Bohemia Interactive @ E3 2013 - DISCUSSION

[Insanatrix 0]

and that's exactly the point. the difference between you and me is that i accept that fact since it's, let's say, unlikely that they will rework the engine at this point (for arma 3...later....who knows). the whole being upset and all and claiming the devs are "dishonest" just boils down to one this:

you basically want them to either say...

"yea the game architecture sucks, it's really bad. if you like optimized games you better pass on this one"

or

"ok you are right. we won't release arma 3 this year. we will rework the whole engine. it will probably eat up all our resources but fuck it".

both of those are unlikely and it's just nonsense to ask it of them. the first one because it just makes no sense to say that from a business persepctive. simple as that. and although the game has really unstable FPS, statements like "we're stuck on a map solo with 10 fps." are just not true. otherwise everyone would've left already.

and the other one is simply BI's decision based on what they see is best for their business and what they can do with their resources. and that's just a simple fact you'll have to accept. no amount of forum outrage will result in them making everything from scratch and reworking the whole engine for arma 3.

and btw. if you show me one FPS game that has the numbers of AI, that are thrown around here, on the map at the same time without any caching i'll agree that CPU usage is the only problem this engine has. yes i didn't say CPU usage isn't a problem (i hope you get that now).

i'm not finding excuses. i'm using common sense and base my expectations on it. maybe you should try the same. i simply disagree that being annoying towards the devs will change anything and i take arma 3 for what it is. if you can't do that maybe just stop playing it. there are lots of flawed and unoptimized games out there. no one is forcing anyone to play them.

it's the same with the AI. once i saw the first video of it (i think GDC) i immediately knew it will just be a modded version of the same old thing. i still bought the game although i knew, that this part would disappoint me. it was my decision. the whole attitude of "i payed for it now do what i want" is just weird to me. just stop with the wishful thinking. this is the best BI can/want to do right now. if you can't take it then move along. it's just a game.

P.S.: that's the most influence you have. don't buy it. don't give them your money. let the market speak.

As long as there are people like you in this world with your attitude and in any great number, I don't hold much hope for the market making intelligent decisions or guiding any company along the right path.

The market spoke anyways, it said DayZ. We're just the red headed stepchild now apparently.

[Alwarren 2767]

Don't forget, we're talking alpha material here, improved medic system, doesn't necessarily imply introducing something entirely new, but could rather mean tuning things differently. i think the term first aid kit suggests enough vs a med kit and role of the specialist 'medic', FAKs are to get yourself on your feet(patch yourself up) which is crucial, as in Arma 3, being wounded slows you down, and lags you behind in a squad. I agree that we haven't seen much of the use of FAKs and the medical specialist relation in the alpha, i'm pretty convinced the whole FAK concept will turn into a beautiful butterfly in the beta.

Alpha or not, IIRC Jay Crowe said in one of the interviews that they originally had much more ambitious plans for the health system but more or less ran out of time to implement them. He also said that changes are not planned right now. I think the usual "maybe after the release" was mentioned, but seeing how much has already been pushed back until "after the release", I don't see any of that happening any time soon.

Which essentially means that if we (the players) want a more sophisticated health system, we gotta do it ourselves.

[chortles 263]

... Insanatrix, do you realize that you characterization implies that Arma "lost" fair and square? :p

Bad Benson is right though -- "no amount of forum outrage will result in them making everything from scratch and reworking the whole engine for arma 3", not when "no amount of forum outrage" was going to make BI backtrack on other things such as going Steamworks, especially when #1: it was frankly presented as a fait accompli (read: negotiated and decided on with Valve before the announcement) and #2: the CEO told the devs to get the game out in 2013.

[bad benson 1733]

As long as there are people like you in this world with your attitude and in any great number, I don't hold much hope for the market making intelligent decisions or guiding any company along the right path.

well since you obviously bought the game too, right back at you my friend. the difference is that my decision was based on reality and that i want to give BI my money (not even sure if i would've paid full price). so you are the one not making an "intelligent decision". quite funny how you question my intelligence and discredit your own in the process. you are missing the point again. but if this delusion of yours, that you are improving the game, makes you feel any better, i guess there's nothing wrong with that. just don't respond to my posts about certain things (caching technology) as if i'm just defending the engine's flaws. if you can't bother to read it all or don't understand it just move along maybe next time. and i mean this in a genuine way.:)

p.s.: i mostly like this engine for modding. the second another engine with the same kind of terrains and openess comes along i'm gone. *swoosh* just like that:p

about medic stuff: i personally would already be happy if FAKs would just stop bleeding or be removed overall. no need to create new features. just remove this quake style medkit sillyness...

Edited June 15, 2013 by Bad Benson

[neokika 62]

Jay Crowe needs to rethink his/team's decision to leave the medic system as is.

...

This isn't exactly what I was expecting when BIS promised "improved medic system" in 2011

What is especially disappointing is that a lot more mainstream DayZ has a perfectly balanced and tested medic system that is a lot more advanced than anything that ArmA ever had before bar ACE mod.

I understand your disappointment but, currently there is no time to deliver a quality, stable, while complex medical system.

Arma 2 system was removed because it simply did not work as designed (ex: Multiplayer).

But it is definitely on our plans to improve medical interactions in the future. When, I don't know.

Edited June 15, 2013 by neokika

[Insanatrix 0]

... Insanatrix, do you realize that you characterization implies that Arma "lost" fair and square? :p

Bad Benson is right though -- "no amount of forum outrage will result in them making everything from scratch and reworking the whole engine for arma 3", not when "no amount of forum outrage" was going to make BI backtrack on other things such as going Steamworks, especially when #1: it was frankly presented as a fait accompli (read: negotiated and decided on with Valve before the announcement) and #2: the CEO told the devs to get the game out in 2013.

Yeah I know. Like I said though, having some answers would honestly be nice rather than the beating around the bush. Things like the livestreams and talking about how they got great performance on this system when you can see the bad performance plain as day is just dishonest, there's no other way to put it. Also just lying down and accepting things just invites more of the same. Having that attitude doesn't make you superior either.

And yes I realize that my statement means that ArmA lost fair and square. It is what it is, Just didn't think BI would abandon their roots at the first sign of a cash cow is all.

---------- Post added at 14:14 ---------- Previous post was at 14:03 ----------

well since you obviously bought the game too, right back at you my friend. the difference is that my decision was based on reality and that i want to give BI my money (not even sure if i would've paid full price). so you are the one not making an "intelligent decision". quite funny how you question my intelligence and discredit your own in the process. you are missing the point again. but if this delusion of yours, that you are improving the game, makes you feel any better, i guess there's nothing wrong with that. just don't respond to my posts about certain things (caching technology) as if i'm just defending the engine's flaws. if you can't bother to read it all or don't understand it just move along maybe next time. and i mean this in a genuine way.:)

p.s.: i mostly like this engine for modding. the second another engine with the same kind of terrains and openess comes along i'm gone. *swoosh* just like that:p

about medic stuff: i personally would already be happy if FAKs would just stop bleeding or be removed overall. no need to create new features. just remove this quake style medkit sillyness...

I made the most intelligent decision based on what little facts I had about the game. I used the recommended specs as a guideline, saw that I was well above them or equal to them and made my purchase. The fact that the developer recommended specs don't reflect the actual performance of the software has nothing to do with my intelligence. Sorry, I don't have ESP.

Also I'm not questioning your intelligence, more your reasoning skills for making a decision based on your attitude and your said reasons for making the decision to purchase the game. They differ from mine, that's life.

Life's binary, you can't go along with something without supporting it or defending it. You're saying it's ok, isn't that a defense against why it wouldn't be ok?

[chortles 263]

Yeah I know. Like I said though, having some answers would honestly be nice rather than the beating around the bush.

I believe Bad Benson's point was that there's no "good" answer that would both seem honest to the complainers and satisfy the complainers' concerns.

Things like the livestreams and talking about how they got great performance on this system when you can see the bad performance plain as day is just dishonest, there's no other way to put it.

The dev (neokika) blamed something about the stream and said that the first livestream was carried out on his work machine. Then again, if you just see the devs as dishonest... then how the hell are you supposed to believe anything they say anyway? It's something that I never really "get" about the complaints.

Also just lying down and accepting things just invites more of the same.

I think we have a disconnect here between our ideas of what "lying down and accepting things" means...

And yes I realize that my statement means that ArmA lost fair and square. It is what it is, Just didn't think BI would abandon their roots at the first sign of a cash cow is all.

... you've never heard the story that instead of a sequel to Operation Flashpoint, they wanted to go make a Wild West RPG? The CEO himself revealed that one on a devblog in 2011! :p

Then again, the CEO himself also claimed to actually like DayZ for the gameplay and not just (as might most CEOs) for the increased sales...

[Insanatrix 0]

...

Like I said, it is what it is.

And Dayz is not bad, I don't mean to insinuate that it is. It's just the primary focus seems to have shifted to it is all.

Also, I don't believe the devs are dishonest, just that some statements have been dishonest I.E. like the livestream comments and things like the engine being multithreaded etc... Sure the engine is multithreaded for some parts, but the majority is not. Or that immense lag while looking out at the bay of Agia Marina or anywhere in that direction was because of the stream? Or every time there was heavy fire and a lot of AI action and movement the stream just magically bogged down like it seems to do any time you're not streaming? Fact is fact, I dunno what you want me to say. Just smile and say "uh huh" :)?

Edited June 15, 2013 by Insanatrix

[bad benson 1733]

I made the most intelligent decision based on what little facts I had about the game. I used the recommended specs as a guideline, saw that I was well above them or equal to them and made my purchase. The fact that the developer recommended specs don't reflect the actual performance of the software has nothing to do with my intelligence. Sorry, I don't have ESP.

and yet you seem to know exactly what's wrong with the engine. strange.

Also I'm not questioning your intelligence, more your reasoning skills for making a decision based on your attitude and your said reasons for making the decision to purchase the game.

i got what i expected for a, for once, reasonable price. maybe it's time you question your own reasoning skills for a change. you are the one with the "dilemma" not me. i bought arma 3 because so far there's no alternative. i find your reasoning far more questionalbe then mine. i can't remember any BI statement that claims "the engine will be more optimized this time, we reworked it".

i agree though that system requirements can be misleading. and that's very annoying. but i doubt that you were really mislead by that seeing how you know the problems the engine always had. as i said you suffer from too much wishful thinking. for me arma 3 perfectly fits into what new incarnations of the series brought to the table in the past. i can't see why you would expect more from arma 3 (although by that logic you got more...physX, very nice lighting, etc).

[Insanatrix 0]

and yet you seem to know exactly what's wrong with the engine. strange.

i got what i expected for a, for once, reasonable price. maybe it's time you question your own reasoning skills for a change. you are the one with the "dilemma" not me. i bought arma 3 because so far there's no alternative. i find your reasoning far more questionalbe then mine. i can't remember any BI statement that claims "the engine will be more optimized this time, we reworked it".

i agree though that system requirements can be misleading. and that's very annoying. but i doubt that you were really mislead by that seeing how you know the problems the engine always had. as i said you suffer from too much wishful thinking. for me arma 3 perfectly fits into what new incarnations of the series brought to the table in the past. i can't see why you would expect more from arma 3 (although by that logic you got more...physX, very nice lighting, etc).

Game set and Match, Bad Benson. I concede. You get the Master of the Internet award.

Edited June 16, 2013 by Insanatrix

[Alwarren 2767]

I understand your disappointment but, currently there is no time to deliver a quality, stable, while complex medical system.

Arma 2 system was removed because it simply did not work as designed (ex: Multiplayer).

But it is definitely on our plans to improve medical interactions in the future. When, I don't know.

Well while the old system wasn't perfect, it sure was better than what is in now. It feels like the medic is not really required- Couldn't you just fix the old system? Or maybe allow a community member to fix it? I am quite sure most of us would prefer the old system (even with the existing flaws) over the new click-here-to-heal system.

[bad benson 1733]

Game set and Match, Bad Benson. I concede. You get the Master of the Internet award.

oh very clever...

it's funny how you pull me into a discussion about your personal concerns after ignoring the main topic of my initial post that wasn't even directed at you. and now you act all fed up.

as i said. next time just move along. if you have nothing interesting to say, you might aswell not post at all.

[metalcraze 290]

I understand your disappointment but, currently there is no time to deliver a quality, stable, while complex medical system.

I understand that. But why make it a lot worse than any system we had before, even the most basic OFP one? It never had any problems in MP for a decade.

I don't want to be preachy or anything but what I also don't understand is how a "small black ops team" can do so many radical changes to RV engine in such a short time, including making DayZ SA having a lot more advanced features than ArmA3 (and even 2)

And yet a 70 men team just ends up cutting more and more stuff out from ArmA that had 2 years of headstart vs. DayZ without adding anything in return, effectively leading it to become ArmA1 2.0 (where a huge chunk of the community just said meh and moved back to OFP - because what it offered was little more than a new paintjob) or perhaps even worse.

[Insanatrix 0]

oh very clever...

it's funny how you pull me into a discussion about your personal concerns after ignoring the main topic of my initial post that wasn't even directed at you. and now you act all fed up.

as i said. next time just move along. if you have nothing interesting to say, you might aswell not post at all.

I made you reply and hit the post button? Like I said, Master of the Internet award....

[bad benson 1733]

oh the jedi mind tricks...it hurts :omg:

[chortles 263]

Well while the old system wasn't perfect, it sure was better than what is in now. It feels like the medic is not really required- Couldn't you just fix the old system? Or maybe allow a community member to fix it? I am quite sure most of us would prefer the old system (even with the existing flaws) over the new click-here-to-heal system.

I understand that. But why make it a lot worse than any system we had before, even the most basic OFP one? It never had any problems in MP for a decade.

It's "the closest you'll get to an official answer" but it seems to be right in what you quoted: a dev outright saying in the first sentence that they've already run out of time to do better ("quality, stable, while complex"). :( I won't presume to speak for neokika re: why keeping the Arma 2 version was ruled out, but that first sentence says it all, really.

I don't want to be preachy or anything but what I also don't understand is how a "small black ops team" can do so many radical changes to RV engine in such a short time, including making DayZ SA having a lot more advanced features than ArmA3 (and even 2)

And yet a 70 men team just ends up cutting more and more stuff out from ArmA that had 2 years of headstart vs. DayZ without adding anything in return, effectively leading it to become ArmA1 2.0 (where a huge chunk of the community just said meh and moved back to OFP - because what it offered was little more than a new paintjob) or perhaps even worse.

I tended to think that this was because RV4's code base is not only just older but more "locked in" than DayZ standalone's, seeing as the latter takes off from Arma 2 by way of Take On Helicopters, which came out while Arma 3 was already under development... and then of course, Suma being tasked with the DayZ standalone engine instead of Arma 3. Edited June 16, 2013 by Chortles
Misattributed a quote

[bad benson 1733]

I tended to think that this was because RV4's code base is not only just older but more "locked in" than DayZ standalone's

hm. define "locked in". the devs are the devs. they have the source code. saying that they can't make "drastic changes"(as in not very drastic) like a proper medical system because of lack of access to the engine seems kinda out there. or did i misunderstand?

to me it looks more and more like they are trying to get the engine into a status quo state to get it ready to create mission content. i could be wrong but the way the factions are set up (blue, red, green :rolleyes:) and how they kind of dodge questions about the back story, it seems almost as if they barely have any real gameplay, as in missions/campaign, ready. i was really looking forward to seeing some real stuff from the sandbox campaign at E3 instead of another generic showcase.

as i said before. i really hope they at least remove those damn FAKs or make them work differently. right now you can basically get shot over and over again as long as you keep killing guys and take the FAKs from their bodies. it's quite ridiculous.

one thing i hope that the sandbox campaign will bring to the game, and what kinda got lost over the last pages :rolleyes:, is more effective techniques for unit caching. i feel like the engine really needs that. on the engine level, not scripted on top of it. you can already save like 10 FPS if you dynamically use "enablesimulation false" and "hideobject true" in some situations with lots of units. it has to be default and improved and not something you might be able to kind of make work, if you are a great scripter and have a lot of free time.

[chortles 263]

I'm not saying that re: a "proper medical system", but rather in response to metalcraze's complaint that a "small black ops team" could implement so much in "RV3.5" while "a 70 men team just ends up cutting more and more stuff out from ArmA that had 2 years of headstart". I believe that the much narrower requirements behind the DayZ standalone engine -- that is to say, what it's supposed to support or even allow for -- are part and parcel, and as metalcraze noted before, so much of the public promoting of Arma 3 this year was about "sandbox"... after all, not only were COD/BF3/MOH/etc. not going to be competing with Arma 3 on this, neither would the DayZ standalone! :D

As far as the campaign though... I wouldn't be surprised if so much of the campaign was scrapped after what happened last year. :( Or maybe there's a sense within that "nobody shows up to Arma for our campaigns anyway"... then again, it seems like once the current release plan (public alpha, public beta, then full release) was decided on, there wasn't going to be any public previewing of the campaign anyway.

The funny thing is, the FAKs currently don't act that different from what was described back in this one GameSpot guy's E3 2012 remarks (the guy who kept nagging the MOH: Warfighter executive producer about authenticity vs. realism)... or rather, nothing about what he said back then ruled out the current medical system. :lol:

[kernriver 4]

I too am dissapointed with medic system. One would think that BI would take Arma 2 medic system and make it better. :(

Will we atleast be able to drag/carry wounded soldiers? I have saved my team mates lives this way many times in Arma 2.

[chortles 263]

I too am dissapointed with medic system. One would think that BI would take Arma 2 medic system and make it better. :(

Instead, see above/previous page: they chose not to use it but for whatever reason they ran out of time both to put a better one (than Arma 2's) and to "undo their work" and just reuse Arma 2's.

Would we atleast be able to drag/carry wounded soldiers? I have saved my team mates lives this way many times in Arma 2.

I've seen and done dragging in an Arma 3 using a "Drag" action menu command, but that was probably scripted and certainly mission-specific, though at least that means that the engine at the very least still supports it.

[kernriver 4]

Yeah, I've read what neokika said. I understand the reasons, but that doesn't make me feel any better. :I

I'd settle for draging/carrying though.

[ck-claw 1]

I've seen and done dragging in an Arma 3 using a "Drag" action menu command, but that was probably scripted and certainly mission-specific, though at least that means that the engine at the very least still supports it.

Thats the 'Invade & Annex' mission and it works quite well, you'd have thought that they could of least had that in?

Many times been under fire dragging a team mate :)

[HorbeySpector 164]

I too am dissapointed with medic system. One would think that BI would take Arma 2 medic system and make it better. :(

Yeah, exactly.. they did manage to take that old animation for healing out of arma 2 though. :(

[moricky 211]

And the only difference between this and health regen of PMC is that you need to press a button.

Wait wait wait, PMC had regenerating health? Where was this and why was I not informed

Neither in PMC nor in any other Arma game had player any automatic health regeneration. I'm not sure where you have the information from, but it's incorrect.

About the current health system implementation - yes, it's not perfect and yes, it should be further improved. On othe other hand, the presence of first aid kits gives designers greater flexibility in balacing their missions. You can remove them from enemies, leave them only to some, put them to cargo boxes, award them after completing objectives, etc. Nobody says you should stick with the default state, which is anyway not final (who will carry the kits and how much will they weight is still subject to change).

[old_painless 182]

My take is that the A3 team is delivering a very fine product given the constraints that all development is done under. My guesstimate is that low level engine coding is done by less than 10 developers. The rest of this 70 person group do art, animations, content, scripts, fsm, manuals, balancing and so on.

Two things that have may have come as a surprise in terms of complexity to BI seems to be the PhysX integration at first and changing version of that during development. The other is of course the detainment of two major team members for 6 months (or more?) These two elements in particular has cost other features to be cut, given the 2013 deadline.

It also seems that engine developers (you know, those scarce resources) have had to be transferred to DayZ to help out there. The DayZ group has struggled as well, missing a few deadlines and having the design change mid-development.

That kind of project drama happens everywhere, also at EA and the sorts. I think BI are handling these setbacks nicely, with openness. I would guess that DLCs for A3 will have more substance, but meanwhile even the already known improvements from A2 to A3 makes for a very good gaming experience in my book.