Discussion on "Axed" Features

[Laqueesha 474]

Well isn't the game NATO vs IRAN with Greece as INDfor?

No more Greeks. Before, Altis was an island of Greece, now it's a country of its own. Hence, "AAF" = "Altis Armed Forces".

[zooloo75 834]

No more Greeks. Before, Altis was an island of Greece, now it's a country of its own. Hence, "AAF" = "Altis Armed Forces".

Greece really missed out on some free advertising. Good way to stick it to 'em BIS :cool:

[NeuroFunker 11]

actually playing arma 3 for first time, made me want to visit this place. But after what happened to devs there, and governemt is against arma 3, there is no way i'm gona come over there anytime soon.

[chrisb 196]

Last time I went to Greece we stayed at the King Saron Hotel in Isthmia, it was a beautiful location and the Greek people we met were really friendly. History is everywhere, which is great, lots to see and do, would really recommend a visit for anyone.

BIS have the feel of Greece, well sort of, but that’s never been a problem ‘islands/terrains’ are always good, for me anyway. Many community made islands are even better, so expect some really great terrains to come for A3.

Up river night missions are really atmospheric and there are many terrains that players can design these types of missions for in A2, can’t see there being any difference for A3.

Its the least of their problems 'terrains', BI have much more to sort out for it to be a really good realistic game.

[marcai 1]

No more Greeks. Before, Altis was an island of Greece, now it's a country of its own. Hence, "AAF" = "Altis Armed Forces".

I was assuming it was Aegean armed forces, which would've been more sensible imo than a 25 mile island having an advanced military. Name-dropping the area -but not the exact country- would imply logistical support from outside the island in the general area, but not the exact nation.

[chortles 263]

The dev branch has loading screens with flavor text that mention bits like Camp Maxwell being named after a British surveyor, and if I recall correctly British and American engineers in the 1960s being responsible for the artificial ground on which Stratis Air Base sits.

[chrisb 196]

The dev branch has loading screens with flavor text that mention bits like Camp Maxwell being named after a British surveyor, and if I recall correctly British and American engineers in the 1960s being responsible for the artificial ground on which Stratis Air Base sits.

As long as they didn’t get a British road contractor to lay the tarmac surface, or we would have landing aircraft leaving they’re wheels behind stuck in the tarmac.:D:p.

[moricky 211]

more sensible imo than a 25 mile island having an advanced military.

Actually, this is the first time in our games when the island is so large it can justify presence of its own defense forces. When designing AAF, we were partly inspired by Armed Forces of Malta, because Malta is island of the similar size and location.

Don't expect AAF to have arsenal of the same size as NATO or CSAT though. It's basically limited to four companies and tiny air wing; for example losing a helicopter will mean your original air force strength is reduced by 10% ;)

[bigpickle 0]

configFile >> CfgImprecision

@Moricky & or DarkDruid - I too was looking for this so thank you, but I'm not finding it in weapons configs. Which PBO should I look in to find the CfgImprecision parameter?

Edited July 22, 2013 by Bigpickle

[marcai 1]

Actually, this is the first time in our games when the island is so large it can justify presence of its own defense forces. When designing AAF, we were partly inspired by Armed Forces of Malta, because Malta is island of the similar size and location.

Don't expect AAF to have arsenal of the same size as NATO or CSAT though. It's basically limited to four companies and tiny air wing; for example losing a helicopter will mean your original air force strength is reduced by 10% ;)

Ah fair enough then. Was thinking it'd be a bit silly with them having enough military spending that each citizen had a tank each! :P

[Kemeros 1]

early Arma 1 times, pre 2008 era, GDT satchel http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=2048 ... this brings memories ;) anyway nice example of DIY

The problem with DIY is that only very few MP servers will contain that mod. Which means i will rarely get to use satchel on vehicles. :)

[Die neunte Seele 10]

What arma still lacks are gameplay mechanics and features: Looking through the titan's (guided missile) sight and having the white diamond pop up immediately is not a gameplay mechanic, it is the game asking you: "Do want to make this tank explode? Left click for yes!"

So true and nothing to add!

[profcupcake 11]

"Very little changes to gameplay"

Uh... No?

You'd have to be clinically insane to not notice how silky smooth everything feels in comparison to the Incredible Clunk that is Arma 2.

The few actually new features are so good, they have me wondering why they weren't in from the start (stance adjust <3).

Basically, it looks like people were expecting quantity so much, they didn't notice all the quality.

[runekn 3]

Basically, it looks like people were expecting quantity so much, they didn't notice all the quality.

I just wanna highlight this for anyone skipping to read it.

[-ghost-tf 12]

"Very little changes to gameplay"

Uh... No?

You'd have to be clinically insane to not notice how silky smooth everything feels in comparison to the Incredible Clunk that is Arma 2.

Smooth is good, but it is too smooth (too smooth as in no inertia, being able to do spin around 360 degrees in half a second, weapon handling being crap etc). Does that also make me "clinically insane"?

The few actually new features are so good, they have me wondering why they weren't in from the start (stance adjust <3).

Yeah, there is a few good changes, but the steps that the game took backwards compensate for the good things. Thats why "Very little changes to gameplay".

Basically, it looks like people were expecting quantity so much, they didn't notice all the quality.

Not really, people were just expecting 10 year old bugs to be fixed, and 10 year old feature requests being implemented. But what were they thinking.. they must have been clinically insane.

Anyway the game is taking a step forward with AI now, lets hope it doesnt take any more steps back (the infamous axe).

[Varanon 892]

"You'd have to be clinically insane to not notice how silky smooth everything feels in comparison to the Incredible Clunk that is Arma 2.

If graphics is all that you look at, then yeah. But if you look at gameplay itself, my notion (and yours may vary) is that Arma 3 is a step back. Especially when it comes to realism (or authenticity, if you like that better). And read again, it said changes in gameplay, not pretty shiny graphics. If you look at some things like armor penetration, missile locking etc, you notice that most of the features are still from Arma 2. So no, it's not insanity, there ARE little changes in gameplay. A lot of those that are there are annyoing, though (and a few good ones, granted).

Basically, it looks like people were expecting quantity so much, they didn't notice all the quality.

Quality is subjective. My biggest gripe isn't so much with features that have been "promised" or mentioned before, it's about features from Arma 2 that got axed, like realistic loadouts, a decent medical system, inertia, a really blinding sun, etc.

So no, I wasn't expecting a lot of quantity. But at least not removal of features from Arma 2 (which the devs said would not happen). And fixing of age old bugs, too.

Arma 3 really LOOKS good, and I'm pretty sure it will be a good game when it's finally released. But right now, in the current state, Arma 2 is still (IMHO, of course), the better game. If that makes me clinically insane, then you know... I'm not suffering from insanity, I actually enjoy it.

---------- Post added at 11:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:01 PM ----------

I just wanna highlight this for anyone skipping to read it.

Repeating it doesn't make it more right.

[froggyluv 2136]

If graphics is all that you look at, then yeah. But if you look at gameplay itself, my notion (and yours may vary) is that Arma 3 is a step back. Especially when it comes to realism (or authenticity, if you like that better). .

Well in terms of infantry movement - I'd say that Arma 3 is definitely a step up in terms of being fluid. Sorry but Arma 2 is far from feeling authentic and feels more like im in charge of 90 yo men trying to navigate small steps and indoor locations. I just ran a 40yo and older adventure/obstacle race and every one of those guys and gals moved better than an Arma2 soldier :p

But i'd agree that we need a little more inertia/weight bearing effects etc... overall I'd take Arma3 movement in a heartbeat.

[Varanon 892]

Well in terms of infantry movement - I'd say that Arma 3 is definitely a step up in terms of being fluid. Sorry but Arma 2 is far from feeling authentic and feels more like im in charge of 90 yo men trying to navigate small steps and indoor locations. I just ran a 40yo and older adventure/obstacle race and every one of those guys and gals moved better than an Arma2 soldier :p.

Yeah, that's what I meant, graphics wise, there's no question. But gameplay wise, I still prefer Arma 2, no matter what. And I already did play Arma 3 for 192 hours.

[froggyluv 2136]

Yeah, that's what I meant, graphics wise, there's no question. But gameplay wise, I still prefer Arma 2, no matter what. And I already did play Arma 3 for 192 hours.

That's fine :)

Avatar control to me is a gameplay rather than graphics enhancement but fair enough. Personally I like VBS2 for features and Arma 3 for fluidity and ragdoll/PhysX.

[chrisb 196]

Yeah, that's what I meant, graphics wise, there's no question. But gameplay wise, I still prefer Arma 2, no matter what. And I already did play Arma 3 for 192 hours.

Yes, Arma 2 is better for game-play realism I think, will hope that may change, maybe take a little time, you never know.

Looks wise obviously Arma 3, VBS2 has little going for it, if used as a game, for me anyway.

[fragmachine 12]

I agree with you. I prefer ArmA2 for gameplay with mods such like ACE, JSRS, HARCP, Blastcore - pimped out - than A3 right now. Even if A3 is superior in terms of graphics, animations - authenticity is superior on ArmA 2 side - with ACE mod even more.

[zimms 22]

It's not really fair to compare vanilla A3 with the "pimped out" A2 with all your favourite mods.

And I guess most of those mods will come to A3 as well, given time.

[-ghost-tf 12]

It's not really fair to compare vanilla A3 with the "pimped out" A2 with all your favourite mods.

And I guess most of those mods will come to A3 as well, given time.

I do actually think it is fair to compare the succesor of arma2 with the "pimped out" version of arma2. I mean arma 2 is pimped out for a reason, it is stuff made by the community, that the community feels was missing in the game. So having very little pimped features in arma 3 (or some vanilla elements of the game even removed/dumbed down) is dissappointing. And not all pimped features are "hardcore realism" that would make all the casual players rage quit the game. Just some details, would make a big difference like wind for example. Or how blastcore improves the visuals so much, but still we have crappy explosions in arma3 (If this has been done with performance in mind, we have a particle video setting for a reason). And not even mention all the pimped AI improvements (suppressive etc), I know AI is WIP now but still I dont think it will get similar to the pimped AI level, at least not before release.. And saying "dont worry *insert any famous arma 2 mod* will save the day" is a poor excuse for letting someone else "fix" the game for free.

And even if I compare arma 3 to vanilla arma 2, I would prefer arma 2. Simply because arma3 has currently taken a few steps back on some aspects of the game that are a game breaker to me.

[Alwarren 2767]

It's not really fair to compare vanilla A3 with the "pimped out" A2 with all your favourite mods..

Well, even without the mods, I still prefer Arma 2. As nice as all the graphics and stuff is, I prefer realism. Contrary to most I guess I don't think the "fluidity" of movement is an improvement on its own. What I dislike is that it doesn't make any difference whether you carry a sniper rifle or an SMG, since the movement is always fluid the Anti-Material rifle in your hands and the 100 kg backpack with five titan missiles on your back do not impair you the least in your movement. I don't consider that an improvement.

You can also go prone and rotate in place like a helicopter. "Smooth", yes. Realistic, no way.

So right now, I prefer Arma 2. Even vanilla.

[TSAndrey 1]

Well, even without the mods, I still prefer Arma 2. As nice as all the graphics and stuff is, I prefer realism. Contrary to most I guess I don't think the "fluidity" of movement is an improvement on its own. What I dislike is that it doesn't make any difference whether you carry a sniper rifle or an SMG, since the movement is always fluid the Anti-Material rifle in your hands and the 100 kg backpack with five titan missiles on your back do not impair you the least in your movement. I don't consider that an improvement.

You can also go prone and rotate in place like a helicopter. "Smooth", yes. Realistic, no way.

So right now, I prefer Arma 2. Even vanilla.

So unfluid and bad controls = realism?

What?! Just because the game doesn't have a weigth system (which they will add soon), doesn't mean the horrible A2 controls are better.