Discussion on "Axed" Features

[St. Jimmy 272]

Hmm Dwarden make it sound like that they could add some fancy things even after the full game release. Downside is that reviews are made with v1.0 mostly but PCGamer seems to be very interested about Arma series so they'll probably promote changes. But then Arma 3 would also have the vibe that it came too early but this time at least it's playable from the day one.

I'm interested to see how much more content or features Bohemia is willing to give us in free patches if they can iron out bugs before full release and that way have more time for features or do they start to focus on the next expansion and give features there. Good old Bohemia does both :cool: but you never know...

[Sneakson 1]

Some much wanted answers by Dwarden here.

I guess we'll just have to stick with ARMA3 for now and hope they make enough money to redesign ARMA4 more thoroughly from the beginning with things in mind like moving in vehicles and such that would be difficult in their current engine.

And that a lot of features will make it in post-release or by modders.

[Varanon 892]

So that we can add the infamous undo button ;)

Oh, right, good idea!

[ric 1]

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

I did not know what VBS2 was till i caught mention of it in another thread and after watching a video for VBS2 that came out 18 months ago i am forced to ask why did BI NOT use this as the engine for A3 and just offer and pedestrian/civilian version? i know you say its a different company but it says Bohemia interactive....

[gossamersolid 155]

I guess we'll just have to stick with ARMA3 for now and hope they make enough money to redesign ARMA4 more thoroughly

The thing about that is people have been saying this for every game about the next game.

This is what I thought about ArmA 3 from ArmA 2, "Oh they have a lot of money from the sales of ArmA 2 (DayZ mod)... maybe ArmA 3 will get a lot of improvements".

[TSAndrey 1]

The thing about that is people have been saying this for every game about the next game.

This is what I thought about ArmA 3 from ArmA 2, "Oh they have a lot of money from the sales of ArmA 2 (DayZ mod)... maybe ArmA 3 will get a lot of improvements".

Arma 3 was mostly finished in 2012, they really couldn't use much of the money they got from 2012 A2 sales.

[clifdenhill 1]

I'm really interested about the net code for multiplayer games, I hope it gets some love too ;)

[Tonci87 163]

Speaking of Axed stuff

If this turns out to be true:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?152866-Development-branch-discussion&p=2439570&viewfull=1#post2439570

Then Arma 3 has changed it´s background story twice during the development.

[Anachoretes 10]

background story twice during the development.

This is production. And we are the consumers of the end product. What's the difference how many times it changed?

[Masharra 10]

This is production. And we are the consumers of the end product. What's the difference how many times it changed?

When you paid for the product before you actually received it.

[Deadfast 43]

Speaking of Axed stuff

If this turns out to be true:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?152866-Development-branch-discussion&p=2439570&viewfull=1#post2439570

Then Arma 3 has changed it´s background story twice during the development.

This is completely irrelevant to this topic. The feature in question is the campaign. And as far as we know it hasn't been removed, merely possibly changed. No axing happened.

Besides, after the whole Greece brouhaha such change is hardly surprising.

[Anachoretes 10]

Masharra

I paid because I trust the developer and ready to immediately invest the money. Less money. And how to work on this game they know better. Isn't it?

[Sniperwolf572 758]

This is completely irrelevant to this topic. The feature in question is the campaign. And as far as we know it hasn't been removed, merely possibly changed. No axing happened.

More so because all information on the story we have so far has been skimming the surface at best. It's not like they went and made the entire campaign and then removed it, but merely changed a few names around. And before the "FICTIONAL FACTIONS OMG" argument arrives, consider that both Sahrani armies, all Takistan factions, and all Chernarus factions are fictional to the similar degree AAF and whatever the Iranians are named now.

Edited July 12, 2013 by Sniperwolf572

[Masharra 10]

Masharra

I paid because I trust the developer and ready to immediately invest the money. Less money. And how to work on this game they know better. Isn't it?

Care to rephrase that?

[Dwarden 1125]

yes sorry !

my question is , what about "Deferred shading"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_shading

Is there a chance that one day this feature will be in the game ?

thank you :)

my previous comment about euphory ... maybe in future ... TBD TBA

[sofianebilal 10]

ok , thank you Dwarden :)

[chortles 263]

I did not know what VBS2 was till i caught mention of it in another thread and after watching a video for VBS2 that came out 18 months ago i am forced to ask why did BI NOT use this as the engine for A3 and just offer and pedestrian/civilian version? i know you say its a different company but it says Bohemia interactive....

... because it's not their engine? Simple as that.

The other company is called Bohemia Interactive Simulations (BISim) as opposed to Bohemia Interactive Studio (BIS), different CEOs (Peter Morrison vs. Maruk Spanel), and as Rocket alluded to, orders of magnitude more VBS2 devs. Moreover, engine-wise he called them more like cousins than brothers; VBS2 2.0 is actually a porting of VBS2 to the Arma 2 engine, so Arma 3 has the newer engine anyway.

As for the features I am so use to game companies promising everything and delivering very little. This seems to be the norm any more.

... then I'm really not sure why you expected different from BI.

I hear the screams of ACE and ACRE a lot

There is something deeply, even tellingly hilarious about a dev characterizing the fan advocacy as "screams".

It depends on way too many factors :icon_twisted:

Sounds like "think of Arma like a bunch of tripwire mines, but every feature is a tripwire tied to all of the others."

Are there even licence fees for weapons in video games?

We may know for sure depending on how EA vs. Textron turns out.

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.

According to Rocket, it really, really does not work that way: "The branches of the engine are very, very different. Drastically so. VBS and ArmA are more like cousins than brothers. And DayZ is like a second cousin."

That's why the universal answer cannot just be "mods will do it". Some of those "axed/most wanted" features must be included in the vanilla game.

I just want to say in response to this that the unspoken corollary is "core to you, not to us (read: the-powers-that-be)", and pettka's statement suggested that "resource/opportunity cost to implement is part of how 'the-powers-that-be' define 'core'"... heck, he outright said it: "why would we even bother to spend our resources on something if we could just say "Hey, use ACRE for that"?" and DarkDruid said sometimes "time required for implementation of that feature into engine isn't acceptable."

Heck, DarkDruid has elaborated on why they don't just "integrate" user-made addons, even with the addon makers' permission, to the point of outright calling someone's work "badly optimized" and mission-breaking.

[Tyl3r99 41]

@Dwarden

what about use of the APEX phys X as mentioned in the issue tracker.... as its explained it looks absolutely stunning .

[Anachoretes 10]

~3-4km of APEX calculations.... not today and not tomorrow.

[Sniperwolf572 758]

Heck, DarkDruid has elaborated on why they don't just "integrate" user-made addons ... to the point of outright calling someone's work "badly optimized" and mission-breaking.

You are missing the point here a bit. His point wasn't "your work sucks", the point was that they can and have to implement such features better, in a more native way which is usually better for performance and the overall feel of the feature.

Let's take OFP implementations of backpacks, ACE backpacks, OA implementation of backpacks and A3 implementation of backpacks.

• OFP versions were literally an ammo box that you could teleport to yourself at any given moment by "putting the backpack on the ground", there was no integration into the inventory screen and the inventory screen itself was very simplistic in itself. (Try to fiddle ammo boxes underwater in Arma 3 and you'll get something insanely similar)
  
• ACE version was cool and it extended your inventory, but in the end, it was limited to clicking buttons, a procedure to go from an item in the crate to the item in the backpack with the full inventory and could end up confusing if you weren't familiar with it. But the important bit is that they were useable.
  
• BI implemented backpacks with OA, managing their inventory was horrible and ACE system ended up much better, even with being non-native. These backpacks were borderline unusable.
  
• And finally in A3, we have proper, natively integrated backpacks that work well with the inventory interface that works miles better with backpacks than either OFP, ACE or OA did. They have their own scripting commands and the whole shebang. This is one of the things that is incredibly improved and made intuitive to use when it's not breaking in MP. :p
  

So basically, his point is "For the features we want to include in the core game, it's no longer satisfactory for them to just be there, they have to feel and play good". When you realise this, you'll see that most of the "axing" complaints come from the fact that they've "axed" things that are troublesome and have to be improved to not bring down the entire effort on it's head.

Some examples of the above:

• "Axed rain" right now, they realized that the 12 year old and untouched overlay rain wasn't good enough, just like OA backpacks and inventory weren't good enough.
  
• If I'm reading Pettka's comments correctly, it's also happening with the first aid module that was "axed" from Arma 2.
  
• "Axed" civilian population modules were translated in much more modular sites modules.
  
• Respawn system also wasn't good enough, look at it now.
  
• Seagull was another unwieldy default, we now have native spectating implementation.
  
• In-editor equipment selector was also hinted at, but you don't see it yet because, you guessed it, it's not good enough yet.
  
• this exec "camera.sqs"
  

And so on.

I'm sure you've noticed Smookie use the term "guerrilla scripts" in regards to the switching on the move, and he's absolutely right. If they ended up making that feature as sloppy as I did, it would simply be borderline stupid. Since it's, well ... firing drill mission breaking and poorly optimized. :)

Edited July 12, 2013 by Sniperwolf572

[TSAndrey 1]

Heck, DarkDruid has elaborated on why they don't just "integrate" user-made addons, even with the addon makers' permission, to the point of outright calling someone's work "badly optimized" and mission-breaking.

I think you should read his post again. He never said the mods have bad optimization , he said that it's not optimized well enough to be just simply imported into the game, and needs more engine polishing.

[pettka 694]

Some examples of the above:

• "Axed rain" right now, they realized that the 12 year old and untouched overlay rain wasn't good enough, just like OA backpacks and inventory weren't good enough.
  
• If I'm reading Pettka's comments correctly, it's also happening with the first aid module that was "axed" from Arma 2.
  
• "Axed" civilian population modules were translated in much more modular sites modules.
  
• Respawn system also wasn't good enough, look at it now.
  
• Seagull was alo an unwieldy default, we now have native spectating implementation.
  
• In-editor equipment selector was also hinted at, but you don't see it yet because, you guessed it, it's not good enough yet.
  

And so on.

I'm sure you've noticed Smookie use the term "guerrilla scripts" in regards to the switching on the move, and he's absolutely right. If they ended up making that feature as sloppy as I did, it would simply be borderline stupid, since, well ... it's firing drill mission breaking and poorly optimized. :)

Just to ensure You, You are reading things right. Some changes may be in progress, some may be added even later, but we don't like to promise anything as it could backlash in some extreme manner :icon_twisted:

[Sniperwolf572 758]

Just to ensure You, You are reading things right. Some changes may be in progress, some may be added even later, but we don't like to promise anything as it could backlash in some extreme manner :icon_twisted:

Excellent. :icon_twisted:

For everyone else, just so it doesn't get lost as the heavily edited last post of the last page. Think of what they're doing as:

[royaltyinexile 175]

Heck, DarkDruid has elaborated on why they don't just "integrate" user-made addons, even with the addon makers' permission, to the point of outright calling someone's work "badly optimized" and mission-breaking.

While I realise that I'm (now) the third response to this point, I cannot emphasise enough that Druid's comments were certainly not intended to be pejorative towards mod-makers. Rather, he (quite accurately) outlined that great scripted features cannot and will not be ported directly into the 'vanilla' build; rather, they're great in their own right, and often provide inspiration for natively-supported features, which require a whole bunch of (largely programmer's) time that is in rather short supply at the moment! :)

As to the broader question, I regret the impression that somewhat enthusiastically 'announced' (and, indeed, potentially great) features have been 'axed'. For me, one must have started the implementation first to cut anything and - perhaps with the exception of the health system, which in the past I've publically acknowledged is an area the team wanted to overhaul - I think it's unfortunate that a number of the 'missing' features listed here were ever 'promised' at all.

Sounds like "think of Arma like a bunch of tripwire mines, but every feature is a tripwire tied to all of the others.

Hm, a case in point :)

Suffice to say, we're all now working hard towards the same goal, and we really hope that the game can provide a splendid, stable platform that will be supported for a long time to come.

Best,

RiE

[Smurf 12]

it could backlash in some extreme manner :icon_twisted:

AGAIN.

I think it's unfortunate that a number of the 'missing' features listed here were ever 'promised' at all.

Were hinted at and that is enough to people lose their minds. You know, for every Dev action there is a community overreaction. :D

I think the issue here is that when some feature was implemented people expected something and got other similar or when it was "axed" with no further explanation, eg Satchels attached to vehicles or arty ammo.

Anyway, kudos for comming in clean and manage this "situation", I guess most people will understand.