Discussion on "Axed" Features

[bigpickle 0]

Qazdar

You can wait 1-2 years. No one is forcing you.

That's a lot of masturbation time tbh

[ratszo 17]

Qazdar

You can wait 1-2 years. No one is forcing you.

This may infact be good advice.

Arma2 has so much content, it will be a long time til A3 offers the mods and maps Arma2 offers.

[afp 1]

ArmA 3 dev count is somewhere around 70. - Really? Source? I thought they were like 15-30 ppl on the Arma 3 Team.

You guys are really funny. They weren't able to add a simple "favorites" button to servers browser in the last 4 months plus other thousands of simple tasks. Obviously they are much less and probably relocated all the time to other games (Dayz, Take On, Arma Tactics, even Arma 2). The management either don't give a crap or have a totally lack of vision regarding priorities. Every changelog is full of thing you don't even know that exist while important and obvious bugs or features are totally missing... Hope they won' be disappointed when thousands of reviews will sounds like "they didn't change anything since OpF" and get a score of 8 instead of 9.5 and being a hit.

Edited July 15, 2013 by afp

[TSAndrey 1]

You guys are really funny. They weren't able to add a simple "favorites" button to servers browser in the last 4 months

Dwarden said that there will be a MP GUI redesign

[afp 1]

How long can take and how many people to redesign a bit the UI with the information you already have (servers list)? There are already big chances that this be left, like many others, to the moders, already.

[purepassion 22]

Every changelog is full of thing you don't even know that exist while important and obvious bugs or features are totally missing...

That's exactly the kind of thinking, paired with unjustified assumptions (like the "constant relocating of devs") which is very dangerous and harmful. Just because you don't understand the complexity of a certain change does absolutey not diminish its importance or value.

Now, Arma 3 is not the perfect game for each and every gamer on the earth and it can never be but you are not in a position to generalize the whole development cycle and dismiss it as "not giving a crap or lacking vision regarding priorities".

Let's please keep the discussion grounded and reasonable.

[Anachoretes 10]

Six is not already existing browser from modders?

---------- Post added at 16:13 ---------- Previous post was at 16:09 ----------

Let's please keep the discussion grounded and reasonable.

And also bethink about system of daily, weekly, monthly updates.

[afp 1]

That's exactly the kind of thinking, paired with unjustified assumptions (like the "constant relocating of devs") which is very dangerous and harmful. Just because you don't understand the complexity of a certain change does absolutey not diminish its importance or value.

Now, Arma 3 is not the perfect game for each and every gamer on the earth and it can never be but you are not in a position to generalize the whole development cycle and dismiss it as "not giving a crap or lacking vision regarding priorities". Let's please keep the discussion grounded and reasonable.

Well, looking at the game as a customer, I can say it should be me the one who should evaluate the importance of a change, not the developers, who may chose to add API functions instead of weapon resting. It was a great idea to have people involved in development cycle during alpha phase but they should count more.

The feedback tracker ranking system is not necessary the best to prioritize tasks, if you put there "we want to have all VBS features plus 2000 jet fighters" everybody will vote up. Here's what i consider a common sense list of priorities:

- Optimisations, both in single and multiplayer - no stuttering, no LOD flickering

- Smooth character movement, all bugs fixed - this is first that hit you when playing the first time.

- Immersive sound - they were never good by default, mods shown that some great things can be done.

- Revamp editor and Server browser - or people will say nothing changed

- Small and highly requested features, like weapon resting, maybe shooting from vehicles etc.

[chortles 263]

I believe that my analogy of Arma a jumble of tripwire mines tied to one another applies... :p And considering how high weapon resting is on said feedback tracker only for Dwarden to say "let say design preparation mistake was done there" and about bipods "was put aside due to other priority work" (while shooting from vehicles was "put to side to work on other stuff"), the devs are pretty obviously not 1:1 with the feedback tracker... small to you, not to the devs, apparently, and at this point "optimization" is such a buzzword I can see devs rolling their eyes when they get that "feedback".

P.S. Interesting "glimpse behind the curtain" here re: the current hand grenade implementation vs. some of the lacking capabilities (as discussed in the article linked there) and some insight on the reason for the difference between "current" and "potential" implementations.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Chortles

[noubernou 77]

The item system alone is enough to keep a majority of my concentrated development efforts focused on Arma 2 for the foreseeable future. A3 has some nice improvements, but over all it feels lacking, and given that the content is of no interest to me, or pretty much anyone I know and work with on a regular basis (which is indeed hundreds of people) I don't feel a personal desire to invest my time in A3 beyond the minimal amount I need to do to keep current with the changes in technology. That means the current focus of ACRE and ACRE2 continues to be A2 and will be for an indeterminate time.

This is something that I personally wish was not the case, but BIS has shown a lack of focus on key components to the engine that have been a source of actual anger (and when I say anger, I mean legitimate anger) to the community when trying to improve the game. And now that "realism" is being left to the addon community (as stated by Dwarden in Skype a few days ago) it feels like a slap in the face, especially considering the history of the community and the prior focus of OFP and Arma more towards realism than away from realism. If the community is responsible for maintaining the previous fanbase, who have been loyal and dedicated followers of the series for over a decade, often devoting countless unpaid volunteer hours to help improve BIS's product, then it would be nice to see a more reflective approach from BIS on the changes that the community developers feel are most needed. This is not about content, this is about technology and the lack of improvement from A2 to A3 in core areas like terrain, damage systems, and AI.

That is my rant/announcement.

[Smurf 12]

Ouch...

[chortles 263]

... actual quote please? I mean this re: what you're purporting Dwarden to have said on Skype, since I don't have access to those logs unlike something said on these forums.

[noubernou 77]

... actual quote please? I mean this re: what you're purporting Dwarden to have said on Skype, since I don't have access to those logs unlike something said on these forums.

[7/13/13 7:50:13 AM] FM: I just want realism (not necessarily real life) and simulation. The era or genre doesn't really matter much. I remember the sci if add ons for Ofp, I think in some way they helped open up the game.

[7/13/13 11:48:36 AM] David Foltyn: ACE3 and PR and similar will deal with the 'realism' ...

[7/13/13 11:49:59 AM] CD (Nou): lol

[7/13/13 11:50:19 AM] CD (Nou): or we'll make our own games

[7/13/13 11:50:29 AM] CD (Nou): why do your work for free?

This is the statement. The argument lasted for some time after. :p

[ProfTournesol 956]

I somehow do agree with Dwarden, even if i share the POV that key features MUST be included in the vanilla game (such as weapon resting etc.). I wouldn't want ArmA3 to be Ace3.

Edited July 15, 2013 by ProfTournesol

[noubernou 77]

I somehow do agree with Dwarden, even if i share the POW that key features MUST be included in the vanilla game (such as weapon resting etc.). I wouldn't want ArmA3 to be Ace3.

Neither would I, thats not what Arma is sold as, but you can not deny that a huge portion of the population, especially the legacy fanbase is attracted to these sort of modifications. We are seeing now a greater divergence away, and to bring Arma back towards realism it means more work for the community this time around. BIS is an amazing company, and I feel guilty even having these complaints because they are reactive and they are attentive, and I know of no other game company in this day and age that has as strong of a relationship with their developer community as them, but that doesn't go to discredit some of the legitimate complaints that we have moving forward.

[das attorney 857]

This is something that I personally wish was not the case, but BIS has shown a lack of focus on key components to the engine that have been a source of actual anger (and when I say anger, I mean legitimate anger) to the community when trying to improve the game.

NouberNou, what aspects of the game engine do you feel have not been addressed?

Legitimate question, not looking to flame-bait. Interested as you have spent a significant amount of time modding with the Arma 2 engine.

[blu3sman 11]

I've really got tired of "ACE3 will come and save the day" mantra, thrown around by new members. And now I hear it from devs themselves...

And who will f..ng make it this time, I ask?

[Phantom Six 25]

I somehow do agree with Dwarden, even if i share the POW that key features MUST be included in the vanilla game (such as weapon resting etc.). I wouldn't want ArmA3 to be Ace3.

I wouldn't want subpar AI, mirror image equipments, subpar first aid system, or unrealistically running around with half a car on my back (200 KG load) either. From the looks of it, it looks like as if OFP to ARMA 1 was like ARMA 2 to ARMA 3. It seems like, ARMA 3 had a lot of great potential to be the flagship title that it could have been, but fall short in many aspects. I'll admit it feels more fluid than ARMA 2 and such, but there's a lot of things that ARMA 3 should be improve on if it were to be the best ARMA title. Leaving everything for modders to bear the load and burden isn't the best solution either. As for "wait for the mods", what if the modders don't want to bear the load since at that point, if becomes more of a job than a simple hobby.

[MavericK96 0]

Here's my 2 cents for those who care (probably not too many :p):

IMO, the shift from Alpha to Beta made no sense. Alpha is generally considered the first step toward getting a stable build, is not feature-complete, and is probably buggy as hell. Okay.

Beta is when the software is considered to be feature-complete and still is working through bugs.

So, what did we get in Beta vs Alpha? A few new vehicles, a couple weapons, and some various fixes? I know that ArmA 3 is a "platform" and will be expanded on in the future with both features and fixes, but I honestly think things like fixed-wing aircraft and tanks, along with a more complete weapon suite, should have been included before making the "jump" to Beta. As it stands, the shift in name is really quite meaningless.

As for my thoughts on mods...Mods, in my mind, exist for two reasons:

1) To fix/add something that the developer messed up or left out that fans want

2) To add some weird/niche feature that a minority wants and the developer would never consider

Right now, in ArmA 3 Beta, the devs have the opportunity to hear what the fans want and use that information, in addition to past information about ArmA 2 and prior, to add those features that the majority of fans want. What I am hearing/reading from BIS is that they are leaving out several key features that fans have wanted since well before ArmA 3, and letting the modders "take care" of that. This is inane. No one wants to have to use mods for a "vanilla" experience period, let alone for features that should be standard in the game in the first place, and that the community has specifically requested be added on numerous occasions.

I'm really sad to hear from NouberNou that ArmA 3 won't be a priority. I think ACE brought a lot of much-needed features to ArmA 2 and became a staple of the vast majority of community MP. To ignore those features for ArmA 3 is doing a huge disservice to everything the modders have worked for in the past. I can't speak for them, but I am guessing that they would prefer to have these features in the game in the first place and not have to do work (for free, as was pointed out) to get the game up to the level of a game/mod that we already have.

[noubernou 77]

NouberNou, what aspects of the game engine do you feel have not been addressed?

Legitimate question, not looking to flame-bait. Interested as you have spent a significant amount of time modding with the Arma 2 engine.

They seem like small things, but broken or mismanaged scripting features, such as intersect and hitPart respectively, which in turn is related to the damage model for vehicles, which continues to be hitpoint based, even though the system and the models all contain significant amounts of "meta" information to allow for a much more complex and dynamic damage system (and honestly I don't care about it being reflected in parts of vehicles being blown off, etc, thats fine, but being shot in the front glacis plate and having the engine get damaged... come on).

The terrain engine though is by and away the largest ire to myself. I know its not directly related to realism, but it seems by and away that there has been nothing done to bring the engine on par with new technology, or existing technology. Beyond streaming of textures and some objects the engine remains essentially the same as it was in Res. The only reason we see nicer terrain now is that computers have gotten faster. The tech has stayed the same. I am not asking for brand new cutting edge stuff like dynamic tessellation or anything like that, but at least non-fixed cell system and allowing the island maker to determine cellsize for certain features would be nice. A island maker should not have to have a 2x2 grid for a flat open field just so he can make a ditch on the side of the road next to it (and believe me, ditches in infantry combat are about the most important thing you can imagine).

Furthermore, in terms of AI, more direct access to the AI, granularity in how scripters/configers can handle them or manipulate them would be nice. If BIS doesn't want to invest in improving AI, at least give us the tools to do it for you. We want to. We crave to do it, let us help, give us the tools to do it and we will build masterpieces.

There are other things, but those are my main ones.

---------- Post added at 12:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:32 PM ----------

Also I would like to fully make it clear that I do NOT speak for ACE when I am saying these things. ACE is a much larger group. Work continues on A3 there. I am just holding off personally on a few things till I see where A3 lands (for example, its still pre-release, stuff isn't final, I don't want to waste time working on something that is going to be broken the next week due to a change in the engine).

I can say as now the sole developer of ACRE though that my priority lays with A2. ACRE2 is easily portable to any RV engine title, so its not like A3 is getting shafted, not at all, but in terms of where it goes first and where the compatibility testing lays the most it is entirely on A2 right now.

[giorgygr 61]

Well if Devs really wanted modders to load the burden..they should open more features at core to help them.

I really don't like to be a professional coder just to move/walk on an already moving object (i.e ship)

And ^ is only..a drop in the ocean...

We are waiting the 'upcoming' tools also..

Same quality and feature-filled expectations for me..

Edited July 15, 2013 by GiorgyGR

[Alwarren 2766]

Let me also mention the Rail/Attachment system. It basically works like the magazines in Arma 2, and is as inflexible as it gets. I, and a few others, have been trying to get this changed since the Alpha was released. As it is now, there are severe limitations on the way that custom made attachments can be handled, and there is even a ticket on the tracker with a high vote count but so far no comment from the devs. This makes modding unnecessarily difficult, and frequently breaks things. It doesn't seem likely that this gets changed so late in the game, but I even wrote a PM to DnA and mentioned it frequently.

For the record, the current system requires every weapon to explicitly name the attachments that it can take. Custom attachment packs, in order to allow the attachments to be used on default weapons, need to override the base classes and/or individual rifle's configs to allow them to be used. This has several major drawbacks:

- A change in the base game (like in recent beta developer build) will require an update of the accessories pack or break the additions to the game.

- A second accessory pack will require a merged config, otherwise the config that gets read last will "win".

- Since each rifle can override the default, any rifle that does not take ALL the accessories (like, e.g. an SMG that would look silly with a sniper scope) will have their own overriden attachments and therefore not take any custom addons at all, unless the accessory pack overrides it.

Bottom line, the current system makes it next to impossible to use more than one accessory pack, and requires constant updates, and will easily break (as is the case e.g. with my accessory pack and a russian pack that also has to override the base class). I've been lobbying for a change of this, but so far nothing, which I find very sad since it makes life unnecessarily difficult for both modders and players alike.

[noubernou 77]

Yes, the item and attachment system just seem like they were not thought through in a very coherent way.

The same with magazines since OFP.

I know the community would willingly give up all our previous weapon config work to have a magazine system that is based on magazine and round type, rather than a static list. There is no reason that you should have to define individual magazines to work with guns if the magazine is standardized. A STANAG 5.56 NATO magazine is going to fit anything else that complies with that NATO STANAG. Make the configs reflect the idea of standards and things become way easier.

[Dwarden 1124]

btw i love how Nou used against me that i said PR and ACE3 will deal with realism

for quite lot of people the ACE and PR were on the 'realism edge ...

next is only Steelbeasts , Falcon , LockOn, Xplane, FlightSim10Realitymods, IL-2 and DCS Worlds

he also ignored the part where i said that people will DIY what developers don't do ...

cause no matter what all we add there will always be someone unhappy with what we did, altered, set or missed

and no way i'm saying Nou isn't right, cause he has quite lot of valid points (yeya i know dynamic terrain grid {sos}) ...

[blu3sman 11]

next is only Steelbeasts , Falcon , LockOn, Xplane, FlightSim10Realitymods, IL-2 and DCS Worlds

Lol, you sound like it's something bad.