Discussion on "Axed" Features

[afp 1]

I think the problem is that you can take several FAKs but if the mission creator only give one to each player it can be realistic, you may bandage an arm wound on yourself then you need to go to the medic.

[Alwarren 2767]

... 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?

I read a quote there saying "Arma 2 was never a simulator anyway, they just cut that out to prevent future reference from raging users."? If you mean something else, you should make a definite statement, not the vague "you know what I mean *wink wink*" type.

In any case, it's about continuity. If Flight simulator 9 was, well, a flight simulator, then marketing World of Warplanes as "Flight Simulator X" would cause a few raised eyebrows.

---------- Post added at 13:38 ---------- Previous post was at 13:37 ----------

I think the problem is that you can take several FAKs but if the mission creator only give one to each player it can be realistic, you may bandage an arm wound on yourself then you need to go to the medic.

Every enemy soldier has one, so you can hoard the things. And since your carry capacity is so ridiculously high, you can literally carry dozens of them.

[afp 1]

Yea, they need to be removed from enemies, even from friendlies when they die etc..... too complicated. However, only stopping the bleeding may not be a bad idea at all.

[chortles 263]

I'll concede that admittedly my vagueness stems from a sense that there's only certain allowances for what can be said on here, so I'll rephrase it: it seemed like Smurf was saying whether sarcastically or not that "simulator" is deliberately not used in Arma 3 marketing specifically so that such can't be used against BI when the game isn't "realistic" enough for someone's taste, considering that people are already using the Arma 2 reference against them. :p

As for FAK capacity: I believe that it stems that right now there isn't really an item limit defined except for carrying capacity and container type. Mind you, as long as "limit of how much you can have of an item independent of a broader carrying capacity/container type limit" can be scripted, I'm not fussed...

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.

Oh, they've absolutely been overt about "the incident" affecting A3 development (right down to it being the explicit reason for "Altis" instead of "Limnos"), and I've known that DayZ as a phenomenon absolutely affected Arma 3 development... I've just had the sense that DayZ and "the incident" both compounded problems that were already ongoing before they happened, and I just can't see a dev ever publicly confirming any of my speculations until one of those "one day" stories pettka mentioned. :p Or you might well have someone come out and just flat-out deny any such allegations. Edited July 18, 2013 by Chortles

[-ghost-tf 12]

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.

Ofcourse you are not saying that BI is favouring one community over the other. But you said "why should the "others" be weighed less than the "some"?". But in this case the "others" do actually weight less then the "some", at least according to the feedback tracker. But anyway I dont consider this argument valid anymore, because you know when the "humans" were fighting for a, less being able to carry cows system. And the "super-humans" were against the blur and the anti-carrying-cows system, and when the blur got removed and the capacity system stayed the same, our version: "why should the "humans" be weighed less then the "super-humans"?" was also invalid (because it seems that not being able to carry a cow on your back equals hardcore realism).

P.S. AFAIK the simplified features thread got locked...

[Varanon 892]

Yea, they need to be removed from enemies, even from friendlies when they die etc..... too complicated. However, only stopping the bleeding may not be a bad idea at all.

That's why I think keeping them is a good idea, just having a way to disable their hardcoded usage on a per-mission basis (module or description.ext, preferably module since it would make the whole thing changeable via mission parameter). No influence on existing content, but mission makers can opt for a different system. No need to change the laodouts, since the FAKs can still be used as bandages to stop bleeding etc...

[Alwarren 2767]

I'll concede that admittedly my vagueness stems from a sense that there's only certain allowances for what can be said on here, so I'll rephrase it: it seemed like Smurf was saying whether sarcastically or not that "simulator" is deliberately not used in Arma 3 marketing specifically so that such can't be used against BI when the game isn't "realistic" enough for someone's taste, considering that people are already using the Arma 2 reference against them. :p

Which is why I think that having forum quotes in your signature is a bad idea. I've seen people receive infractions for quoting out of context, and in this case, you apparently don't even know what the original quote in your signature actually was saying IN context.

[Variable 322]

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

You make it sounds like a minority is against the majority. And that's misleading.

It's not about who should be weighed more. It's about what this game is about. If a dumbed down first aid system finds its way into the game then Arma becomes less than it could be.

[chortles 263]

Subjective ideas of "what this game is about" is "who should be weighed more".

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.

I get your premise here... but what I've seen ever since this thread began and devs (particularly RiE) started to weigh in was a seeming new tone of qualified statements, hedged bets and a really strong emphasis on "can't promise any implementation"... though the tone of it seems to vary by the dev as well, i.e. looking at this page on the grenade thread.

[royaltyinexile 175]

@Devs: Please? http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?159007-Discussion-on-quot-Axed-quot-Features&p=2442904&viewfull=1#post2442904

We're looking into that - it appears to be a bug, but might be a limitation...

Is is in the feedback tracker, by the way?

Best,

RiE

[metalcraze 290]

Subjective ideas of "what this game is about" is "who should be weighed more"

Wasn't this game "realistic game with simulation elements"? A quote right from your sig.

Doesn't it mean it should be what it says? Because it's neither realistic nor has simulation elements since ArmA3.

Why is the game keeps getting dumbed down then? In today's update the amount of grenades car GMGs have is now ridiculously huge (casual players can now rejoice - zero need for resupply, try wasting 96 grenades) and it's exactly the same across all cars. Cars that also have the exactly the same weapon and are basically the exactly same car that just looks differently for all 3 sides.

I can't believe you are welcoming this dullest dumbing down in ArmA.

[HorbeySpector 164]

Even Take on Mars has a 3D editor.. http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=21656

I still hope they un-axe this feature.

[Variable 322]

Subjective ideas of "what this game is about" is "who should be weighed more".

Only if the game has no legacy to follow. Of course you can decide that Arma is now a game about dressing puppets, but it won't be "Arma" anymore. As long as the game has any promise of being authentic (check your sig), the gameplay must reflect that.

[Smurf 12]

Which is why I think that having forum quotes in your signature is a bad idea. I've seen people receive infractions for quoting out of context, and in this case, you apparently don't even know what the original quote in your signature actually was saying IN context.

Is in context: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?158457-ARMA-s-Future&p=2434064#post2434064

And it is true. You can say that Arma is a simulator if you compare it to games like BF, COD and co. but if you compare it to a true simulator, DCS, SB or those very complex RTS, it is just a game.

The "distance" between Arma and those simulator is far greater than Arma and BF for example.

We're looking into that - it appears to be a bug, but might be a limitation...

Is is in the feedback tracker, by the way?

Best,

RiE

Yeah: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=8233

Even Take on Mars has a 3D editor.. http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=21656

I still hope they un-axe this feature.

Not same engine, seems to be only a loadout\unit editor, which hopefully will be in A3 aswell.

[VanZant 48]

Wasn't this game "realistic game with simulation elements"? A quote right from your sig.

Doesn't it mean it should be what it says? Because it's neither realistic nor has simulation elements since ArmA3.

Why is the game keeps getting dumbed down then? In today's update the amount of grenades car GMGs have is now ridiculously huge (casual players can now rejoice - zero need for resupply, try wasting 96 grenades) and it's exactly the same across all cars. Cars that also have the exactly the same weapon and are basically the exactly same car that just looks differently for all 3 sides.

I can't believe you are welcoming this dullest dumbing down in ArmA.

This is our own particular "splinter cell case". Complicated things, even the very good ones, don't sell as much as the rest.

Maybe not in this version, but give it time, for arma 4/5 i'm expecting one-hit melee attacks, push the button to conquest that town, messages popping everywhere showing frags and such things.

[Varanon 892]

Is in context: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?158457-ARMA-s-Future&p=2434064#post2434064

And it is true. You can say that Arma is a simulator if you compare it to games like BF, COD and co. but if you compare it to a true simulator, DCS, SB or those very complex RTS, it is just a game.

The "distance" between Arma and those simulator is far greater than Arma and BF for example.l.

There we go again with semantic juggling. I could go on and try to discuss what a simulator is (see Game of Life example), but that's going to be off topic, anyway.

let's say it clearly then: Nobody gives a beep about what it is called, but everyone knows what Arma 2 was (content wise, not some semantic juggle). No matter what you call it (it was marketed as the "Ultimate Military Simulator", remember ?), Arma 2 defined a legacy. So if you call a game Arma 3, it should follow that legacy. The '3' in the title clearly defines it as a successor. And no matter what you call it, it should remain a successor. How that exactly looks is different in anybodies mind, but let's finally quit the semantic hairsplitting. It's getting really tiring

[bad benson 1733]

That's why I think keeping them is a good idea, just having a way to disable their hardcoded usage on a per-mission basis (module or description.ext, preferably module since it would make the whole thing changeable via mission parameter). No influence on existing content, but mission makers can opt for a different system. No need to change the laodouts, since the FAKs can still be used as bandages to stop bleeding etc...

i don't think that this will be even close to a solution. we would end up with 99% servers that are like it is now. i don't see why the FAKs like they are now are suddenly the status quo that has to be worked with. as if there was real thought behind them and changing them would destroy a fragile game design balance. to me it's just really really bad game design. it's obvious that they just tried to go for the most simple solution to avoid complications for themselves. and it's not even the simplest solution. i can't wrap my head around why it's suddenly needed for every soldier to heal themself. people constantly respawn in this game. what's wrong with normal soldiers and medics who can heal? that would be simple and would make actual sense (no revive module needed).

i never ever heard someone being frustrated by the fact that the old armas didn't have medkits for everyone. not one single time. it wasn't in issue in any review i read about them. no one needs this "feature" and along with that it ruins immersion or to be more precise "authenticity" which seems to be a main goal of the devs. sorry devs but you fail on this one.

[Smurf 12]

There we go again with semantic juggling. I could go on and try to discuss ....

I was just commenting because a quote of omine was involved. I don't care how anyone call it, it is a game in the end.

And yes to that legacy thing, which was achieved primary because of the mods involved, from WGL to ACE2 (just to cite to major ones), if the Devs provide the means to get there again (and by the looks of it, there are some nice additions to play with; despite decade old problems), what is the problem? They'll even support the game after release maybe adding some neat stuff (to replace the mods :j:). It is not like realism nuts would play the vanilla game anyway, right? Or the game will be "worst" than it is now.

They made a decision, I was disappointed with it at first, but now I see their point and I settled with it. But I expect tweaks in some points such as fatigue, weight, damage system (human and armor) and on top of it all, AI.

Edited July 18, 2013 by Smurf

[chrisb 196]

Arma 2 is, and will remain, the better game. Best in the series, realism wise (modded), will remain that way.

Frankly you would have to be blind to gaming, to not see where this has been aimed..

Thought I would put that, so in a couple of years time I can search it out and gloat.:rolleyes:. I’m confident I will be able to do that, which is sad.:(

[Smurf 12]

Arma 2 is, and will remain, the better game. Best in the series, realism wise (modded), will remain that way.

Really? Compare A2 launch with A3, both in terms of features and overal polish. A2 only became good after OA 1.5x and 1.6x for MP. Read: After an expansion and one (or 2?) DLCs or some months\years.

Compare a unmodded, unreleased game to a final form of a heavily modded one is also unfair.

Hold on that quote and see where we will be one year from now.

[Masharra 10]

Really? Compare A2 launch with A3, both in terms of features and overal polish. A2 only became good after OA 1.5x and 1.6x for MP. Read: After an expansion and one (or 2?) DLCs or some months\years.

Compare a unmodded, unreleased game to a final form of a heavily modded one is also unfair.

Hold on that quote and see where we will be one year from now.

Ah the good thing about opinions :D

[metalcraze 290]

Really? Compare A2 launch with A3, both in terms of features and overal polish. A2 only became good after OA 1.5x and 1.6x for MP. Read: After an expansion and one (or 2?) DLCs or some months\years.

That's not true. ArmA2 was a good game already, OA just made it better.

A2 at launch was buggy yes however it had everything else fine. A3 at launch will not be buggy however its design is now ruined and you cannot fix the design.

Compare a unmodded, unreleased game to a final form of a heavily modded one is also unfair.

Speaking of mods... unfortunately they will not fix all the terrible balancing that keeps happening to ArmA3.

Mods will not fix same weapons being present on cars and APCs of 3 sides making them nothing but a different 3d model for the same vehicle. Because you need MLODs for that.

We will have to wait until modders will come up with entirely new vehicles and guns to unruin the game but every and each one of them will have to really be superior in terms of quality and that will probably never happen due to all the manhours/manpower it will take.

When Katiba and MX have exactly the same recoil among other copy pasted parameters despite being completely different design-wise and thus should have different handling, when launchers for blufor and opfor are exactly the same weapon down to optics - the future for ArmA3 is grim.

So yeah "mods will fix it" excuse wouldn't work.

Edited July 18, 2013 by metalcraze

[-ghost-tf 12]

Speaking of mods... unfortunately they will not fix all the terrible balancing that keeps happening to ArmA3.

Mods will not fix same weapons being present on cars and APCs of 3 sides making them nothing but a different 3d model for the same vehicle. Because you need MLODs for that.

We will have to wait until modders will come up with entirely new vehicles and guns to unruin the game but every and each one of them will have to really be superior in terms of quality and that will probably never happen due to all the manhours/manpower it will take.

When Katiba and MX have exactly the same recoil among other copy pasted parameters despite being completely different design-wise and thus should have different handling, when launchers for blufor and opfor are exactly the same weapon down to optics - the future for ArmA3 is grim.

So yeah "mods will fix it" excuse wouldn't work.

+1

And afterall it should be "mods will improve it", but now it is definetly a case of "mods will have to fix it" which doesnt work ^.

[dmarkwick 261]

Speaking of mods... unfortunately they will not fix all the terrible balancing that keeps happening to ArmA3.

2 things:

1. It's been established that the "balancing" is more to do with the lack of time to "unbalance" similar assets.

2. Of course modding can unbalance them. Config work is one of the most basic modding methods.

[Sniperwolf572 758]

We're looking into that - it appears to be a bug, but might be a limitation...

Is is in the feedback tracker, by the way?

Best,

RiE

Yep. It's this ticket that relates to this thread.