Discussion on "Axed" Features

[Alwarren 2766]

So unfluid and bad controls = realism?

That is not what I said.

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.

"Which they will add soon" is a sentence that I hear frequently here and doesn't mean anything, is there a source where it says so?

The point I am trying to make is that "just" fluid controls doesn't mean anything, Quake had that as well. Right now weight has zero impact, weapon size has zero impact, and I don't think that is good.

[-ghost-tf 12]

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.

Currently: Too fluid (as in counterstrike style, you know what I mean).

How it should be: Fluid + inertia and correct weaponhandling/fatigue system.

I hate "Too fluid" so much, that I prefer the clunky arma 2 system.

And how do you know they will add a correct weight system? Only thing we got is an:

We are going to look at it too, but I can't promise anything specific about it at this moment.

[Varanon 892]

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.

What do you mean, "add soon" ? There already is one, and it allows you to load ridiculous amounts of stuff onto your character.

And the only statement we have about this is DarkDruid saying that they will look into the issue if they find the time, but he can't promise anything. That's a long shot away from "soon". Or from "at all"

So unfluid and bad controls = realism?

I hear that "fluid controls" argument so often it's really getting to be an all-out excuse for everything. "Arma 3 has a bad medical system, but it has fluid controls". "Arma 3 doesn't have inertia, but it has fluid controls".

[fragmachine 12]

And... A3 doesn't have bipods but at least You can make copter rounds with your machinegun around Your character - thanks to the new fluid controls.

Meaning not all good things are always a good things. There are limitations in real life and simulating these can become tricky job for programmers. Thats why we have been talking about inertia and all this stuff when we saw alpha for the first time.

Edited July 25, 2013 by fragmachine

[-=seany=- 5]

Not sure if I would call it inertia, to me that feeling in A2 was "clunkyness", I prefer A3 movement.

[Smurf 12]

Yeah, A2 never had any inertia. The turn rate was that bad mouse aceleration thing and for running is the sam thing as A3, but worst.

[-ghost-tf 12]

Not sure if I would call it inertia, to me that feeling in A2 was "clunkyness", I prefer A3 movement.

Nobody called it inertia... Just the current arma3 system is so unrealistic that it makes even the clunky arma 2 system much better.

[Varanon 892]

Yeah, A2 never had any inertia. The turn rate was that bad mouse aceleration thing and for running is the sam thing as A3, but worst.

It doesn't really matter. All I am saying is that "smoothness" is far too often confused with "better gameplay". Yes, Arma 3 plays much "smoother" than Arma 2, but that alone does not make it the better game.

[ProfTournesol 956]

It doesn't really matter. All I am saying is that "smoothness" is far too often confused with "better gameplay". Yes, Arma 3 plays much "smoother" than Arma 2, but that alone does not make it the better game.

Nope, but that a step forward obviously.

[-ghost-tf 12]

Nope, but that a step forward obviously.

And 2 steps backwards.

[Smurf 12]

It doesn't really matter. All I am saying is that "smoothness" is far too often confused with "better gameplay". Yes, Arma 3 plays much "smoother" than Arma 2, but that alone does not make it the better game.

But over it is better, more human like and so on. The problem is with these details like turning speed, CQB\clearance and all that. Solution isn't moving backwards to A2 but find something else. For me RO2 nailed it; you still have all the "readyness" and fast point you expect when facing forward but are somewhat limited when running\turning around, anchieved by a small deadzone in the center of the screen which varies with the size\type of the weapon you have.

Pistols doing the infamous Dsy 180 kill twist? No problem. Doing the same with pretty much anything else is... disappointing.

How long till the first "fragmovie" of A3 comes out?

[chortles 263]

And 2 steps backwards.

At which point I'm going to say "three steps forward", it's a "net step forward obviously" and I agree with ProfTournesol.

anchieved by a small deadzone in the center of the screen which varies with the size\type of the weapon you have.

When I turn aiming deadzone off my intent is off, and I'm thankful that this game actually comes off like it was made without aiming deadzone in mind.

How long till the first "fragmovie" of A3 comes out?

... Tango Delta Mike didn't count? :lol:

[Smurf 12]

When I turn aiming deadzone off my intent is off, and I'm thankful that this game actually comes off like it was made without aiming deadzone in mind.

Just an example. Any better idea?

Tango Delta Mike didn't count? :lol:

Does it have dubstep, zooms, rewinds and that? Then no.

Edited July 25, 2013 by Smurf

[Varanon 892]

At which point I'm going to say "three steps forward", it's a "net step forward obviously" and I agree with ProfTournesol

ONE step foward and two back is still one back. You can of course always insert arbitrary number, and another, smaller arbitrary number and say "hey' it's better".

What I mostly miss though is actual arguments instead of hollow phrases.

When I turn aiming deadzone off my intent is off, and I'm thankful that this game actually comes off like it was made without aiming deadzone in mind.

Agreed on the deadzone. But the point was actually that you do not suffer any inertia at all. Have you tried going prone and turning ? You can spin 360 ° in under one second. I invite you to try this in real life. Or the fact that you can spin around with your big machine gun in hand and make it look like a pistol. Or with the titan launcher that weighs 12 kg without the rocket (20+ with rocket).

Yes, I know, I'm re-iterating. But heck, if you want me to stop re-iterating, give me an argument why spinning on the floor like a breakdancer is actually realistic or authentic ? Don't tell me again and again it's "smooth". Or "it's a game". Tell me why it is supposed to be authentic ?

[-ghost-tf 12]

At which point I'm going to say "three steps forward", it's a "net step forward obviously" and I agree with ProfTournesol.

You are saying that being able to spin around 360 degrees in less then a second while being prone, and being able to use the gm6 lynx as a shotgun in CQB is a step forward?

Yes, smooth aiming is a step forward. But while taking that step they at the same time took 2 steps backwards.

[Alwarren 2766]

Nope, but that a step forward obviously.

Unreal Tournament had "fluid" control as well, plus you could fire a rocket launcher at your feet and make extra high jumps.

I know we're now at a state were "realism" and "milsim" are considered dirty words, and every time someone brings them up he is uni sono yelled at by the fanboy crowd. But "just" fluid movement is no improvement, it's just different. Maybe the old Arma 2 controls had nothing to do with realism, but the new ones don't have anything to do with realism either. Oops sorry, I used the dirty R-Word and the dirty M-Word. We all know Arma never was a simulator.

I've said this many times before, but everybody likes to ignore it: What is the point of SMG's in this game? It doesn't matter if you carry an SMG or an LMG, there is no difference in handling. But hey, movement is smooth, right? Right.

[progamer 14]

Unreal Tournament had "fluid" control as well, plus you could fire a rocket launcher at your feet and make extra high jumps.

I know we're now at a state were "realism" and "milsim" are considered dirty words, and every time someone brings them up he is uni sono yelled at by the fanboy crowd. But "just" fluid movement is no improvement, it's just different. Maybe the old Arma 2 controls had nothing to do with realism, but the new ones don't have anything to do with realism either. Oops sorry, I used the dirty R-Word and the dirty M-Word. We all know Arma never was a simulator.

I've said this many times before, but everybody likes to ignore it: What is the point of SMG's in this game? It doesn't matter if you carry an SMG or an LMG, there is no difference in handling. But hey, movement is smooth, right? Right.

There is no dirty R-Word or dirty M-Word. People want the game to be realistic and milsim like but still be fun to play at the same time.

[Smurf 12]

There is no dirty R-Word or dirty M-Word. People want the game to be realistic and milsim like but still be fun to play at the same time.

What is your definition of fun?

[marcai 1]

What is your definition of fun?

Subjective. Now let's not go down this dusty road for the millionth time, shall we?

[-ghost-tf 12]

Subjective. Now let's not go down this dusty road for the millionth time, shall we?

Yep, I agree. Lets take the smooth road instead and ignore everything else. See what I did there?

[marcai 1]

Yep, I agree. Lets take the smooth road instead and ignore everything else. See what I did there?

For the record, I didn't. I assume you're being smart and implying I don't want the development process to have user input, at which point you'd be very wrong. I'm merely fed up of seeing threads of 20+ pages of people uselessly telling each other how wrong their definition of fun is. Arguing about someone else's personal taste is as fruitless an idea as trying to argue with the planet Jupiter about the size of its orbit. People having input is useful, as are opinions and ideas for game changes. Debating a stated point is useful, asking for an essay on 'what is fun' from someone is not, especially as that one person could well respond "I loved my anthromorphic erp server set in an alternate reality with no military input". Such discussions are rather aloof from the original topic of asking which features have and haven't been axed and why, and would be better served in a separate thread, in my humble opinion.

[-ghost-tf 12]

For the record, I didn't. I assume you're being smart and implying I don't want the development process to have user input, at which point you'd be very wrong. I'm merely fed up of seeing threads of 20+ pages of people uselessly telling each other how wrong their definition of fun is. Arguing about someone else's personal taste is as fruitless an idea as trying to argue with the planet Jupiter about the size of its orbit. People having input is useful, as are opinions and ideas for game changes. Debating a stated point is useful, asking for an essay on 'what is fun' from someone is not, especially as that one person could well respond "I loved my anthromorphic erp server set in an alternate reality with no military input". Such discussions are rather aloof from the original topic of asking which features have and haven't been axed and why, and would be better served in a separate thread, in my humble opinion.

Misunderstanding, I thought with dusty road you meant the discussion about missing realism features. Anyway you assumed wrong.

[marcai 1]

Misunderstanding, I thought with dusty road you meant the discussion about missing realism features. Anyway you assumed wrong.

Then I have to apologise, my pun-sensors have broken :p

[fragmachine 12]

So the question - is this game still infantry-based if the infantry isn't simulated well? I actually think that this game is a mix of infantry/land/sea/air - not infantry based game like developers said. It brings alot of improvements not only to the infantry gameplay, but also vehicle handling, engine improvements itself. Answer is: Game can't be infantry-based if it doesn't simulate infantry well.

AI for instance can't do prone spins around in less than one second, even turret of T-72 rotate faster.

[dale0404 5]

The game is centred around "Combined Arms", as in the showcase.