Discussion on "Axed" Features

[mmaruda 20]

Well, we've officially moved away from "simulation" and "realism" towards "authenticity", and I guess most of us can accept that.

No we haven't, for starters we have never been there - not in Flashpoint, not in Armed Assault and not in Arma 2.

[bad benson 1733]

It is still possible that we may have enough resources to enhance the system, but that is hard to tell and I definitely won't give any promises.

i take that as a promise. now deliver!

but seriously.

we are talking about something that has been done by community members countless times. it's just a series of actions and animations. i don't really get what all the fuzz is about. especially the fact that we are talking about a module here. so it's basically sqf. it doesn't have to be complex. just make people drop into an unconscious anim when getting hit hard and add a revive action.

and about medical stuff that goes beyond a simple revive module. what people and especially me have been asking for is not a new system. it's just a change in the current one to make it into something that makes sense and isn't totally out of place in this game. bleeding should be handled like in the dayZ mod and not like it is now. and FAKs should only stop the bleeding. that's it.

it's not always about making totally new complex stuff. just make it so what we have now makes actual sense and isn't something taken from oldschool arcade shooters like quake (endless flow of health packs that make you into someone who can take 100 shots in one life). i'm not asking for hardcore realism here. it's just minor tweaks that can make a difference in many ways. immersion, more interesting gameplay, making medics valuable.

[twistking 204]

we are talking about something that has been done by community members countless times. it's just a series of actions and animations. i don't really get what all the fuzz is about. especially the fact that we are talking about a module here. so it's basically sqf. it doesn't have to be complex. just make people drop into an unconscious anim when getting hit hard and add a revive action.

and about medical stuff that goes beyond a simple revive module. what people and especially me have been asking for is not a new system. it's just a change in the current one to make it into something that makes sense and isn't totally out of place in this game. bleeding should be handled like in the dayZ mod and not like it is now. and FAKs should only stop the bleeding. that's it.

it's not always about making totally new complex stuff. just make it so what we have now makes actual sense and isn't something taken from oldschool arcade shooters like quake (endless flow of health packs that make you into someone who can take 100 shots in one life). i'm not asking for hardcore realism here. it's just minor tweaks that can make a difference in many ways. immersion, more interesting gameplay, making medics valuable.

Very well said! This by the way applies to many game-mechanics: Often only little tweaks would not only make the game more realistic or immersive, but also would immediately add much more gameplay value. It's not only the medics, that have nothing to do, also all the JTACs are completely depressed, that nobody really needs their help. There are many examples where accessible (!) gameplay depth is wasted, because of overly simplistic solutions.

Edited July 17, 2013 by twistking

[Varanon 892]

No we haven't, for starters we have never been there - not in Flashpoint, not in Armed Assault and not in Arma 2.

The box art of Arma 2 said "simulator". So it seems 'we' have, and 'BIS' have. Splitting hairs doesn't change that.

So it wasn't a simulator. What is a simulator ? Conway's Game of Life is a simulator. It simulates a cellular automaton. Just because Arma did not implement a real flight model, or a real driving model does not mean it was not simulating something. And the argument "X is not a simulator because Y does it better" isn't an argument, either.

And finally, It doesn't matter one WHAT you actually call it. BIS calls it "An authentic military experience" or some such. 'Authentic" means "as close to reality as possible/enjoyable" in this context. That sets a certain set of limits, and no matter how many times you deny that it's a "simulation" changes that. Authentic defines limits. Within these limits, you are free to move, but moving too far out of these limits, and it will cease to be authentic.

Or are you denying the "authenticity" claim as well ? Was Arma never about "authenticity" either ?

[On_Sabbatical 11]

I really would like to hear from BIS,what are the priorities for them these days concerning arma 3 !

[marcai 1]

I have a rather simple proposal for making medics more important without implementing a full medical system: Non-medic characters can only heal if they are above, say, 40% health with a FAK which would heal 25-30% health, but up to the full 100%. A medic can heal up to 100% from any level of damage with a single FAK so long as they have their medkit. Without it,t hey can heal 50% with a FAK.

This would imply that your soldier is trained enough to fix 'minor' damage without a medic, whilst still giving you the chance to actually play the game rather than get shot once in the leg at the start of the game, find it out of your league and having to drag yourself around for the rest. Also would encourage more teamwork between players lacking a medic as they may well need to share kits between them to get back to full health. Serious injuries (Less than 40% remaining) are just too difficult for the common soldier and require the specialist attention of a medic, and equally a medic will always be more efficient at healing than any other type of character. It's not the most elegant solution, but I could live honestly live happily with it.

[mmaruda 20]

The box art of Arma 2 said "simulator". So it seems 'we' have, and 'BIS' have. Splitting hairs doesn't change that.

So it wasn't a simulator. What is a simulator ? Conway's Game of Life is a simulator. It simulates a cellular automaton. Just because Arma did not implement a real flight model, or a real driving model does not mean it was not simulating something. And the argument "X is not a simulator because Y does it better" isn't an argument, either.

And finally, It doesn't matter one WHAT you actually call it. BIS calls it "An authentic military experience" or some such. 'Authentic" means "as close to reality as possible/enjoyable" in this context. That sets a certain set of limits, and no matter how many times you deny that it's a "simulation" changes that. Authentic defines limits. Within these limits, you are free to move, but moving too far out of these limits, and it will cease to be authentic.

Or are you denying the "authenticity" claim as well ? Was Arma never about "authenticity" either ?

So now what defines a simulator is the sign on the box? :)

Seriously, the Arma series always simulated only one thing properly - combat engagements. And yes these have always felt authentic, though some things were lacking, like zeroing the sights which was introduced in Arrowhead. As far as I can see nothing changed with Arma 3 in that regard. A lot of things have improved and most of the stuff has stayed the same, because it's another sequel, not a whole new game. Arma has always been more of a sandbox platform, allowing you to do whatever you want with it through modding and mission editing. BIS knows that so they continue to produce the same platform with added features and openness for the people who want more than the base package. They could make it more realistic, or even super-realistic, but that would mean a more narrow audience and less income, not to mention huge delays in producing next sequels or add-ons, because making complex games requires money. That is what happened with flight simulators and I do not blame BIS for not wanting to go down that road. Instead what they do is very smart - they focus on delivering a polished game so that everyone can have fun with it right out of the box in this authentic, fairly realistic manner and at the same time, they support the modding capability, so that those players who want something more realistic will still have their ACE and ACRE to enjoy.

The future setting that everyone complains about is also a very smart move, with gaming being in the spotlight right now, having real world equipment would mean licensing issues with companies making those planes, choppers and tanks. Look at what happened with Belisimtek's Huey. There they are making a sim, and suddenly Bell people knock on the door saying they don't have the license for their chopper. They eventually got the license, but the release was delayed significantly.

It's worth to keep in mind that this game was to be released last year and due to unforeseen events it got delayed. But they still need to pay the people making it, so some features needed to be axed and marketing had to be adjusted since probably BIS cannot afford to delay the release another year. Oh and by the way - they still manage to keep working on Arma 2!

[chortles 263]

So, regarding the 3D Editor, do we have an official confirmation that it won't be added to Arma 3 ever(not in beta, nor post-release) ?

Argh, I wish they would at least fix the 2D Editor..

Last we heard was back in mid-2012 when the previous Project Lead basically said "no progress compared to Arma 2's 3D editor", but the current Project Lead has never publicly revisited that decision.

Wouldn't it be possible and, well, "relatively easy" to move the current system into a module ? So that it is easy to replace by modders and mission makers that want to do some extra stuff ? Or have a module that completely negates the current medkits so we can "do our own" ?

An additional module placed in the mission would mean not current missions are affected and would thus be a relatively "safe" solution.

I imagine that this is "if the vanilla first-aid system is going to stay this way, then at least give us a module so that building a mission with a different first-aid system is as easy as picking the module in the Editor"?

-fastrope

This was shot down (pun not intended) by Ivan almost a year ago and to my knowledge no dev has bothered publicly revisiting it.

-shooting from vehicles

This one on the other hand, Rocket of all people has talked about: "I specifically looked into shooting from cars when I was working on ArmA3. Often the solution used in VBS suits an actual military simulator very well - but is next to useless in an FPS. Meaning it needs to be redone from scratch, meaning it needs to be prioritized against other kinds of work."

instead of trying to get this game out on schedule they should've focused on updating their whole system.

As I've alluded to before, I honestly believe that "trying to get this game out on schedule" is a question that's out of their hands, if you get my drift.

I really would like to hear from BIS,what are the priorities for them these days concerning arma 3 !

I sense that the unspoken answer is "get this out by Q3 2013"....

i take that as a promise. now deliver!

but seriously.

I actually see it as a new, post-Jay-Crowe-saying-"I think it was unfortunate to have made some of the past promises" intentional hedging-of-bets, considering how qualified and up-in-the-air pettka's statement is. ;)

[Tyl3r99 41]

wait hang on... did you just say Fastrope will not be done??? :mad:

[chortles 263]

... we've known that for almost a year now.

[Tyl3r99 41]

not me lol, thats just made my day crap :(

[Polygon 11]

So now what defines a simulator is the sign on the box? :)

Seriously, the Arma series always simulated only one thing properly - combat engagements. And yes these have always felt authentic, though some things were lacking, like zeroing the sights which was introduced in Arrowhead. As far as I can see nothing changed with Arma 3 in that regard. A lot of things have improved and most of the stuff has stayed the same, because it's another sequel, not a whole new game. Arma has always been more of a sandbox platform, allowing you to do whatever you want with it through modding and mission editing. BIS knows that so they continue to produce the same platform with added features and openness for the people who want more than the base package. They could make it more realistic, or even super-realistic, but that would mean a more narrow audience and less income, not to mention huge delays in producing next sequels or add-ons, because making complex games requires money. That is what happened with flight simulators and I do not blame BIS for not wanting to go down that road. Instead what they do is very smart - they focus on delivering a polished game so that everyone can have fun with it right out of the box in this authentic, fairly realistic manner and at the same time, they support the modding capability, so that those players who want something more realistic will still have their ACE and ACRE to enjoy.

The future setting that everyone complains about is also a very smart move, with gaming being in the spotlight right now, having real world equipment would mean licensing issues with companies making those planes, choppers and tanks. Look at what happened with Belisimtek's Huey. There they are making a sim, and suddenly Bell people knock on the door saying they don't have the license for their chopper. They eventually got the license, but the release was delayed significantly.

It's worth to keep in mind that this game was to be released last year and due to unforeseen events it got delayed. But they still need to pay the people making it, so some features needed to be axed and marketing had to be adjusted since probably BIS cannot afford to delay the release another year. Oh and by the way - they still manage to keep working on Arma 2!

You don't differ "marketing speech" ("ultimate military simulator" on the box, authenticity talk in the press, etc.) form your own concerns and overall perception on this matter.

I think Varanon was referring to Arma's presentation to the public, not exact technical capabilities of the gameplay that should be simulator-like.

Yes, Arma has a lot to go forward and right now we can only bash / suggest / wait. But there's clearly some problems at BIS with prioritization of stuff. A lot of influences from around (Dayz boom, Wasteland popularity (it's just a spin-off), etc.) that affect their decisions and things can inevitably go wrong.

If not for fans analyzing Arma games and coming up with elaborate descriptions of the problems, the series may be in stagnation.

[chortles 263]

DayZ boom and Wasteland popularity don't seem like they could really have "thrown the Arma 3 devs off" by themselves, as opposed to "merely" compounding issues stemming from something else that was going on before them... the PhysX implementation (seemingly WIP still) is one admitted one, the Greek incident is absolutely one, but right now... I just doubt that the devs are going to be more clear about any others stemming further back, whereas for issues this year it seems more of "we're new at this / prioritization choices and design decisions were made".

Although the talk re: semantics of "simulator", "authenticity", "realism", etc., I have something in my sig for that. :lol:

[ravendk 25]

It makes me sad to see what was initialy planed for Arma 3 and what it became in the end. This could have been the best game ever.

Hello... its currently 'only' beta..

[Variable 322]

When I look back at the module for A2, it serves some aspects of SP missions, but it goes a bit off in MP - there are some quite nasty issues at least in my eyes, but I am not the one taking decisions.

Pettka, I've been playing the the game since the OFP days in MP coop mode, mostly. Most of the missions we played on Arma 2 are with the first aid module, and I must say that although it can be improved in some aspects, we like it. It contributes gameplay significantly, and I think most of the coop players would agree.

I'm starting to think that BI research has neglected the classic coop community that plays as a team against AI. That could explain removing the First Aid Module and some other TvT oriented decisions we are seeing in Arma 3. I know you guys are playing Wasteland to gather impressions and I think that's good. But Wasteland is just a single Arma experience. The community is much more diverse and offer a lot more "products" you guys should consider as well. You may want to ask Zipper5 and Karel, they have joined us for a coop night a few months ago and I believe they have taken some notes. Maybe ask them how that evening would have been for them if there were FAK instead of the First Aid Module?

we strive to achieve well rounded experience from the start and we try to provide at least some aspects of said module as core gameplay for everyone.

I'm sorry to say that, but you can clearly understand the tone in the forums whenever this issue is raised. The FAK system as it is right now, does not provide a "well rounded experience". What it really does is make Arma feel like an arcade shooter from the 90's. It has a massive negative effect over gameplay and it serve mostly as a source of frustration to many, many players, most of them loyal customers who have been playing the game for years. It's one of those things that colour the whole experience as bad, and even though there are great improvements to the game, the sum experience is negative (along with the load and fatigue system, and lack of character inertia).

We made some hard decisions on what is needed and what is nice to have, that resulted by at least some effects of any injury for everyone even without said module. It is still possible that we may have enough resources to enhance the system, but that is hard to tell and I definitely won't give any promises. It has been said many times that we would like to have some better medical system :icon_twisted:

Thanks a lot, that's reassuring. Currently, it feels like the current system is mostly a source of frustration and I think that should weigh in when setting development priorities.

Edited July 18, 2013 by Variable

[dale0404 5]

Hi Chortles,

You do bring to the table some very good observations in your post above. There are some speculations in that post however. No-one really knows for sure what some of those answers are. And we probably will not know the answers until the game gets released fully. I am still hoping for some nice surprises in the full game! :)

[simon1279 53]

I miss the following cut features :

*Fast roping

*Towing vehicles

*Underground structures/caves

*3D Editor <--This most of all

*Placing satchels ON vehicles/objects

(^where is this feature? It was one of the first features shown back in 2011)

I still would like those missing features to end up in the game...oh well :(

ArmA 3 is a MAJOR improvement in so many areas over ArmA 2, and I'm happy with it now, and hope it improves until release.

I can't wait to see what DLC/Expansions BI comes up with next year for the game ;)

These are some the main features in VBS2 and i believe we will never see them in a "public game"

[metalcraze 290]

The only issue with First Aid Module in MP was an unbreakable animation. Nothing else.

Fix not axe.

we strive to achieve well rounded experience from the start and we try to provide at least some aspects of said module as core gameplay for everyone.

What Variable said about this is entirely correct.

After all there's a reason this ticket is almost universally upvoted. And what it asks goes way beyond what me, Variable and other people ask here e.g. a step forward for medic system not a leap back it suffered.

Edited July 18, 2013 by metalcraze

[Varanon 892]

I imagine that this is "if the vanilla first-aid system is going to stay this way, then at least give us a module so that building a mission with a different first-aid system is as easy as picking the module in the Editor"?

Basically, yes. Since the FAKs are hardcoded n their functionality, it's not possible to prevent someone from using them except making sure that they appear nowhere in the mission, and that's a lof of work.

Besides, I like the idea of a first aid kit, in the sense that you carry bandages with you and all, even a bit of drugs and such, so I like having them in, just their functionality is fixed. If a module (or description.ext entry) can make them "do nothing", it would be possible to allow mission builders to completely change the system without interfering with existing content.

And mmaruda, you seem to be pretty much hung up on words, which is strange considering you accused the community to be too much hung up on words in the first place.

---------- Post added at 10:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:27 AM ----------

DayZ boom and Wasteland popularity don't seem like they could really have "thrown the Arma 3 devs off" by themselves

I think you underestimate the effect DayZ had on BIS. Sure, I have no inside knowledge, but don't you think that the fact that Arma was suddenly leading the sales charts for weeks, the fact that DayZ exploded from a few thousand unique CD keys to the current 1.7 million in a couple of months did not leave the company literally wondering what happened ?

Although the talk re: semantics of "simulator", "authenticity", "realism", etc., I have something in my sig for that. :lol:

Hmm, and you think what you have in your signature is more than just semantic juggling ? Leaving out "simulator" or "realism" (which used to be used by almost everyone in the past and are suddenly considered wrong, but never mind), there's the the "authenticity" . And this word has been used a lot by the devs during E3 and other presentations. And I mean a lot. And no matter how much you want to get away from "simulator" or "realism", "authenticity" has it's own meaning. Maybe not as narrow as "realism", but as I said before, it does set limits.

[chortles 263]

Besides, I like the idea of a first aid kit, in the sense that you carry bandages with you and all, even a bit of drugs and such, so I like having them in, just their functionality is fixed. If a module (or description.ext entry) can make them "do nothing", it would be possible to allow mission builders to completely change the system without interfering with existing content.

I want to be sure that I'm understanding the proposal correctly, and in particular if my understanding of your underlying premises match yours:

• FAK functionality appears to be hardcoded to an extent that may no longer be changeable development-wise (or the order may well come down from on high "do not change"), which makes the "realism burden" fall on mission-makers, however unduly
  
• It is acceptable for the mission-maker to have to intentionally choose to have a more "hardcore" wounding/medical system, instead of having to choosing a less "hardcore" one
  
• If the devs will use OA without first aid module as a basis for comparison with A3 despite so many of you treating that first aid module as the minimum, then it should only be as much work for a mission maker to "re-implement" as it was in OA, that work being a single step: "select the corresponding module"

Am I getting this right?

I think you underestimate the effect DayZ had on BIS. Sure, I have no inside knowledge, but don't you think that the fact that Arma was suddenly leading the sales charts for weeks, the fact that DayZ exploded from a few thousand unique CD keys to the current 1.7 million in a couple of months did not leave the company literally wondering what happened ?

I want to emphasize "by themselves." I've absolutely been following "the DayZ effect" (complete with remembering a certain someone complain that Arma 2 post-release development was being driven by DayZ -- specifically stuff that wasn't used in certain people's ACE sessions but was in DayZ mod), and I have my own speculations that I've only alluded to/said short snippets of, but since they're un-provable beyond primary-source statements and can only be inferred... what can I say for certain?

However, based on other stuff that's been going on and of course dev comments and my own inferences from both of those, I believe that it's more than just DayZ/Wasteland... and I believe that my view of what's gone on is less flattering to BI than you believe mine to be. ;)

(In fact, one aspect of it that I see, I've been seeing noticeably more in the days since this thread began...)

Hmm, and you think what you have in your signature is more than just semantic juggling ? Leaving out "simulator" or "realism" (which used to be used by almost everyone in the past and are suddenly considered wrong, but never mind), there's the the "authenticity" . And this word has been used a lot by the devs during E3 and other presentations. And I mean a lot. And no matter how much you want to get away from "simulator" or "realism", "authenticity" has it's own meaning. Maybe not as narrow as "realism", but as I said before, it does set limits.

Admittedly I'm thinking of "authenticity" vs. "realism" differently than you perhaps, but my take on it has been informed by what that one Warfighter executive producer said in defining authenticity differently while sharing the basic idea of what "realism" is. Who said it's intended to be semantic juggling on my part? I thought that it was Smurf sarcastically-or-not remarking on semantic juggling by BI instead...

Thanks a lot, that's reassuring. Currently, it feels like the current system is mostly a source of frustration and I think that should weigh in when setting development priorities.

Frustration for some, a boon/net benefit for others... why should the "others" be weighed less than the "some"? Though I saw something else in this statement by pettka... specifically the emphasis on "still possible that we may have enough resources", qualified with "I definitely won't give any promises", and before that "hard decisions on what is needed and what is nice to have"...

[-ghost-tf 12]

why should the "others" be weighed less than the "some"?

You know this argument reminds me of the whole fatigue effects thread.

[chortles 263]

And somehow the "discussion on simplified features" thread reminded me of this one almost immediately...

P.S. I don't see it as BI unduly favoring one community over another, but rather something else having gone wrong, and before all this.

[Alwarren 2767]

Although the talk re: semantics of "simulator", "authenticity", "realism", etc., I have something in my sig for that. :lol:

Arma 2 at the least was marketed as ultimate military simulator, so any denial of that is trying to retcon. Nothing to do with semantics, or whether it is or was a simulator. It was marketed as one, period.

[chortles 263]

... you do realize that neither I nor the quote in my sig even vaguely deny that, right? That it's not even retconning that we were talking about?

[Varanon 892]

FAK functionality appears to be hardcoded to an extent that may no longer be changeable development-wise (or the order may well come down from on high "do not change"), which makes the "realism burden" fall on mission-makers, however unduly

[*]It is acceptable for the mission-maker to have to intentionally choose to have a more "hardcore" wounding/medical system, instead of having to choosing a less "hardcore" one

[*]If the devs will use OA without first aid module as a basis for comparison with A3 despite so many of you treating that first aid module as the minimum, then it should only be as much work for a mission maker to "re-implement" as it was in OA, that work being a single step: "select the corresponding module"

Am I getting this right?

Almost. One thing I want to completely avoid is comparison with the original OS first aid module. Basically, I think that disabling the current system completely (making the FAKs non-functional) will be enough. The rest is then up to the mission deisgner or addon maker.

It was always acceptable for the mission maker to chose a more hardcore wounding system, since the OA first aid modules had to be put in by the mission maker and sync'd to the players, too.

Ideally, it would also be possible to give a "weapon sway" factor, but that's probably not going to happen.

I want to emphasize "by themselves."

Agree,d not by themselves. But I still think that the DayZ effect had a much greater impact than anything else, maybe with the exception of "the incident" which must have been a really bad experience for everyone.

Regarding authenticity, as I said, it's not as narrow as realism, we obviously agree on that.

And regarding "not giving promises": I guess we can all agree that a promise given in a development context is always at best a "best effort" type of thing. Anything can happen, and plans can change substantially or circumstances may force certain decisions. So, I can only say that personally, I prefer a "promise of best effort" over not saying anything at all. I can life with an explanation, better than with an excuse, if you get what I mean.