DnA was the project lead (this poster held a grudge against DnA over Take On Helicopters), to what more recently were plain accusations of Arma 3 devs being dishonest, and I've also seen less-individual remarks re: the devs in the IRC channel as well... admittedly a bunch of it left me thinking "how the hell could you even think to ask devs to do something when you seem to believe them so incapable of doing so?"

I'll agree that having a different idea is something different than "tone-deaf pleading", but I did feel that some people did indeed descend into hilariously tone-deaf pleading, and yet others into seeming-ragequitting-Arma.

Well, there is actually no way to reproduce it now. The fix is partially in engine itself and part of the fix lies in game data - the values for friction won't fix themselves without changes in addons. That means you have to wait a while for dev branch data update scheduled soon-ish as pre-beta. For more intel on the update topic, wait for promised SITREP by Master lord Joris himself :icon_twisted:

Would these "values for friction" happen to be air friction for the .408 and 12.7 mm rounds?

As soon as there is the data, the repro is pretty straightforward - put yourself as a sniper 1000 meters away from enemy sniper and spotter team (AI always works better in teams), reveal yourself by shooting at them and watch for incoming fire. You are now dead, thank you for using suicide booths :icon_twisted:

Any other distances? This is important, considering that we've got an "out to 2.3 km" scope here. ;) And considering what I said about the particular 800 m distance cited before...

As for the second part, about choice of weapons, there were several issues of AI using grenades to spot enemies far away and such things, making them grenade-locked and not shooting at all. It is possible and expected that the fix would solve some more problems in this area. This issue was found by our new TFB member, who found a reliable repro and helped programmers a lot by doing so. Not bad after a week in new work, I would say :icon_twisted:

What do you mean "using grenades to spot enemies far away", unless you mean AI attempting to use grenades against enemies well out of hand-grenade-throw range?

Also, "making them grenade-locked and not shooting at all" is really strange to be reading about, since players' grenade use doesn't work that way unless equipping UGLs.

[Alwarren 2767]

I believe a bunch of the flak came from him being both creative director (and thus openly having a decision-making role as far as gameplay) and being a spokesman for/the face of, both this year and last year, the "let's not be afraid of that word, streamlined" direction...

He certainly was the one that was talking the most on the E3 interviews. Unfortunately, the general tendency is to shoot the messenger.

and it reminds me of several personal attacks against BI people this year, from someone calling Maruk's remarks re: Steamworks "blatant lies" to complaining that DnA was the project lead (this poster held a grudge against DnA over Take On Helicopters), to what more recently were plain accusations of Arma 3 devs being dishonest, and I've also seen less-individual remarks re: the devs in the IRC channel as well.

I had an incident where my face was photoshopped into gay porn and circulated because I work as a developer for a company active in a small hobbyist market that tends to take certain things too serious, so I know how that is. Also had death threads, although I never took any of those serious (since they came from a guy posing as an 18th century samurai).

I'll agree that having a different idea is something different than "tone-deaf pleading", but I did feel that some people did indeed descend into hilariously tone-deaf pleading, and yet others into seeming-ragequitting-Arma.

Some things are better ignored (like this one post I recently read about how "Crysis II is so much better than Arma". However, the "issue" with Arma is the specific appeal that it has for a specific audience. While I can understand the desire to reach out to more customers, some people (including myself) feel strongly about these specific appeals. I would personally not abandon the Arma series for the simple reason that there is nothing that compares to it, it is a positively unique experience that you will never get in this form in any other game on the market. Which is the reason why people tend to react strongly to changes they perceive as a wrong turn of events. I can see that for the developers this means trying to balance (not as the title of the tread) certain changes against the move towards "accessibility". But having seen a good number of series like Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon, and Splinter Cell go down the drain (probably with the best intention), it's difficult NOT to be alarmed, especially since the "accessibility" has been stressed so many times. There are still a number of issues (like the movement speeds, and the first aid system) that are a bit too accessible for my taste. And as long as these things persist, I will continue to complain. Because, as I said before, this is Alpha/Beta, and once Final is out it might be too late.

[Variable 322]

Thanks a lot for mentioning that, we have made some serious adjustments in this way after seeing the reaction from community. The real values may be now correctly set without breaking the desired AI balance (read: they would eventually hit you even on 1000 meters) thanks to joined effort of our lead programmer. We expect many issues risen by players being shoot by AI at long range as shooting at such ranges would be a bit more complicated thanks to more realistic friction :icon_twisted:

That's great news, thanks for considering the community concerns. As someone put that nicely - Keep the faith BIS.

---------- Post added at 15:16 ---------- Previous post was at 15:08 ----------

There's something amusing about how at one point this thread seemed to be about complaining that the devs were listening to players alright, just not those that you wanted them to listen to...

We are glad you are amused. There are players who'd like BIS to live up to its promise, especially due to the lack of any alternative for the Arma franchise. So there's nothing wrong to request BIS to lend an ear for that part of the community, other than the other parts, who want the game to take a different path. There's no point in listening to all players, so I don't see how this sentence of yours is constructive.

Edited June 18, 2013 by Variable

[chortles 263]

He certainly was the one that was talking the most on the E3 interviews. Unfortunately, the general tendency is to shoot the messenger.

I've seen a lot of "shooting the messenger" going on this year before and since the public alpha release... though in Crowe's case he's not just "the messenger" but also has "in the driver's seat", and clearly self-aware enough to have thought about the answers, instead of someone who could be blindsided by how strong the reaction might be or could be rolled over, so him clearly not just being "a man alone" or "the publisher's man" (think of the rep of DICE's Patrick Bach) seems to frustrate his detractors as well.

(For what the opposite "self-aware messenger" looks like... look at Microsoft's Xbox One official PR.)

I had an incident where my face was photoshopped into gay porn and circulated because I work as a developer for a company active in a small hobbyist market that tends to take certain things too serious, so I know how that is. Also had death threads, although I never took any of those serious (since they came from a guy posing as an 18th century samurai).

Yeesh, I hope that that was resolved quickly?

Some things are better ignored (like this one post I recently read about how "Crysis II is so much better than Arma". However, the "issue" with Arma is the specific appeal that it has for a specific audience. While I can understand the desire to reach out to more customers, some people (including myself) feel strongly about these specific appeals. I would personally not abandon the Arma series for the simple reason that there is nothing that compares to it, it is a positively unique experience that you will never get in this form in any other game on the market. Which is the reason why people tend to react strongly to changes they perceive as a wrong turn of events. I can see that for the developers this means trying to balance (not as the title of the tread) certain changes against the move towards "accessibility". But having seen a good number of series like Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon, and Splinter Cell go down the drain (probably with the best intention), it's difficult NOT to be alarmed, especially since the "accessibility" has been stressed so many times. There are still a number of issues (like the movement speeds, and the first aid system) that are a bit too accessible for my taste. And as long as these things persist, I will continue to complain. Because, as I said before, this is Alpha/Beta, and once Final is out it might be too late.

Ironically I think the very knowledge that BI has "a positively unique experience that you will never get in this form in any other game on the market" is part of what gives the confidence in making these changes... they know that there isn't competition out there. ;) And as importantly, a lot of the official talk surrounding accessibility has involved "rough edges" versus "the core experience", a core which official promoting has taken care to point out isn't found in most FPS games... I suppose it's a matter of seemingly gradually-more-fundamental disagreement over the boundary between "rough edges" and "the core experience".

As far as Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon and Splinter Cell... to me that shift seems to have been more of a product of a different developer/publisher relationship, specifically the phasing-out-and-then-reorganizing of Red Storm Entertainment (now Ubisoft Red Storm) in the mid-2000s in favor of in-house studios or outside developers with Ubisoft Red Storm in a much more subsidiary/auxiliary role, which so far is absolutely not how BI works. (Then again, after seeing Ubisoft's own public PR and comments with regards to PC, specifically the CEO's own "promoting" of Ghost Recon Online, I would not at all be surprised if an outright antagonistic relationship with the player base plays a role in it too. :rolleyes: )

[Alwarren 2767]

(For what the opposite "self-aware messenger" looks like... look at Microsoft's Xbox One official PR.)Yeesh, I hope that that was resolved quickly?Ironically I think the very knowledge that BI has "a positively unique experience that you will never get in this form in any other game on the market" is part of what gives the confidence in making these changes... they know that there isn't competition out there. ;) And as importantly, a lot of the official talk surrounding accessibility has involved "rough edges" versus "the core experience", a core which official promoting has taken care to point out isn't found in most FPS games... I suppose it's a matter of seemingly gradually-more-fundamental disagreement over the boundary between "rough edges" and "the core experience".

Getting too far away from the experience people will be expecting might convince people to stick with the old Arma 2. We at CiA still play mostly Arma 2, which might shift a bit with the beta (more content makes more interesting missions possible), and it might be that more people just stick with Arma 2 if Arma 3 isn't what they are looking for. Which is one of the reason I am vocal about it, I *want* it to be Arma 3, but there are certain make-or-break elements that might convince me otherwise.

As far as Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon and Splinter Cell... to me that shift seems to have been more of a product of a different developer/publisher relationship, specifically the phasing-out-and-then-reorganizing of Red Storm Entertainment (now Ubisoft Red Storm) in the mid-2000s in favor of in-house studios or outside developers with Ubisoft Red Storm in a much more subsidiary/auxiliary role, which so far is absolutely not how BI works. (Then again, after seeing Ubisoft's own public PR and comments with regards to PC, specifically the CEO's own "promoting" of Ghost Recon Online, I would not at all be surprised if an outright antagonistic relationship with the player base plays a role in it too. :rolleyes: )

At least with Splinter Cell, the change was deliberately away from the stealth gameplay to the superhero one-man-army masturbation fantasy. Which is, incidentally, a reason why I just simply refuse to touch anything Splinter Cell after Chaos Theory. The gameplay has deviated too far away from the original experience, and so I rather replay the old titles. I seriously hope the same doesn't happen with Arma.

[chortles 263]

Getting too far away from the experience people will be expecting might convince people to stick with the old Arma 2. We at CiA still play mostly Arma 2, which might shift a bit with the beta (more content makes more interesting missions possible), and it might be that more people just stick with Arma 2 if Arma 3 isn't what they are looking for. Which is one of the reason I am vocal about it, I *want* it to be Arma 3, but there are certain make-or-break elements that might convince me otherwise.

Again: it seems clear that (and public promoting seems to be) there's a "core experience" that the devs/publisher know won't be found elsewhere -- i.e. no competition from the "AAA shooters" -- and they're pretty consistently vocal about that... but I suppose it comes down to what their own idea of "the core experience" is, especially when players' own idea of "the core experience" -- and what it alone does that "AAA shooters" don't -- has turned out to be subjective as hell.

At least with Splinter Cell, the change was deliberately away from the stealth gameplay to the superhero one-man-army masturbation fantasy. Which is, incidentally, a reason why I just simply refuse to touch anything Splinter Cell after Chaos Theory. The gameplay has deviated too far away from the original experience, and so I rather replay the old titles. I seriously hope the same doesn't happen with Arma.

Admittedly I never actually liked the Tom Clancyverse stories enough to mind the gameplay changes... although that's only because my expectations were so low thanks to said stories. :p Then again, I personally believed that the change had to do with the sheer market success of the Arkham series and "panther" stealth versus what a Splinter Cell: Conviction creative guy derogatorily called "grandmother stealth" -- though he was referring to Metal Gear Solid and not the previous SC games... especially after E3 this year had "the publisher's CEO" outright playing the Arma 3 E3 2013 beta build, something I can't see Ubisoft's CEO "lowering" himself to do, I've come to believe that Ubisoft just never had that close-knit, nearly inherent tie to the prior Clancyverse games like BI has with Arma.

[Alwarren 2767]

Again: it seems clear that (and public promoting seems to be) there's a "core experience" that the devs/publisher know won't be found elsewhere -- i.e. no competition from the "AAA shooters" -- and they're pretty consistently vocal about that... but I suppose it comes down to what their own idea of "the core experience" is, especially when players' own idea of "the core experience" -- and what it alone does that "AAA shooters" don't -- has turned out to be subjective as hell.

I was about to say that - the question is what the core experience is. As an example, I strongly dislike two points, the first aid system (which can be considered not-core) and the movement (which definitely belongs there).

As an example, the walk animation with lowered gun looks great. Speed that up to combat pace, and it starts to look like a love-stricken teenager skipping merrily over a field of flowers (okay, I might be exaggerating, but you get my meaning). The same with the combat pace in low stance.. IMO it looks too mechanical, uncanny-valleyish, and nothing can make you feel more awkward that the lowest point of the uncanny valley. I like the animations a lot but their speed just seems clownish at times.

And then there is movement speed in general, and the lack of inertia. I've seen in the animation viewer that there are perfectly looking animations for changing direction, so I do have hope that they will eventually get in. But the movement speed and the lack of inertia, coupled with the almost weightless handling of weapons, is something that disturbs me quite a bit.

Of course it is always possible that these things get changed/tweaked. Still, it is better to make sure they are not forgotten by constantly reminding the devs about it :)

Admittedly I never actually liked the Tom Clancyverse stories enough to mind the gameplay changes... although that's only because my expectations were so low thanks to said stories. :p Then again, I personally believed that the change had to do with the sheer market success of the Arkham series and "panther" stealth versus what a Splinter Cell: Conviction creative guy derogatorily called "grandmother stealth" -- though he was referring to Metal Gear Solid and not the previous SC games... especially after E3 this year had "the publisher's CEO" outright playing the Arma 3 E3 2013 beta build, something I can't see Ubisoft's CEO "lowering" himself to do, I've come to believe that Ubisoft just never had that close-knit, nearly inherent tie to the prior Clancyverse games like BI has with Arma.

The point I was trying to make with these examples is that, for whatever reason, they left their core gameplay in the dust to die. Rainbow Six got dumbed down to a cover-shooter (as did Splinter Cell), and while I did like GRAW, he new one is a far cry away from a good game. They left their core gamplay behind, and the Rainbow Six series has been rightfully passed into history. If you stray too far away from the core, you will lose the players you had, and not gain any new ones because half of them still remembers the game as "the complicated one", while the others are busy playing CoD (what number are we actually? 10? 11) or BF4.

Certainly not what I want to happen to Arma.

[chortles 263]

I was about to say that - the question is what the core experience is. As an example, I strongly dislike two points, the first aid system (which can be considered not-core) and the movement (which definitely belongs there).

And therein lies the rub... for you first aid "can be considered not-core", for others it "absolutely is core". The core is subjective to players so why couldn't it be subjective to devs as well? ;) Although I don't expect our creative director to subject himself to grilling about what he deems core 'just' to satisfy forums members, not least since there's posts, official statements and interview/booth/presentation videos to point to.

Then again, when it comes to "the real world implementation of making an actual game built around that core experience", that's where another layer of subjective decision-making comes in, namely "how crucial is this item to creating and delivering the core experience at full release"... and of course, these decisions are presumably subject-to-change as well -- or at least they were much earlier in Arma 3 development -- hence some of the rolling-back/retractions we've seen last year and this year, as much as some people hated them (i.e. all the walking back of "TOH flight model at release").

The point I was trying to make with these examples is that, for whatever reason, they left their core gameplay in the dust to die. Rainbow Six got dumbed down to a cover-shooter (as did Splinter Cell), and while I did like GRAW, he new one is a far cry away from a good game. They left their core gamplay behind, and the Rainbow Six series has been rightfully passed into history. If you stray too far away from the core, you will lose the players you had, and not gain any new ones because half of them still remembers the game as "the complicated one", while the others are busy playing CoD (what number are we actually? 10? 11) or BF4.

Certainly not what I want to happen to Arma.

Whereas the point I was trying to make with that post... is that it seems like "their core gameplay" was never nearly as "core" or near-and-dear to Ubisoft to begin with, as "the Arma experience" is to BI... but rather more like Codemasters and Operation Flashpoint. :D Ditto for BI's talk re: consoles being "PC first" versus Ubisoft's borderline ostracizing of PC.

[metalcraze 290]

Actually if anything ArmA3 seems to be BIS testing waters to see if they can strip down complicated stuff from the game (that made it what it is) to appeal to arcade shooter players and if it's possible to make the game less reliant on "core".

Broken sniper rifles is just one of many things that is wrong with ArmA3, yet if it wasn't noticed and not caused the outrage - nobody would've bothered to fix it.

Whereas I thought many features were WIP now it appears they are not and will not be and the excuse is "we are running out of time" - all while sim/promised stuff gets cut out (inertia, weapon weight, first aid system, suppression for players (which even BF3 has!), encumbrance which was in A3 for a week and is now gone). Three years were not enough?

All while 1 year old DayZ gets stuff that players begged BIS to include into ArmA for many years (incl. promised improved medic system that we aren't getting, radios that we aren't getting). Just like that.

Ubisoft's decline didn't happen overnight either.

[dmarkwick 261]

Actually if anything ArmA3 seems to be BIS testing waters to see if they can strip down complicated stuff from the game (that made it what it is) to appeal to arcade shooter players and if it's possible to make the game less reliant on "core".

Broken sniper rifles is just one of many things that is wrong with ArmA3, yet if it wasn't noticed and not caused the outrage - nobody would've bothered to fix it.

Bolded by me. As I understand it, the rifle was "broken" (your term) by having it's rate of fire reduced. Although I'm not privy to the reasons it was reduced, really, can it be described as "broken"? Who would have possibly used it ingame and even noticed? Sniper rifle, right? I think it was a case of too much noise over something inconsequential. And from there the complaining about any kind of departure from real-life comparisons has started.

Whereas I thought many features were WIP now it appears they are not and will not be and the excuse is "we are running out of time" - all while sim/promised stuff gets cut out (inertia, weapon weight, first aid system, suppression for players (which even BF3 has!), encumbrance which was in A3 for a week and is now gone). Three years were not enough?

All while 1 year old DayZ gets stuff that players begged BIS to include into ArmA for many years (incl. promised improved medic system that we aren't getting, radios that we aren't getting). Just like that.

Ubisoft's decline didn't happen overnight either.

My opinion - people are deciding to look at their personal bugbears and attributing their shortcomings to BIS inevitable decline. It seems the big picture is being lost among these small details. Certainly in this thread. It's long been known that BIS won't keep producing the same game forever, which is what some people seem to want. OK we all want improvements, but calling the sky falling because their particular list is not yet fixed seems to be the flavour here.

DayZ getting radios & medical systems? So what, the DayZ team is separate from the ArmA team, they implement what they have decided is core for that game. It won't have modding, so these things need to be in. You can't tell me you're going to be happy with the particular implementations in that game, because that's the nature here - no-one is ever satisfied. Only, in ArmA, it can be done externally.

So it seems that this thread concentrates on what is NOT being done, and totally ignoring what IS being done, to keep the thread alive. As such, I think it has lost interest. For me anyway :)

[Masharra 10]

Personal bug bears? Their particular list isnt being fixed?

What is being done? You want a thread people circle jerking what they are given?

You are most politely saying " You want some whine with that cheese?"

Why dont you start it off instead of whining like others? Start a thread praising and discussing what they have done.

Edited June 19, 2013 by Masharra

[Varanon 892]

So it seems that this thread concentrates on what is NOT being done, and totally ignoring what IS being done, to keep the thread alive.

Isn't that the point of "feedback" ? To give the developer an idea of what is wrong with their game ? Of course you remain silent about the good things, because you see that the devs know what they are doing is good. You point out the things that are broken, because those need a change in direction.

What really irks me is comments like the one I bolded above. This comment is nothing short of a smug "I know what's going on" comment. The thread is being kept alive because there is something that people are dissatisfied with.

Additionally:

]My opinion - people are deciding to look at their personal bugbears and attributing their shortcomings to BIS inevitable decline.

Riiiight

]It's long been known that BIS won't keep producing the same game forever, which is what some people seem to want

Pardon me, it's Arma 3 ? Remember what Codemasters said about what Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising would be ? Remember how they failed miserably ? By promising something that they didn't deliver.

It's not about remaking a game. It's about creating expectations. If you don't stick to the original idea, you get a different gaming experience and will disappoint the expectations of your players. Dragon Rising is a prime example of that, it wasn't a bad game, it was just totally not what they said it would be. Arma is a working formula. Go away from it too much, and you will end up with a big bang and no customers left.

OK we all want improvements, but calling the sky falling because their particular list is not yet fixed seems to be the flavour here.

That's pretty smug there. For your information, the main gripe people have is not that there is a slight modification with the reload time of some rifle. It's the trend that is being followed with that that people are alarmed with.

And finally, again, the Alpha's purpose is to call for feedback. By your logic, we'd all keep our mouths shut because we're just stupid whiners. So why put out an Alpha to collect feedback ?

Edited June 19, 2013 by Varanon
Argh, typo

[Alwarren 2767]

And therein lies the rub... for you first aid "can be considered not-core", for others it "absolutely is core". The core is subjective to players so why couldn't it be subjective to devs as well? ;) Although I don't expect our creative director to subject himself to grilling about what he deems core 'just' to satisfy forums members, not least since there's posts, official statements and interview/booth/presentation videos to point to.

Does that matter? In the end, each of us builds a checklist and runs it through. If you come out on the plus side, you will be playing it. If you come out on the negative side, you won't. Obviously, everybody defines core experience differently, but at least there is some overlap. And it isn't like Arma 3 doesn't have alternatives, depending on what you are looking for. Because Arma 2 will not stop working, and people might just decide to stick with it.And reaching out to Battlefield players is not the right clientele either. So as much as we who are looking for a specific experience are depending on Arma 3, likewise Arma 3 depends on pepole looking for a specific experience.

Then again, when it comes to "the real world implementation of making an actual game built around that core experience", that's where another layer of subjective decision-making comes in, namely "how crucial is this item to creating and delivering the core experience at full release"... and of course, these decisions are presumably subject-to-change as well -- or at least they were much earlier in Arma 3 development -- hence some of the rolling-back/retractions we've seen last year and this year, as much as some people hated them (i.e. all the walking back of "TOH flight model at release").

Every process is a concatenation of decision making. The question is, what are you targeting for? That is something that I am not quite sure about so far.

You see, I am a developer myself. I work for a company making their own microcomputer desktop operation system. I know how the process works, also because prior to that I worked on games as well. So it's not like I don't have a clue on how a development pipeline works. I know that sometimes you have to decide to drop features in favor of a timely deliver (or rather, not overshooting the budget by months) or because you deem the feature non-essential.

Speaking of ToH flight model, that is an addition to the fray that is nice to have but certainly one of the features that I would cut first. That might already scare off people, but that is the tradeoff. However, the movement went from pretty realistic to pretty unrealistic, and that IS a severe cut into the core feature set (as someone else pointed out, the box blurb on the Arma 2 box said "Ultimate Infantry Simulator"). To me, this change means a major setback in the core gameplay, away from realism towards a more arcady, gamey experience. THAT is a problem. Concerns about the stance indicator being "unrealistic" are OTH misplaced because in reality you are always aware of your stance through other senses that are lacking in a game (running bend over like the low stance for example would seriously hurt in your back after a while). Grenade throwing is another thing. Or the fact that BF3 does IMO a better job at showing the blinding effect of the sun than Arma 3.

Seeing realism features being cut back in a game that sued to be the most realistic experience you could get is damaging the core gameplay. To me, the realism matters.

Whereas the point I was trying to make with that post... is that it seems like "their core gameplay" was never nearly as "core" or near-and-dear to Ubisoft to begin with, as "the Arma experience" is to BI... but rather more like Codemasters and Operation Flashpoint. :D Ditto for BI's talk re: consoles being "PC first" versus Ubisoft's borderline ostracizing of PC.

It doesn't have anything to do with consoles vs. the PC master race. Splinter Cell has always been a console title, even the first one. They followed the path of stealth gameplay for three (four if you could double agent) games before making a 180 degree turn. There has only been one game after that so far (Conviction) which was a mess, and who knows they might go back to the root with the next installment. The point being, though, abandoning their core gamplay features towards a more generic game did not make for a better game - look at the metacritic scores, especially the abysmal user rating of Conviction. The review scores do not matter much - it might be that Conviction is even a good game for those that expect shooty cover action. But the 4.5 user rating speaks volumes about what users expected and what they got.

---------- Post added at 13:37 ---------- Previous post was at 13:20 ----------

And from there the complaining about any kind of departure from real-life comparisons has started.

Having a bolt-action sniper rifle have about the same fire frequency of an automatic sniper rifle somewhat defeats the point of realism.

My opinion - people are deciding to look at their personal bugbears and attributing their shortcomings to BIS inevitable decline. It seems the big picture is being lost among these small details.

The big picture is composed of pixels still, and if you ever had a broken pixel on a TFT screen, you know how distracting that can be. Yes, these are details. However, they are details that matter to people.

It's long been known that BIS won't keep producing the same game forever, which is what some people seem to want. OK we all want improvements, but calling the sky falling because their particular list is not yet fixed seems to be the flavour here.

I beg your pardon, but calling something "XXX 3" somewhat indicates a continuation from "XXX 2", doesn't it? If Arma 3 was a strategy game, that would be weird to say the least. So yeah, considering it is part 3 in a series, we do somewhat expect to see a continuation of the gameplay of the previous ones. Arma Tactics is a different game, with a different name. If Flight Simulator XI had ever come out and would have been an arcade flight sim like World of Warplanes, then it would have raised eyebrows as well.

So yeah, it is not unreasonable to assume that Arma 3 is a continuation of Arma 2.

So it seems that this thread concentrates on what is NOT being done, and totally ignoring what IS being done, to keep the thread alive. As such, I think it has lost interest. For me anyway :)

No need to be smug about it. Ignore this thread it you like. You seem to think that people here argue for argument's sake, but that is not the case. People here keep this thread alive because the care about the game. If people are concerned about the direction the development is taking, it is their damn right to be vocal about it. I have said this numerous times already, but here it is again: This public Alpha/Beta phase is explicitly meant to collect feedback. If you or anybody else doesn't like the feedback, you have two options: Either ignore it, or provide arguments against it. Metalcraze is certainly not whining, in fact he is always arguing his point, and I happen to agree with him. There is a number of people that do take issue with some decisions. We are asked to provide feedback and opinion, and we will not merely stop giving it because someone thinks we're trying to "keep a thread alive".

[metalcraze 290]

Bolded by me. As I understand it, the rifle was "broken" (your term) by having it's rate of fire reduced. Although I'm not privy to the reasons it was reduced, really, can it be described as "broken"? Who would have possibly used it ingame and even noticed? Sniper rifle, right? I think it was a case of too much noise over something inconsequential. And from there the complaining about any kind of departure from real-life comparisons has started.

There were more issues with them than just rate of fire of GM6.

But the real issue here was not even the sniper rifles themselves but that it was done on purpose and the reason and explanation were wrong in every possible way. "AI has a bug so we will nerf weapons" / "we are not going to fix this because of balance" respectively.

If this is how ArmA3 design is now - this is not a good sign.

My opinion - people are deciding to look at their personal bugbears and attributing their shortcomings to BIS inevitable decline. It seems the big picture is being lost among these small details. Certainly in this thread. It's long been known that BIS won't keep producing the same game forever, which is what some people seem to want. OK we all want improvements, but calling the sky falling because their particular list is not yet fixed seems to be the flavour here.

Judging by dev-heaven and FT votes it's not a "personal" list. For example suppression for AI is the most voted AI ticket at Dev-heaven and is 4 years old. And yet it's been done in a mod.

Mumble Link? 4 years old ticket. DayZ gets a system like that but ArmA, which needs it a lot more instead of its terrible VON that nobody uses, doesn't. Even though it was asked for many years. Are you calling this normal?

DayZ getting radios & medical systems? So what, the DayZ team is separate from the ArmA team, they implement what they have decided is core for that game. It won't have modding, so these things need to be in. You can't tell me you're going to be happy with the particular implementations in that game, because that's the nature here - no-one is ever satisfied. Only, in ArmA, it can be done externally.

Except "mods will fix it" is a terrible excuse. Mods are bandaids. Aforementioned AI suppression mod for example can't do player suppression in MP (BF3 has it natively!) because it needs it synced which only an engine programmer can do.

But you see the point here is that DayZ has a very small team. And it's been a mod for nearly half of its year. ArmA3 has been in development by a much bigger team for three years. And yet while DayZ has a huge amount of improvements needed for it - ArmA3 is a new paintjob minus gameplay stuff. Dean Hall himself explained quite well which project really is getting shafted.

So it seems that this thread concentrates on what is NOT being done, and totally ignoring what IS being done, to keep the thread alive. As such, I think it has lost interest. For me anyway :)

Very well. Where are those improvements that warrant 3 years of development time?

Improving graphics, removing negative mouse acceleration (and making sniper rifles handle like pistols) and adding more stances. In 3 years?

And oh yeah people complained that combo of M107 and Javelin was too OP and asked BIS to nerf it (because that actually is not "authentic"). The result as of now - in addition to M107 and Javelin you can also carry backpack with rockets for that said Javelin and a lot more ammo for that M107 and suffer virtually zero punishment for doing so. Great improvement right there. MOHW is bursting with envy at the usage of "authenticity" in ArmA3's hype.

Edited June 19, 2013 by metalcraze

[dmarkwick 261]

I beg your pardon, but calling something "XXX 3" somewhat indicates a continuation from "XXX 2", doesn't it? If Arma 3 was a strategy game, that would be weird to say the least. So yeah, considering it is part 3 in a series, we do somewhat expect to see a continuation of the gameplay of the previous ones. Arma Tactics is a different game, with a different name. If Flight Simulator XI had ever come out and would have been an arcade flight sim like World of Warplanes, then it would have raised eyebrows as well.

So yeah, it is not unreasonable to assume that Arma 3 is a continuation of Arma 2.

Well my point was more to do with the fact that BIS are moving the timescale of the game to the future. Moving away from existing equipments and into fictional equipments.

There were more issues with them than just rate of fire of GM6.

But the real issue here was not even the sniper rifles themselves but that it was done on purpose and the reason and explanation were wrong in every possible way. "AI has a bug so we will nerf weapons" / "we are not going to fix this because of balance" respectively.

If this is how ArmA3 design is now - this is not a good sign.

Well, you didn't like the explanation, and maybe you had the right not to like it, but it was an honest one. I note that you believe replies when they line up with your expectations and call lies on replies that do not :)

For example suppression for AI is the most voted AI ticket at Dev-heaven and is 4 years old. And yet it's been done in a mod.

Aforementioned AI suppression mod for example can't do player suppression in MP (BF3 has it natively!) because it needs it synced which only an engine programmer can do.

I hope I don't need to overly explain the above disparity :) maybe it reveals the possibility that maybe there is more to it than simply emulating someone's script.

Except "mods will fix it" is a terrible excuse. Mods are bandaids.

No not really. Lets face it, the reason we like ArmA so much is because we can change it. Lets face another thing - anyone interested in actual gameplay realism is not going to play any version of ArmA in a vanilla state. At all. There will always, always be something that someone wants changing. The very fact that almost anything can be changed is the thing that "saves" it from player frustration probably. Like it or not, the game will be designed with the intended gameplay in mind, not any particular sub-group's preferred gameplay. The great thing is they're not excluded, just a little work needs to be done by them.

Is anyone here under any doubt that, no matter what state ArmA3 ships, no matter how many requested, great features are added, that ACE will come along and change a whole bunch of stuff to make it better?

Very well. Where are those improvements that warrant 3 years of development time?

Improving graphics, removing negative mouse acceleration (and making sniper rifles handle like pistols) and adding more stances. In 3 years?

You forget that a lot of improvements were worked into ArmA 2 for most of that time. Or maybe you're not impressed with that either. Maybe you're not impressed with all the under-the-hood improvements, because you can't directly see them? Maybe you're not impressed with the stance improvements, the choice of movement speeds (even if they are still WIP), in fact, you don't seem impressed with anything and wish the Alpha to be in a state you're happy with, and when it's not it only has one possible reason - BIS are changing their game away from what you wish it to be?

I don't beleive that's the case BTW, I believe BIS are making huge improvements. In almost every department. And because things like stamina et al keep appearing & disappearing don't worry me, it means it's being worked on. I mean, the rain has gone, are you worried about that?

And oh yeah people complained that combo of M107 and Javelin was too OP and asked BIS to nerf it (because that actually is not "authentic"). The result as of now - in addition to M107 and Javelin you can also carry backpack with rockets for that said Javelin and a lot more ammo for that M107 and suffer virtually zero punishment for doing so. Great improvement right there. MOHW is bursting with envy at the usage of "authenticity" in ArmA3's hype.

If that happened, I doubt it happened for the reason you just came up with. :)

[chortles 263]

Does that matter? In the end, each of us builds a checklist and runs it through. If you come out on the plus side, you will be playing it. If you come out on the negative side, you won't. Obviously, everybody defines core experience differently, but at least there is some overlap. And it isn't like Arma 3 doesn't have alternatives, depending on what you are looking for. Because Arma 2 will not stop working, and people might just decide to stick with it.And reaching out to Battlefield players is not the right clientele either. So as much as we who are looking for a specific experience are depending on Arma 3, likewise Arma 3 depends on pepole looking for a specific experience.

The "specific experience" is subjective, of course, but at least you're cool-headed about how to 'rate' Arma 3... unlike so much of the hyperbolic from earlier in this thread, though your history as a current software dev and former game dev yourself clearly explains your comprehension... that is, I see you disagreeing with the perceived "devs' choice" of the definition of "the core experience", but not flying off the handle into flights of fancy and stages-of-grief.

Speaking of ToH flight model, that is an addition to the fray that is nice to have but certainly one of the features that I would cut first. That might already scare off people, but that is the tradeoff.

To be quite honest, I'm not going to knock this take on it because you get it -- although I will say that yes, the walking-back on TOH flight model did indeed "scare off people", or at least one person outright said that they only wanted Arma 3 for TOH flight model. (I'll agree re: the stance indicator as well, since to me the difference between "realistic" and "unrealistic" HUD elements is what they represent: namely, is it a "tactile sensation" indicator?) As for grenades though... see, I think that this is one of those things where you'll need to advocate for specific tweaks, since in that one GameSpot interview early in the alpha Jay Crowe was pretty clear that the state was WIP mainly because of lack of control (i.e. can't yet control the toss beyond the initial point of aim, can't roll the grenade, can't cook the grenade) but the direction was intentional, "now I actually use grenades unlike Arma 2, that's how bad it was before".

It doesn't have anything to do with consoles vs. the PC master race. Splinter Cell has always been a console title, even the first one. They followed the path of stealth gameplay for three (four if you could double agent) games before making a 180 degree turn. There has only been one game after that so far (Conviction) which was a mess, and who knows they might go back to the root with the next installment. The point being, though, abandoning their core gamplay features towards a more generic game did not make for a better game - look at the metacritic scores, especially the abysmal user rating of Conviction. The review scores do not matter much - it might be that Conviction is even a good game for those that expect shooty cover action. But the 4.5 user rating speaks volumes about what users expected and what they got.

Again: to me that was a sign that "that core gameplay" (original) was never that "core" to Ubisoft, so why wouldn't they so easily drop it? To them it was but one (set of) franchise(s) among several.

A quick glimpse at the next installment... is not a promising one. :rolleyes: However, one dev's comments (okay, claims, but until we actually get the game printed to disc what the hell can actually be proven?) mention that certain checkpoints would have a score multiplier for avoiding contact entirely, and he described this as "VALUE multiplied by NUMBER OF ENEMIES untouched (and unaware of your presence) minus the NUMBER OF NEUTRALIZED enemies." Who knows how true that'll hold by release, of course, but it is at least an primary-source claim in text.

There's also a claim in

that the "Perfectionist" difficulty setting would specifically negate some of Conviction's game mechanics such as Sonar Goggles seeing through walls, Mark and Execute, and melee takedowns from the front ("you must sneak up from behind"), with the speaker concluding "and it is one shot one kill just like the old days". (The video is of Normal difficulty, but the speaker outright says about Perfectionist: "You have the balls to play that way? Because he doesn't! He's going to play on Normal.")

No reason to think it's the second coming of Chaos Theory, but to me a sign that someone in-house clearly noticed the reception of Conviction and felt like addressing it.

**

Re: the "M107 and Javelin" story -- a dev said that the AMR/NLAW/backpack combo is possible in real life so it would be unrealistic to actually prevent it as opposed to 'merely' applying corresponding penalties. Of course, where those penalties are is another story, but I remember the specific ticket and dev response in question.

[metalcraze 290]

I hope I don't need to overly explain the above disparity :) maybe it reveals the possibility that maybe there is more to it than simply emulating someone's script.

No disparity. It's possible with 4 years old game save for a syncing issue and it's also the MOST requested AI feature on ArmA2 tracker for many years.

But I guess taking an idea from a ready-made script is a lot harder than changing the whole architecture of an engine into MMO.

No not really. Lets face it, the reason we like ArmA so much is because we can change it. Lets face another thing - anyone interested in actual gameplay realism is not going to play any version of ArmA in a vanilla state. At all. There will always, always be something that someone wants changing. The very fact that almost anything can be changed is the thing that "saves" it from player frustration probably. Like it or not, the game will be designed with the intended gameplay in mind, not any particular sub-group's preferred gameplay. The great thing is they're not excluded, just a little work needs to be done by them.

Mods shouldn't be adding basic stuff to a game and fixing 10 years old issues. And ArmA3's gameplay did shift towards arcade crowd found playing DM/wasteland.

Why else cut out encumbrance if not for people who will whine they cannot put on 100 kg and run for 20 km and also remove serious injuries and bleeding replacing it with a straightforward MMB single click health regen eliminating the need for medics? Why else cut out weapon weight if not for people who love their 360 noscope and quick fragging?

Is anyone here under any doubt that, no matter what state ArmA3 ships, no matter how many requested, great features are added, that ACE will come along and change a whole bunch of stuff to make it better?

And why should devs be slacking? Did ACE help much with medics healing people using magical handwaving? Did any mod help with AI turning around like turtles and being utterly blind in CQB?

Can you be sure ACE will help with ArmA3 not having inertia and turnspeed limits?

You forget that a lot of improvements were worked into ArmA 2 for most of that time.

Most of that time BIS has also worked on other games in parallel but somehow, good or bad, they were not ArmA2 with a new paintjob and backing on the vast majority of promises made 2 years pre-release.

And again - what about DayZ? Why can DayZ have a ton of improvements in a MUCH shorter timeframe and ArmA3 can't? Why?

Or maybe you're not impressed with that either. Maybe you're not impressed with all the under-the-hood improvements, because you can't directly see them? Maybe you're not impressed with the stance improvements, the choice of movement speeds (even if they are still WIP), in fact, you don't seem impressed with anything and wish the Alpha to be in a state you're happy with, and when it's not it only has one possible reason - BIS are changing their game away from what you wish it to be?

You mean improvements like 3D Editor, AI that can navigate well indoors, encumbrance, improved medic system - oh no wait all those were scraped. Deployable bipods and TOH FM? Oh wait no those are a new "multiplayer patch for Carrier Command that will happen sometime after release". But man you can duck behind a rock better (while AI which is supposed to be "on par with the player" can't, won't and even suffers from many glaring 10+ years old issues to this very day).

And because things like stamina et al keep appearing & disappearing don't worry me, it means it's being worked on. I mean, the rain has gone, are you worried about that?

Stamina has been gone since early March and never returned, replaced with harmless darkened edges of the screen. With rain BIS did say it's going to be improved.

Edited June 19, 2013 by metalcraze

[froggyluv 2136]

Did any mod help with AI turning around like turtles and being utterly blind in CQB?

.

LOS mod from TPWCAS does a pretty decent job with this. Im working on an almost exclusive CQB mission with enemy AI stationed at windows looking out though they turn laser fast when the player tries to ninja them from the rear. So much so that my beta tester asked me to tune it down as he considered it superhuman. Of course there are also times when they fail to react but having playtested 100+ times, they tend to be extremely lethal.

That said, i'd still prefer BI to include ALL aspects of TPWCAS and I see no real reason they can't as it wouldn't require a new hire being that they themselves introduced LineInterSect which is at its heart.

[dmarkwick 261]

*sigh* :)

Why else cut out encumbrance if not for people who will whine they cannot put on 100 kg and run for 20 km and also remove serious injuries and bleeding replacing it with a straightforward MMB single click health regen eliminating the need for medics? Why else cut out weapon weight if not for people who love their 360 noscope and quick fragging?

Why else when you cannot imagine or fathom any other reason.

And why should devs be slacking? Did ACE help much with medics healing people using magical handwaving? Did any mod help with AI turning around like turtles and being utterly blind in CQB?

Can you be sure ACE will help with ArmA3 not having inertia and turnspeed limits?

Devs slacking. Right.

And again - what about DayZ? Why can DayZ have a ton of improvements in a MUCH shorter timeframe and ArmA3 can't? Why?

This quote just sums it all up.

You mean improvements like 3D Editor, AI that can navigate well indoors, encumbrance, improved medic system - oh no wait all those were scraped. Deployable bipods and TOH FM? Oh wait no those are a new "multiplayer patch for Carrier Command that will happen sometime after release". But man you can duck behind a rock better (while AI which is supposed to be "on par with the player" can't, won't and even suffers from many glaring 10+ years old issues to this very day).

Yeah. This is what I mean. Never mind glass half empty, for you it seems as though it is empty. All you ever see is the stuff you want to see but cannot. And when you get them? Straight onto something else. I should know better really, I know you will never be happy with whatever you get, and you cast the most unfortunate shadow on the people working hard creating it. I should make an effort and try out your stuff to see how it compares.

Edited June 21, 2013 by DMarkwick

[instagoat 133]

A small question regarding this: Where was it said that the weight/encumbrance system was scrapped? That is kinda scary, that was one of the big features for me...

[dmarkwick 261]

A small question regarding this: Where was it said that the weight/encumbrance system was scrapped? That is kinda scary, that was one of the big features for me...

I don't know that it was. There's often a trend here that unless something is regularly mentioned by the devs, that it must be scrapped :)

[metalcraze 290]

DMarkwick I've asked you to point me to those awesome "half-empty glass" improvements that warrant 3 years of dev time so it won't seem like the glass is "empty" to me. If I'm wrong and I will gladly accept me being wrong - then point me to that great stuff that I seem to be missing.

This quote just sums it all up.

Sums up what? That DayZ gets the stuff that was promised to us, ArmA players, yet ArmA3 does not? Or was there some other meaning?