Discussion on "Axed" Features

[pettka 694]

Hey pettka, I also really resopect you guys and your work, and I know that programming something can be a real pain in the ass but please help me to understand the following:

Where you guys simply to overambituous when you started on A3 or has something seriously hampered the development (apart from that greece thing)?

Is it possible that those "axed features" will make it into the game after release? Are you guys willing to not only improve the released game but also to add new stuff to it?

Why did you choose to invent new names for everything? Not a single Dev came forward and said why. Are you trying to stay away from licence fees? Are there even licence fees for weapons in video games?

As Master lord Joris, Savior of Arma, stated before, there have been many more issues during development and I sincerely hope that we would share them with the community some time in the future, at least for the fun of some stories. But not now :icon_twisted:

Renamings would be probably one of the stories mentioned before.

[danil-ch 165]

pettka

What happened to famous ofp feature - got shot in the leg then forced to crawl?

I never heard anyone complained about it for 12 years.

[-ghost-tf 12]

I beg to differ, sir, I have just ran genuine OA without any mods to give it a try with "player setdamage 0.9";

OA: Increased weapon sway, running and sprinting is still possible, any further damage means I'm dead with one of pre-made death poses (no unconscious)

A3: Increased cursor size, drastically decreased movement speed, no running possible, any further damage means ragdoll

Using medikit heals you to 80 % of full health at most unless you are a medic and that could be set by mods to different value. We actually provide wider scale of abilities for modders than we did before :icon_twisted:

I think we are talking about Vanilla OA with the medical system module. Something "most" consider the "lowest" standard.

This, ;)

[pettka 694]

I see what you're trying to say, but what basically ends up happening is that BIS seems to just simply say "Oh you want X feature? Well we'll just let mods fix it". DayZ has an advanced radio system. You guys work for the same company, share the code? People can always still use ACRE if they want.

You got it a bit wrong - Arma 3 is a sandbox platform. We provide the core and features we are able to finish in certain quality. I believe that our improved radio protocol is more than enough for most of players, why would we even bother to spend our resources on something if we could just say "Hey, use ACRE for that"? If the community is able to provide anything better, we would like to promote the content and make it as accessible as possible within our resources (missions on Steam Workshop anyone?) :icon_twisted:

[HKFlash 9]

I believe that our improved radio protocol is more than enough for most of players...

Now that you talk about it I want to say that you and the rest of the team did a superb job on this front. The previous protocols really were an annoying, legacy issue that kept pestering the series.

[jumpinghubert 49]

1. weapon rest

2. TOH flight model

3. shooting out of vehicles

4. new medical system

5. armor simulation (infantry and vehicles)

6. moving inside vehicles

7. 3d interior of vehilces.

Yes indeed, everyone has his/her own small list. I also would strongly like: less content like vehicles, guns, diffrent soldier and camo.

More features, which we request since years. You can later add more content with 10-20€ DLCs which even brings you more money. Most annoying for me, that for lot of this stuff there are ADDONS, which just needed to be implemented as default by BIS...

1+

(more) units, islands and vehicles can be done by mod community

[Varanon 892]

You got it a bit wrong - Arma 3 is a sandbox platform. We provide the core and features we are able to finish in certain quality. I believe that our improved radio protocol is more than enough for most of players, why would we even bother to spend our resources on something if we could just say "Hey, use ACRE for that"? If the community is able to provide anything better, we would like to promote the content and make it as accessible as possible within our resources (missions on Steam Workshop anyone?) :icon_twisted:

Aren't you relying on modding a bit too much here ? Your game will in the first place be judged by it's vanilla gameplay, not only by the players, but also by the media. If a review says "it doesn't have rain" (just an example), you can't say "But there's an addon for it". Not the best example, I know, but I exaggerated to make the point come across.

[zooloo75 834]

You got it a bit wrong - Arma 3 is a sandbox platform. We provide the core and features we are able to finish in certain quality. I believe that our improved radio protocol is more than enough for most of players, why would we even bother to spend our resources on something if we could just say "Hey, use ACRE for that"? If the community is able to provide anything better, we would like to promote the content and make it as accessible as possible within our resources (missions on Steam Workshop anyone?) :icon_twisted:

The flaws of that idea is that...

1) Modded servers are usually empty because players don't have the mod and would have to end up searching for it on the internet.

2) They are empty and stay empty because players prefer to play on servers with a good amount of people already on.

3) The modded servers usually go offline forever once the server owner realizes that no one plays on their server.

4) Players can't find a server that accepts most of the mods they use.

5) Players don't know what mods they need.

6) Players might have incompatible versions of a mod.

7) Modded servers usually have passwords and are clan-based.

8) Too much of a hassle to play with mods unless its a popular mod such as ACE or DayZ.

An automated download system would alleviate these issues.

Wouldn't it be better to say "Oh you don't need a mod for that, it's already ingame!"?

Edited July 10, 2013 by zooloo75

[pettka 694]

Aren't you relying on modding a bit too much here ? Your game will in the first place be judged by it's vanilla gameplay, not only by the players, but also by the media. If a review says "it doesn't have rain" (just an example), you can't say "But there's an addon for it". Not the best example, I know, but I exaggerated to make the point come across.

I used to be a journalist before (and then I took an Arrowhead into my knee :icon_twisted:) and I believe that consistent core gameplay is still valued better that unfinished rag-tag features. I'm speaking on behalf of myself on this one, but we generally aim for quality for release version :icon_twisted:

[strangere 2]

1+

(more) units, islands and vehicles can be done by mod community

Everything on that list, expect 3D interiors, is work for programmers not artists that make units, island, vehicles.

[Varanon 892]

I used to be a journalist before (and then I took an Arrowhead into my knee :icon_twisted:)

:D

and I believe that consistent core gameplay is still valued better that unfinished rag-tag features. I'm speaking on behalf of myself on this one, but we generally aim for quality for release version :icon_twisted:

I agree about the rag-tag features, but we're also speaking of some core features here. As I said in another thread, we have accepted going from "realistic" and "simulator" towards "authentic" and "game". My biggest fear is that the latter is going too far and that we are getting to a point where addons are necessary to bring the game back to "authentic". For example (and yeah, again my pet peeve) the fact that I fail to see any authenticity in being able to carry 170-200 kg.

[zooloo75 834]

I used to be a journalist before (and then I took an Arrowhead into my knee :icon_twisted:) and I believe that consistent core gameplay is still valued better that unfinished rag-tag features. I'm speaking on behalf of myself on this one, but we generally aim for quality for release version :icon_twisted:

That's the thing though. It doesn't have to be "rag-tag". Don't discourage yourselves so much :)

[Smurf 12]

So it's clear now that Arma 3 changed its focus from war simulator (which it never was, but was closing in) to a sandbox with lots of underused features but with a stable base game (unlike previous rag-tags) that relies on mods to get the "full experience", kind of Gary's Mod. Fine by me.

But is something in the pipelines to deliver those mods? Or will be the same mess again + dependency on 3rd party softwares (namely, PwS)?

People manage to play up to now, but just because it is "working" doesn't mean it couldn't get (a lot) better.

Arma is a game that many want to play. But to play it, you REALLY need to WANT TO. There is the control barrier, hardware struggle, lots of things to learn, chaos among gamemodes, faulty MP interface (WIP? Good) and on top of that there are the mods issue.

And this (and I believe, most posts here) isn't a free bashing opportunity, get it as a harsh feedback. If I didn't care, wouldn't be here in the first place ;)

Edited July 10, 2013 by Smurf

[Tonci87 163]

As Master lord Joris, Savior of Arma, stated before, there have been many more issues during development and I sincerely hope that we would share them with the community some time in the future, at least for the fun of some stories. But not now :icon_twisted:

Renamings would be probably one of the stories mentioned before.

Well honestly I look forward to hearing them. Maybe one day you could take a few beers and do a stream combined with an IRC chat.

Please don´t forget that this community is generally mature enough to understand and also forgive if something goes wrong as long as it is explained to them. We won´t rip your Head off.

But if there is almost zero explanation from the devs then we begin to feel nervous. And stuff like this thread happens.

[Dwarden 1125]

as someone mentioned in this thread and many others ...

one of biggest timesink setbacks was rewrite of PhysX v2 into v3 and reconfigure everything accordingly (vehicles, ragdoll etc)

the one country incident wasn't good for 'speedy' development either

so quite lot of 2012 was spent on ''no new features'' tasks ...

these who keep mentioning the 3D editor,

this unfortunately comes from over enthuiastic 1-2 commentaries but it nevers was promised as 'set in stone' (at max. more of fixed up old one 3D scripted editor)

advanced complex flight model and full working JAVA people considered as autogranted just because it was in Take On Helicopters ...

and these features weren't flat out denied when asked about more of maybe or more likely... (that was the main mistake)

weapon resting, mantling, collisions (this is definitely very good feature missing and let say design preparation mistake was done there)

* might happen soon or post release , but i don't want promise it until i know we can deliver :)

weapon bidpods, tripods and similar adjustable parts (was put aside due to other priority work)

* might happen post release , but i don't want promise it until i know we can deliver :)

shooting from vehicles (ye i would like this myself and again it was 'put to side to work on other stuff' instead of giving it priority)

* might happen post release , but i don't want promise it until i know we can deliver :)

moving in vehicles (i always commented as nice to have but highly unlikely to happen)

* might happen post release , but i don't want promise it until i know we can deliver :)

MP GUI redesign and MP improvements (lot of things are WIP)

* might happen prior or at release or soon after, but i don't want promise it until i know we can deliver :)

... yet, You may know (majority of these who read what i post on BIForums or communities / forums / skype / irc ...)

that i'm big supporter of any logical, doable, important improvements for MP, gameplay and ease to use, flexibility, usability and LESS frustration with the game as whole

many will say we can't deliver or failed to deliver all what was mentioned or promised ...

as Joris clearly stated, features we can't make in good / great quality shall be put aside and done when we can deliver

theoretical example : it's better to have fully working resting and bidpods 2 months after release, than buggy barely working on half weapons today

for these who think about some missing units, remember alpha/beta don't have all content of full game ...

in the end it saddens me when someone says you weren't informed ... what i can and i could i informed about ...

[-=seany=- 5]

Just one thing to mention - we are aiming for a consistent "vanilla" gameplay (you know the phrases about removing the rough edges and stuff). That means we won't take current favourite modifications (I hear the screams of ACE and ACRE a lot) and implement them to core gameplay. Let the players, who like those splendid mods, use them and give credits to their developers, who rightfully deserve that. We simply don't want to take credits for work of others :icon_twisted:

This is interesting to read. I get your point, but arnt there just some things that you (developers) must see the mod community do and say; "Wow, they really have thought that out better than we have and it works very well, why don't we implement it officially?"

A perfect example here is ACE's Fire Control system for tanks etc. When some thing works so well, surely it is worth including?

Thanks for answering some of our questions by the way, it's very appreciated.

*Edit, and Dwarden thanks for that list its great to read...maybe even sticky material.

Edited July 10, 2013 by -=seany=-

[sofianebilal 10]

quick question for dwarden!

are the different shading will present a day on the game?

thank you for your answer! :)

[byku 13]

I have to say guys i love your way of communication with community, you seem very honest about it. I understand that there were problems... although I am a bit disappointed, especially that there are some things that are (at least for now) worse than Arma 2(manual control of flares, the possibility of the gunner to control unguided rockets(mi-48! :P)... and FM was better in Arma 2 ;)... yeah i'm a huge fan of piloting things :P).

[pettka 694]

This is interesting to read. I get your point, but arnt there just some things that you (developers) must see the mod community do and say; "Wow, they really have thought that out better than we have and it works very well, why don't we implement it officially?"

A perfect example here is ACE's Fire Control system for tanks etc. When some thing works so well, surely it is worth including?

Speaking for myself, I really appreciate the work community does, and the same goes for most of others, I find it rather to be sort of tribute when they dedicate enormous amount of their time to make such perfect things :icon_twisted:

[afp 1]

I only have one comment about the medical system, I already put it here: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?154432-Rifle-damage&p=2389222#post2389222

Those who ask for a "better" medical system, please play some games taking longer to "patch" someone. The whole game focus goes from fight to bandaging.

[g00d69 2]

Maybe would be better to wait for the official release to have a more clear point of view about the game. I find this discuss a little premature about saying what features are missing or not. Anyway it will be always possible to improve something in the game.And i think that BIS has always defined Arma as a "simulation game " and never as "serious game" like VBS so we cannot expect something that Arma is not.

Edited July 10, 2013 by g00d69

[enex 11]

I wish that VBS coders would start work on Arma 3 engine...Dream come true.

[Dwarden 1125]

stop please bringing VBS and BISIM into the discussion (there is dedicated thread for VBS)... different company, different teams, different bugets and target groups ...

[Varanon 892]

these who keep mentioning the 3D editor,

this unfortunately comes from over enthuiastic 1-2 commentaries but it nevers was promised as 'set in stone' (at max. more of fixed up old one 3D scripted editor)

It was mentioned in one of the

, though (highlights at the beginning of the presentation, 18 seconds into the clip). Not wanting to imply that these features are set in stone, but it was more than 1 or 2 enthusiastic commentaries.

It's clear that features change and things fall by the roadside during development, though. I still think, though, that communicating is much more important than keeping silent. Even if you might raise false hopes. Everyone can understand that in theory, reality is like theory, but in reality isn't.

[giorgygr 61]

I wish that VBS coders would start work on Arma 3 engine...Dream come true.

..no ARMA game will EVER get close to VBS (feature related) for very $$$OBVIOUS$$$ reasons.

*on-topic now..

I will never be comfortable seeing features asked for soooooo long get neglected but please...

stop attacking the "underwater" features that got implemented.

I don't use it often..but i know it's THERE.

A new world is opening on "sandbox" perspective.

Although (as i stated before) this doesn't make me sleep again forgetting "other" features i m waiting for..