Arma 3 full analysis - The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

[dmarkwick 261]

^^ Yes I remember it now, I just never had a use for it :) I do remember seeing it now & then though. To be honest, I never spend too much time swapping stuff around like this. I'm a base-level grunt at heart :)

[Alwarren 2766]

As far as I've seen, the FAK is a one-time health boost that regenerates you to about three-quarters or so health? I don't really give it much consideration I just view it as a basic bandage + painkiller each soldier carries. They can be removed by the mission designer if that gameplay is not desired.

It is a one-time health boost that is available in masses in every vehicle, every solider you shoot carries one, and it almost regenerates your FULL health. It doesn't stop bleeding (because you don't bleed), It almost completely replaces the medic.

And again, it should not be the mission designer's job to unbreak something.

It's a gameplay improvement that you don't have to cycle through all kinds of other selections first before throwing one - I think you're right in that it needs calming down a bit, but overall I'd call it an improvement yes.

I'll give you that, but the cost is way too high. I tried it, I stuffed a carryall backpack with 50 grenades, it was easy to spam them all out lat about half the fire rate as the GMG. Something is dreadfully wrong with that thought.

Well I never played a campaign so I never saw this :)

Wait... you never played CWC or Resistance? Unrelated, but you're missing something.

Is the helo inventory available in flight?

Frankly, I don't know. Last time I checked, at least the Littlebird's inventory wasn't. In Arma 2, you used to do that via the map->Gear dialog, which has been axed.

The mission designer has a lot of resoponsibility to achieve the gameplay he's looking for. Simply demanding the game already plays how YOU wish it to play isn't going to cut it I'm afraid, and it never has. Nor should it ever IMO

Oh but it isn't just me. A majority of people finds the first aid system to be lacking, even BIS themselves said they would have preferred to do better but lacked the time. But even the often laughed-at Operation Flashpoint Dragon Rising had a better system where your FAK would only stop bleeding. So let's not glorify this as a gameplay feature, it's an emergency solution, and that's even what BIS devs said themselves about it.

.

Well myself I believe you're overdramatising the whole FAK/useless medic thing. Remove the FAKs, hey presto you need a medic. It sounds terribly easy to me to achieve this gameplay. You are complaining about default loadouts, well like it or not it's part of the default loadout. Just.... remove it.

Remove it from all units, playable or unplayable, from all vehicles, all loadouts, all ammovoxes, even stuff that get's spawned in? Why isn't there an option for that in the description.ext? This is making things unnecessarily complicated.

Besides, the issues don't stop with the FAK's. The medic's healing is instantaneous and you can do whatever you like during the time. There is no more situation where you are down and need a teammates help to drag you out of the fire. There are dramatic moments that make the game much more immersive.

Well, let's see... the ragdoll improves gameplay. How? Well because now I can't rely on recognising pre-made death animations to know if that unit I hit is really dead or not.

Well they drop their gun when they die. premade or not, pretty much a dead giveaway (pun intended). It certainly looks nicer than the generic anims though. Optical plus, gameplay wise meh.

I note that, especially when a unit is partially visible like in a building or behind a low wall, when he goes down it could be either him dying or him going prone... the differnce is negligible most often. I still need to be aware of that unit's location when I move in and I still need to consider him a threat.

Was the same n old Arma 2, you could never rely say whether they are dead unless you saw them fall backwards.

Also, a dead body used to be quite easy to spot as there were only a limited number of death poses. Now when I see a strange object I'm compelled to be more careful and place a few rounds into it just to be sure.

Granted, now you find a lot of bottom-to-the-sky deads, but you are overstretching it here. The gameplay relevance of that is rather limited.

Layered fog improves gameplay for me. I've proven to myself that AI see at different distances according to the layer of fog he's in, and it makes me happy to have to bear that in mind when I move into lower/higher areas.

I'll give you that. So we now have one real gameplay relevant improvement.

The stances improve gameplay incredibly, I doubt I need to explain that one :)

Two, although this one is tainted by the general arcady movement. One step forward, two steps back.

Etc

Not Etc. You can't tell me there are only two gameplay improvements.

[Beagle 684]

I guess we can see the generation shift in full process now.

[Varanon 892]

As far as I've seen, the FAK is a one-time health boost that regenerates you to about three-quarters or so health? I don't really give it much consideration I just view it as a basic bandage + painkiller each soldier carries. They can be removed by the mission designer if that gameplay is not desired.

"Just a basic bandage" that does what basic bandages do... you know, stop bleeding, regrow severed limbs, remove all bullets from your body and clean your uniform (ok, healing in A2 also cleaned the uniform, so I guess that doesn't count).

The point is: If you are at 0.0001 health, you jsut use a FAK and you are at 0-75 health (1.0 is full).

the ragdoll improves gameplay. How? Well because now I can't rely on recognising pre-made death animations to know if that unit I hit is really dead or not. I note that, especially when a unit is partially visible like in a building or behind a low wall, when he goes down it could be either him dying or him going prone... the differnce is negligible most often. I still need to be aware of that unit's location when I move in and I still need to consider him a threat.

And that differs from the the preivous "death animations"... how ? whether a killed enemy goes prone behind a wall, plays his death animation behind a wall, or ragdolls behind a wall is irrelevant. Ragdolls are an immersion feature (a very welcome one, indeed) that prevents the sometimes rather comical "corpse is kept up on the building by his toenail" type death animations. But it's hardly a gameplay feature.

The stances improve gameplay incredibly, I doubt I need to explain that one

Actually, yes you need to explain that, because they aren't changing anything "incredibly". Sure, it's a nice addition, and definitely a gameplay element, But incredibly ? Given that in Arma, most engagements are not in towns (because of AI shortcomings), the adjustable stances have much less of an impact than you make it seem. Definitely not incredibly.

Layered fog improves gameplay for me. I've proven to myself that AI see at different distances according to the layer of fog he's in, and it makes me happy to have to bear that in mind when I move into lower/higher areas.

Agreed, the layered fog adds some possibilities.

However, all the above are just minor details. There is still the stupid hitpoint system, still no armor model to speak of (check Iron Front and you see what I mean), the terrain is still a uniform grid instead of a multi-resolution mesh, the animation system is still the old one, etc..

And of course, you can drop on your belly and turn around 360 degrees in less then a second (a feat the AI takes about half a minute for). You can still lug around insane amounts of weight. At least that is being addressed, but look through the fatigue thread and how many times we had to give the same kind of explanations, argue about it and just got "future tech" or "it's a game" as an answer, you got to wonder why it is just now addressed.

So in your opinion, ragdolls, layered fog and stances are the gameplay improvements you come up with when asked ? That's not much, if you think about how many features have been removed (specifically in terms of realism) and how little content the final game will contain.

[metalcraze 290]

I generally agree except for-

"- no TOH flying model"

The simplified flight model is just fine for ARMA. Air assets are in game to support the action on the ground, complicating them further will mainly lead to frustration amongst the player base.

The player base that asks for that flight model that you wouldn't even notice is there due to a serverside option to switch it on / off?

I'm sorry but ArmA playerbase aren't only casual deathmatch players that for some reason should dictate to everyone else how series that should never care about a casual player should be.

The stances improve gameplay incredibly, I doubt I need to explain that one

They improve only pvp gameplay. They hurt every other type of missions where AI is present because as it is AI has trouble using cover with basic 3 stances from ArmA2, yet current A3 stance system makes players simply untouchable. If at least BIS expanded cover memory points to force AI into a more appropriate sub-stance instead of the main three - then it wouldn't be a problem.

Well, let's see... the ragdoll improves gameplay. How? Well because now I can't rely on recognising pre-made death animations to know if that unit I hit is really dead or not.

Not true. Current completely unnatural ragdoll of ArmA3 is very easy to distinguish from a mocapped going prone animation. Shooting soldiers and not killing them doesn't ragdoll them and it doesn't make them fall down. I know it was one of BIS hype points but in reality it made no difference to the gameplay apart from dead soldiers not clipping through walls.

"Just a basic bandage" that does what basic bandages do... you know, stop bleeding

Alas Arma3 got rid of bleeding.

Edited August 12, 2013 by metalcraze

[wiresnsnakes 1]

Im no milsim fan and normally avoid everything as dull as games with as a present war-setting. So i can live with differences to real weapons and vehicles. Anyway, Arma got many unique things in it, that made me buy it.

Just one fundamental thing regarding realism really is an issue for me and its bound to the things that make arma special, the scale to be more precisly or better: The ranges you interact (/fight) at.

The conidtions on the different ranges are totally different regarding the visibility of units and so have a huge impact on the gameplay and the immersion. It just seems like BI doesnt see this as important, but it just ruins the whole infantry-combat over huge distances, cause you are far too easy to spot and limited to reduce your visibilty.

-Low poly landscape

-blurry textures

-no grass/clutter

-just a few 3d objects

-no shadows at the distance

-different impact from lightning ressources on different objects (distant infanrty units are bright lighted in opposite to the surroundings.

Its really kind of a ripoff, if you makle everything shiny about 100-200m and beyond that you get the same 10 year old game. I never experienced such a letdown, but arma is the only game I played with the potential for that.

[dmarkwick 261]

Not Etc. You can't tell me there are only two gameplay improvements.

Well I gave more than two - you just decided to dismiss some of them :) as you say yourself - its a subjective thing. There are many gameplay improvements, enough to make me play ArmA2 content through ArmA3 rather than play ArmA2. I don't really feel like having to sit down and remember what they are and list them all. I'd have to sit down with A3 open to do that.

---------- Post added at 14:59 ---------- Previous post was at 14:54 ----------

"Just a basic bandage" that does what basic bandages do... you know, stop bleeding, regrow severed limbs, remove all bullets from your body and clean your uniform (ok, healing in A2 also cleaned the uniform, so I guess that doesn't count).

The point is: If you are at 0.0001 health, you jsut use a FAK and you are at 0-75 health (1.0 is full).

*shrug* I don't particularly like them (or rather their implementation) either, but I don't see something that can be changed by mission design as game-breaking.

And that differs from the the preivous "death animations"... how ? whether a killed enemy goes prone behind a wall, plays his death animation behind a wall, or ragdolls behind a wall is irrelevant. Ragdolls are an immersion feature (a very welcome one, indeed) that prevents the sometimes rather comical "corpse is kept up on the building by his toenail" type death animations. But it's hardly a gameplay feature.

Well I call it a gameplay feature, for the reasons I gave :)

Actually, yes you need to explain that, because they aren't changing anything "incredibly". Sure, it's a nice addition, and definitely a gameplay element, But incredibly ? Given that in Arma, most engagements are not in towns (because of AI shortcomings), the adjustable stances have much less of an impact than you make it seem. Definitely not incredibly.

Oh come on now. The stance improvements are quite major. I refuse to explain something that makes so much difference to ordinary ArmA2 gameplay :)

So in your opinion, ragdolls, layered fog and stances are the gameplay improvements you come up with when asked ? That's not much, if you think about how many features have been removed (specifically in terms of realism) and how little content the final game will contain.

I see much improved gameplay. I don't have the motivation to relentlessly list each & every one I can think of, I'd need to be playing with the browser open.

[Alwarren 2766]

I don't really feel like having to sit down and remember what they are and list them all. I'd have to sit down with A3 open to do that.

I see. So, you make a generic statement, and then shy away from backing up that statement because it would be too much work? Fine, no point in discussing with you then.

[dmarkwick 261]

They improve only pvp gameplay. They hurt every other type of missions where AI is present because as it is AI has trouble using cover with basic 3 stances from ArmA2, yet current A3 stance system makes players simply untouchable. If at least BIS expanded cover memory points to force AI into a more appropriate sub-stance instead of the main three - then it wouldn't be a problem.

Well what can I tell you - it improves my gameplay :)

Not true. Current completely unnatural ragdoll of ArmA3 is very easy to distinguish from a mocapped going prone animation. Shooting soldiers and not killing them doesn't ragdoll them and it doesn't make them fall down. I know it was one of BIS hype points but in reality it made no difference to the gameplay apart from dead soldiers not clipping through walls.

All I can tell you is that a dead unit falling to his knees looks to me like a unit getting down deliberately. I need to be a lot closer in before making the judgement that he's really dead, and often I do that by placing a couple of rounds into the shape I see.

[metalcraze 290]

*shrug* I don't particularly like them (or rather their implementation) either, but I don't see something that can be changed by mission design as game-breaking.

It can't be changed by a mission design.

Simply because nobody will bother. So I'm sorry but "fix it yourself" is not an excuse.

And even then we would be stuck with a medic that insta-heals by casting a magical spell and never runs out of supplies. So I'm not sure what's worse.

Well what can I tell you - it improves my gameplay

Good for you.

All I can tell you is that a dead unit falling to his knees looks to me like a unit getting down deliberately. I need to be a lot closer in before making the judgement that he's really dead, and often I do that by placing a couple of rounds into the shape I see.

Again good for you but I can easily see when soldier falls down in a way that human skeleton simply wouldn't allow. He falls down literally like a ragdoll. Also he drops the weapon too which is another way to see he's truly dead.

Edited August 12, 2013 by metalcraze

[dmarkwick 261]

I see. So, you make a generic statement, and then shy away from backing up that statement because it would be too much work? Fine, no point in discussing with you then.

enough to make me play ArmA2 content through ArmA3 rather than play ArmA2.

5 chars

[nireus912 1]

Totally agree with OP. But it's understandable that they have so much problems in this game since they started selling game in alpha phase. It's obious the dev team is out of money.

[dale0404 5]

Just read this thread and I must admit (as many, many other people have) that the medical system definitely needs work. There HAS TO BE a reason to have a medic, there has to be right?

[dmarkwick 261]

It can't be changed by a mission design.

Simply because nobody will bother. So I'm sorry but "fix it yourself" is not an excuse.

Wait - aren't you one of the guys who loudly complained that balance should be achieved by mission design? Now you're suggesting that "won't" happen for some odd reason.

And even then we would be stack with a medic that insta-heals by casting a magical spell and never runs out of supplies. So I'm not sure what's worse.

The main point is not the time it takes to actually heal, but the fact that the medic is the guy who would need to heal you. He has to get to you, has to be him, etc. I doubt there would be too much appreciation of the (vanilla) gameplay involved with having to wait 10 minutes to patch a guy up.

[dale0404 5]

The main point is not the time it takes to actually heal, but the fact that the medic is the guy who would need to heal you. He has to get to you, has to be him, etc. I doubt there would be too much appreciation of the (vanilla) gameplay involved with having to wait 10 minutes to patch a guy up.

No, the main point is that a medic is not needed at the moment as long as you have FAKs to heal with, remember a FAK heals you to 80% of full health and there is no discernible difference between that and full health.

[metalcraze 290]

Wait - aren't you one of the guys who loudly complained that balance should be achieved by mission design? Now you're suggesting that "won't" happen for some odd reason.

What do apples have to do with oranges?

The point is that there are no game mechanics for a medic system to be improved in any way through mission design.

The main point is not the time it takes to actually heal, but the fact that the medic is the guy who would need to heal you. He has to get to you, has to be him, etc. I doubt there would be too much appreciation of the (vanilla) gameplay involved with having to wait 10 minutes to patch a guy up.

Among whom? Casual players aka the new ArmA standard?

Because in ArmA2 getting wounded mattered - got shot, get incapacitated, still able to crawl in pain and shoot though but you are also bleeding out and can die from that. You can be pulled/carried out from combat area to either be given first aid by anyone that doesn't heal injuries or use medic to heal them too. And it took up to 30 seconds making getting shot matter.

So how's that better in ArmA3? You are either dead or you still can fight without any problems making medics completely optional and more of a "let's pretend we need a medic" since there are no gameplay mechanics to back that kind of gameplay up anymore.

In ArmA2 there were mechanics for realistic play. In ArmA3 we must pretend it's realistic.

[Varanon 892]

So I'm sorry but "fix it yourself" is not an excuse.

In fact, the "fix it yourself" is becoming my most hated expression these days (right after "It's a game"). I can only shake my head at the amount of times people say "fix it yourself", "the community will fix it", and most of the time (DMarkwick is of course an exception) it comes from people that do NOT make missions and do NOT make addons. So basically, most of the time, when people say "fix it yourself" it's rather "You fix it for me", which is annoying to say the least. The Arma games have always been great due to mods, mission makers, websites like Armaholic, etc, but exactly those people are becoming the scapegoat for everything.

Don't take user-created content for granted.

[Moroe 10]

I would love to see running water, rain, working bi-pods, switching through weapons while moving, running vault(like in dayz), better recoil, more sea-life(also a more active sea, like big waves), more water sources(ponds, lakes, maybe even puddles after rain).

[Varanon 892]

I would love to see running water, rain, working bi-pods, switching through weapons while moving, running vault(like in dayz), better recoil, more sea-life(also a more active sea, like big waves), more water sources(ponds, lakes, maybe even puddles after rain).

Rain is rumored to come back into the dev build. If you watch the not-so-live-stream, you see that their build has rain no longer disabled in the weather settings, so I guess it's being worked on.

I think Dwarden said deployable bipods are likely to come post release.

Seas and lakes... yeah, I wonder about those. I haven't seen any on any Altis footage, and seeing the difficulties in AiA (you can dive, but you don't see the water surface, and you can explode when entering the lake) I would guess they are one more axed features. I hope I'm wrong.

Switching weapons on the move is, I think, not possible due to the animation system (which is unchanged from Arma 2).

There's a mod for vaulting (the anim is part of the standard anims, just not used)

[dmarkwick 261]

What do apples have to do with oranges?

The point is that there are no game mechanics for a medic system to be improved in any way through mission design.

I meant that the mission designer can remove the FAKs if that's the gameplay he's looking for. I agree that the medical system, if the mission designer wants different gameplay, needs a more "addony" solution :)

Among whom? Casual players aka the new ArmA standard?

Because in ArmA2 getting wounded mattered - got shot, get incapacitated, still able to crawl in pain and shoot though but you are also bleeding out and can die from that. You can be pulled/carried out from combat area to either be given first aid by anyone that doesn't heal injuries or use medic to heal them too. And it took up to 30 seconds making getting shot matter.

Up to 30 seconds eh? :) it sounds like a minor detail to me, compared to the initial notion that first you need to get to a medic/have a medic get to you.

So how's that better in ArmA3? You are either dead or you still can fight without any problems making medics completely optional and more of a "let's pretend we need a medic" since there are no gameplay mechanics to back that kind of gameplay up anymore.

In ArmA2 there were mechanics for realistic play. In ArmA3 we must pretend it's realistic.

Well I believe I explained how that can happen, with mission design. Aside from a more involved medic system that is. The continous complaint about FAKs can only go so far, when the possibility exists to remove them IMO.

[Ezcoo 47]

I understand that development process of A3 has not gone like expected, but... It hurts me to say this as BIS is definitely my favourite developer but, to me, A3 begins to look like a sandbox... without the sand.

Of course, mods will fix this partially later (but it doesn't personally affect me because I won't have time to play or develop anything in A3 anymore when the mods kick in). The futuristic units and scenario and the streamlining (read: way too casual gameplay in vanilla) are both things that I've found too hard to accept.

I've always found that the things that make the Arma series differ from other FPS games positively are the diverse simulation of existing stuff and relatively unforgiving (realistic) and large environment. When I open A3, I get instantly the feeling that all these things are gone. There's no diversity, there are no real units, and the environment is anything but unforgiving, rendering the teamplay less essential. What is left reminds me more from a casual FPS, which is a category where eg. BF is many times better. A3 is not Arma to me anymore, and playing it is anything but fun to me. The more I play it, the less I like it. I still appreciate the work that has been done, but I don't like the decisions of project lead.

And now that we're in a situation where mods should fix everything, the need for the automated addon sync is more desperate than ever. Just think about the number of A2 servers with great content and gameplay but which have been staying empty for the very majority of their lifetime, because people simply don't have time or knowledge to install and keep all the required addons updated. And the situation in A3 is just getting worse.

When there's not much content in the core game, servers must rely on relatively high number of mods to retrieve the diversity of content, that can be PITA because there will probably always be mods that are broken due to patches. Community content creators are not responsible of updating and fixing their artwork unlike BIS, so especially now that we keep getting updates frequently via Steam, the mods will break frequently. Additionally, I believe that the player base will get really fragmented because there's no universal addon sync. Supply and demand won't match, which leads to situation where the potential of the game is used even worse than in A2. This kind of Doomsday scenario is becoming more and more likely in my opinion, which is a sad thing.

[metalcraze 290]

Up to 30 seconds eh? :) it sounds like a minor detail to me, compared to the initial notion that first you need to get to a medic/have a medic get to you.

Yeah but you don't need a medic to get to you in ArmA3. Got wounded? Just run to a medic like nothing happened. Or apply insta-healing FAK.

And those up-to-30 seconds are up-to-30 seconds both you and medic being combat ineffective. It forced you to play really carefully.

And on a side note - ACE2 never managed to achieve this kind of wounding consequences due to something definitely being hardcoded. In ACE there was no wounded state like this which is a pity. You either lose consciousness or you are still combat effective whereas First Aid Module nailed the wounded state rather well. This is in relation to "mods will fix it".

Well I believe I explained how that can happen, with mission design. Aside from a more involved medic system that is. The continous complaint about FAKs can only go so far, when the possibility exists to remove them IMO.

You forgot that my point was that nobody will bother to do that. You'd need mission makers to balance missions from scratch specifically without any FAKs and with only medics in mind - and who will bother with that when medic gameplay mechanics are just as bad?

You cannot bleed out from wounds anyway. The worst effect is you moving around at a walking pace.

And the way medic heals you looks more like BIS needs to rename him into Combat Shaman.

Edited August 12, 2013 by metalcraze

[Polygon 11]

I'm fine with FAKs existence in a mission, but not with what config values they have. If on a more arcadey side - they heal too much. If we're talking realism - they should NOT heal, only stop bleeding. Spamming FAKs makes default BIS missions terrible and not feel realistic / immersive.

Why not introduce a parameter for every official SP/MP BIS mission to turn on/off FAKs? After all, the flexibility of this engine and its capabilities is highlighted as a strong advantage over others.

Here's some of my other concerns for AI:

- Soldiers are still not forced go prone after shot in the leg(s) with a sniper rifle,

- enemy AI dies after 2-3 9mm bullets in a leg,

- soldiers do not drop their weapon when hit at hands because of impact shock

- and other small tweaks.

Fixing the ridiculous grenade throwing animation should be a TOP priority right now, not churning out some tasteless UAVs / UGVs into dev branch.

[dmarkwick 261]

Yeah but you don't need a medic to get to you in ArmA3. Got wounded? Just run to a medic like nothing happened. Or apply insta-healing FAK.

And those up-to-30 seconds are up-to-30 seconds both you and medic being combat ineffective. It forced you to play really carefully.

I really don't get you sometimes. You seem to willfully ignore solutions while endlessly complaining that something is not to your liking. Got wounded? perhaps you cannot run because of wound. perhaps you cannot simply move to the medic with impunity because, you know, there's a reason you got wounded - there's a firefight going on.

You insistence that all anyone would do when wounded is to simply skip over to he medic for insta-heal seems diluted when you realise that among all that activity is more activity, but you choose to ignore that idea and simply concentrate on what happens when a unit meets a medic: i.e. too fast to heal. And this is aside from your absolute refusal to akcnowledge that FAKs can be removed. Which brings us to...

You forgot that my point was that nobody will bother to do that. You'd need mission makers to balance missions from scratch specifically without any FAKs and with only medics in mind - and who will bother with that when medic gameplay mechanics are just as bad?

YES - MISSION MAKERS BALANCE THINGS FROM SCRATCH. That's what they do, ArmA isn't an auto-balance mechanism, the mission designer needs to make sure the gameplay he wants is realised through design. Look, I'm sorry that you refuse to believe this can happen, but also maybe the missions you're playing are designed that way, with default loadouts. Don't like it? Do something about it other than complain of their existence - make a mission the way you wish it to be played, like you're supposed to. That's a core feature of ArmA.

You cannot bleed out from wounds anyway. The worst effect is you moving around at a walking pace.

And the way medic heals you looks more like BIS needs to rename him into Combat Shaman.

Yes I agree that bleeding should be implemented if it's not already. I also don't believe the actual animation is even remotely important.

[Azzur33 1]

If I remember correctly, there will be some kind of First Aid Module like in Arma 2.

I do not believe we are seeing the Final Version of wounding/medic/first aid system in the Beta, so judging Arma 3 at this point for the lack of better system is a bit unfair.

Current system kind of works, but doesn't feel right. And the whole wounding system is one of the big BAD's at the moment.

I don't know if there is a thread or/and devs thougths about it, but I guess there should be.

There are so many differend ways it could be done, Arma 2 module wasn't that good.

Finding a solution that actually works, feels right, doesn't break anything else (like AI) is not easy.

Edited August 13, 2013 by Azzur33