toiletguy 1 Posted July 3, 2013 Dayz borrowed arma 3 animation from the pre-alpha that i've played, why not for arma 3 to borrow the weapon switching systems from SA? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jibemorel 10 Posted July 3, 2013 You know DayZ got TOP priority because they got huge fan base/customers /zombie lovers/it is a shame - when Rocket and arma 3 team cant cooperate in some features , since Rocket obviously defends his Dayz My sentiment indeed plus the dev. asked for feedback. In my opinion this is a major design flaw for an infantry centric game (not my words). We shall see if the toddler will speak or if BI will cut it's tongue. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chortles 263 Posted July 3, 2013 Yes, but it doesn't change the fact that they are different projects with different leads with different priorities.Pretty much this -- DnA sets his devs' priorities and Rocket sets his devs' priorities... so Rocket may consider "weapon transitions on the move" a high priority (abetted by fresh, raw mo-cap data)... DnA, not so much.Being disappointed at something that's in development and giving good signs of it changing is akin to being disappointed by a toddler because he/she can't talk yet.More like a teenager who can't talk, though...On the other hand, DnA is working against a deadline set by Maruk whereas Rocket's seeming only deadline is "whatever I say the release date is"... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
down8 30 Posted July 4, 2013 (edited) Pretty much this -- DnA sets his devs' priorities and Rocket sets his devs' priorities... so Rocket may consider "weapon transitions on the move" a high priority (abetted by fresh, raw mo-cap data)... DnA, not so much.More like a teenager who can't talk, though...On the other hand, DnA is working against a deadline set by Maruk whereas Rocket's seeming only deadline is "whatever I say the release date is"... I think the problem isn't the priorities considered by each developer, but their goals and ego's. Rocket is dreaming about designing games outside zombies topic (megalomaniac dreams) and overrating his capabilities as game designer, but commited by contract (and money) to finish his mundanes and under his "big talent " obligations. Arma developers are making a realistic,finished, ungrateful and polished game. One is now a hero and the others are villiains. I guess how it turns some months (years) in the future. ;) "My character running around NW airfield vomiting cause I drank way too much water. Stay classy Chernarus..." Rocket Edited July 4, 2013 by Down8 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chortles 263 Posted July 4, 2013 (edited) I think the problem isn't the priorities considered by each developer, but their goals and ego's.Priorities dictate whether or not certain goals can be reached as well as what goals are set, so I wouldn't say the problem is "goals" so much as "egos"... and it's why I can't rise to be bothered by a certain someone's complaining "why is it that DayZ can get all these amazingly realistic features that we've been calling for for years but which the devs for Arma 3 seem dead set against or have outright gone back on their word on"? I don't answer that because the only honest response (as opposed to his unspoken corollary of "because Arma 3 has gone in a bad direction of sandbox instead of simulation") I'd have would specifically be at Rocket's expense...Then again, considering the "extreme overambitiousness" that's plagued BI over the years and that even Maruk has talked about (i.e. re: Game 2) and how I've seen several comments both last year and this year from devs about trying to rein that impulse in... I will note though that that "switch weapons on the move" mod thread has some comments from Smookie discussing some of the technical limitations involved in 'making that part of vanilla'. (And before any of you cites how VBS2 has it now... BISim may or may not share that with BI, and BISim's clients have way more money to throw at BISim than we have to throw at BI, and I'm not sure that Maruk will accept contracts. :p) Edited July 4, 2013 by Chortles Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
instagoat 133 Posted July 4, 2013 (edited) I´ve had a thought about switching to the launchers, and reloading them here: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=11075 Any opinions on this? I think that switching on the move is necessary, not just for infantry combat, but also for the competition scenarios like the firing drills. Contrary to what it is like now, switching weapons on the move should be always possible, while trying to reload some weapons on the move should be impossible. For example, it is difficult to reload a belt-fed weapon while moving, I imagine. But you can put it away and pull out your pistol instead, irl. Edited July 4, 2013 by InstaGoat Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
