Discussion on "Axed" Features

[Masharra 10]

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.

So does that mean when they have time they will "UNBALANCE" ? Thus causing themselves more work in the future? and Possibly breaking things based on current "balanced" items?

Edited July 18, 2013 by Masharra

[Varanon 892]

i don't think that this will be even close to a solution.

No, it wouldn't but I learned to keep my expectations low that something substantial will happen, really :|

They made a decision, I was disappointed with it at first, but now I see their point and I settled with it.

I don't see the point in the decision. There was no need to change some things that have been changed.

[metalcraze 290]

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.

Dude they have exactly the same weapons. Making exactly the same gun behave differently on different vehicles will look stupid.

And how will you add commander seat and optics to Patria for example? That goes beyond a config tweak.

the lack of time to "unbalance" similar assets.

Except BIS has the time to balance assets as they keep doing by making copy pasta even worse with each passing week.

New IFVs are a joke too. Just when you thought "well at least APCs for both sides seem to have different weapons! There's hope yet" - BLAM! Everything clicks into the crappy balancing place. BLUFOR just totally needed an APC with 8 seats and GMG/HMG gun just like on Marid. And OPFOR gets its own APC with an armor piercing cannon. Great job BIS. All that talk about how they ditched commander/gunner/driver interior visuals just to make more vehicles when said vehicles are copy pasted down to their very optics.

Edited July 18, 2013 by metalcraze

[dmarkwick 261]

So does that mean when they have time they will "UNBALANCE" ? Thus causing themselves more work in the future? and Possibly breaking things based on current "balanced" items?

I don't know. I try not to interpret beyond what has been actually said.

[byku 13]

...

Nah you are overreacting :P. What they are doing is rather good(although not awesome). Vehicles are different, have different characteristics and they are definitely not copy-paste. What would like them to do? Well... they could create a simple interior for the driver... but anyway i would rather hope that they would work a bit more on more realistic targeting systems than interiors, because unfortunately although nice, might be bit useless.

[ak1287 1]

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.:(

Thanks for the chuckle. I haven't read such speculative, unmitigated bulls*t since the Zimmerman verdict.

[zooloo75 834]

It would be nice if mission devs could modify/add to configs specifically for their mission (such as cfgVehicles,cfgWeapons, and cfgMagazines) this should allow the community to make their mission exactly the way they want it without having to make their players download an addon that changes a few config entries. We can already change some configs, we should be able to change them all. Correct me if we can already change those.

Just read that fast-roping is also axed. WTF :c

I guess I'll have to "un-axe" that feature too. Come on BIS, I don't see why placing explosives on vehicles was axed - I made a working system in an hour...

Edited July 18, 2013 by zooloo75

[royaltyinexile 175]

I guess I'll have to "un-axe" that feature too. Come on BIS, I don't see why placing explosives on vehicles was axed - I made a working system in an hour...

The original system that was demonstrated WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY back in 2011 was doubtless a similar system to what you've successfully scripted (this actually predates my work on the project, so I'd have to check to be entirely sure).

The problem faced was rather in successfully turning this scripted prototype into legitimate engine behaviour. There were a number of extra challenges involved in that, and benchmarks of quality that were set (i.e. full multiplayer functionality, AI support, etc). When we conducted a full project review, this feature wasn't prioritised, as there were a number of other critical systems that required the support of programmers (PhysX, Ragdoll, MP framework, MP inventory, Scuba, to name but a few serious tasks).

That the system can be put together by a talented modder quickly is not in question; rather, integrating the feature into the 'big picture' of compatibility, stability, quality - set against the limited resources and schedule in place drove us to eventually - as has been alluded to before - make a set of difficult decisions regarding quality over quantity. I hope that's understandable, and that what I've said is in no way intended to be pejorative to what you or other modders craft in their own time. :)

Best,

RiE

Edited July 18, 2013 by RoyaltyinExile

[Anachoretes 10]

RoyaltyinExile

So we can expect for significant improvements in ragdoll and physX?

[zooloo75 834]

The original system that was demonstrated WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY back in 2011 was doubtless a similar system to what you've successfully scripted (this actually predates my work on the project, so I'd have to check to be entirely sure).

The problem faced was rather in successfully turning this scripted prototype into legitimate engine behaviour. There were a number of extra challenges involved in that, and benchmarks of quality that were set (i.e. full multiplayer functionality, AI support, etc). When we conducted a full project review, this feature wasn't prioritised, as there were a number of other critical systems that required the support of programmers (PhysX, Ragdoll, MP framework, MP inventory, Scuba, to name but a few serious tasks).

That the system can be put together by a talented modder quickly is not in question; rather, integrating the feature into the 'big picture' of compatibility, stability, quality - set against the limited resources and schedule in place drove us to eventually - as has been alluded to before - make a set of difficult decisions regarding quality over quantity. I hope that's understandable, and that what I've said is in no way intended to be pejorative to what you or other modders craft in their own time. :)

Best,

RiE

Ah, well then I have some observations - I did some testing and noticed that you can't do setVariable or getVariable to an ammo model. For example: I spawned in the C4 charge with createVehicle, and getVariable always returned nil. My workaround was to attach a game logic to the explosive and just setVariable to it instead. I probably overlooked this, but is there a way to spawn the explosion that the explosive usually has? I tried setDamage 1 on the explosive but that had no effect. My workaround was to use the helicopter explosion effect in cfgVehicles and then immediately delete the explosive object. Also is there a way to "link" a spawned explosive to a unit so they can have the usual functionality such as setting the timer or touching off the explosive? I had to make up my own way of doing it (nothing wrong with it - just wondering if I overlooked the command).

Also my system is designed in such a way that the user can add the functionality to any units and command them to use the action as if it were natural for the AI. Only problem is pathfinding to get the AI close enough to a vehicle (I wish that if I ordered a single unit to move somewhere, they'd go exactly to that position :P ). A fix would be to have AI vehicle detection areas a bit bigger than the player's.

@Fastroping - I did see a "ropeX" object in cfgVehicles; I'm assuming that is for fast roping? I haven't played TKoH but I heard there was fastroping in it and you could transport vehicles with helis. I did notice some scripting commands for TKoH that allowed a rope to be deployed from a helicopter too. Is it possible that we will see that in A3?

Edited July 18, 2013 by zooloo75

[Dwarden 1125]

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

[Tyl3r99 41]

im not sure whether anyone has brought this up yet but...

i fail to understand why the skirmish module was removed?

it worked so well

we all loved it

i just dont get it... however i have made a ticket requesting the return of this module.

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=11722

[-ghost-tf 12]

These modules were created primarily for campaign purposes. In the course of development, we've decided to handle the functionality they were supposed to have to be done differently (using Sites, getting rid of dynamic spawning altogether). You've mentioned some problems these modules had, and considering there were no resources to keep them up to date, removing them was considered the best solution.

I agree though that their removal should have been documented in the sitrep / spotrep and would like to apologize for any incovenience caused to community mission makers.

This was posted a while ago in the dev branch thread.

[Tyl3r99 41]

This was posted a while ago in the dev branch thread.

but cant they just re-add it not for their sake but for us?

also the sites at the moment are (sorry) "rubbish" doesn't make a base at all just scatters a few units at shit places. and spawns ifrits in places you wouldnt want them to be.

no base patrols.

needs to place units in buildings not just outside the front door.

lol so f**k knows why they resorted to the sites for the campaign... oh dear :(

on the skirmish module i found it so much fun as you did not know where the enemy would go given the radius :o

maybe the sites module and skirmish module would work together!! sorted

Edited July 19, 2013 by tyl3r99
addition to post

[bad benson 1733]

but cant they just re-add it not for their sake but for us?

that is the question. same situation as with the arma 2 revive module. it helps no one, if you just remove stuff because it has some issues and don't replace it with a proper alternative. you don't have to use it in the campaign. no game reviewer will critic some editor modules, if they have some bugs. they won't even notice them. all this "let's just remove everything that doesn't work perfectly so the game looks more polished in the end" is going way out of hand. there's not much game left in the end, if this doesn't stop. just a tech demo.

i mean i have still high hopes for the campaign but something tells me that i might have too high expectations. but who knows. maybe that's where all the resources go.

[Tyl3r99 41]

that is the question. same situation as with the arma 2 revive module. it helps no one, if you just remove stuff because it has some issues and don't replace it with a proper alternative. you don't have to use it in the campaign. no game reviewer will critic some editor modules, if they have some bugs. they won't even notice them. all this "let's just remove everything that doesn't work perfectly so the game looks more polished in the end" is going way out of hand. there's not much game left in the end, if this doesn't stop. just a tech demo.

i mean i have still high hopes for the campaign but something tells me that i might have too high expectations. but who knows. maybe that's where all the resources go.

i agree

[zooloo75 834]

Hopefully we'll get what we want in ArmA4. :)

[Tyl3r99 41]

Hopefully we'll get what we want in ArmA4. :)

dont make me laugh hahaha :P

we know there is a deadline and if things are done after release i would be happy with that.

but i do think more features from the feed back tracker need to be taken into concideration

[MadocComadrin 12]

but cant they just re-add it not for their sake but for us?

also the sites at the moment are (sorry) "rubbish" doesn't make a base at all just scatters a few units at shit places. and spawns ifrits in places you wouldnt want them to be.

Use "Observation post" type for infantry only.

no base patrols

I'm not sure if its for every site, but I've seen sentry patrols spawn from a site and patrol the base.

needs to place units in buildings not just outside the front door.

That's just the Military Cargo House. They do place units inside the Military Cargo HQs, Military Barracks, and the Watchtowers.

lol so f**k knows why they resorted to the sites for the campaign... oh dear :(

Most of the site types aren't even finished. Give BIS a chance to flesh them out a bit.

[starky396 1]

I'm sorry if this was answered before, but this is really bugging me. Will the BLUfor, INDfor, and OPfor names be kept? Or will they change them to match the storyline, game, background, everything?

[purepassion 22]

I'm sorry if this was answered before, but this is really bugging me. Will the BLUfor, INDfor, and OPfor names be kept? Or will they change them to match the storyline, game, background, everything?

The factions will have individualized names. (It already started with "Blue" being NATO and "Green" being AAF) :)

[starky396 1]

No, I meant will say, CSAt be changed to Iran?

[purepassion 22]

No, I meant will say, CSAt be changed to Iran?

Why should it be changed to Iran? We don't know what exactly it means and only "Iran" could be very inaccurate. (It could also be something like "Central South Asia Treaty")

It will match the background of the yet unknown storyline.

[starky396 1]

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

[minimalaco 30]

Honestly, I expected some innovation in the creation of terrains (grids and rivers), but nothing has changed :(