When is this game going to be good?

[scaramoosh 10]

I tried again, I ended up getting bored of waiting for people to leave the base, they stood there for a good 20 mins. So I spent 10 mins driving across the map to the objective but for some reason the wheel decided to come off just for going over a big bump.......... aren't these military vehicles made for that? I ended up killing myself, going back to the base and everyone was still there lol. Eventually we all got in a helicopter and left to an objective, got there and had no clue what was going on, there were no enemies and all of a sudden the objective was updated and we all got in a helicopter or two and went to another object.

By which point I got bored and quit, another lame ARMA 3 experience...

I'm just gonna wait for Dayz on this map tbh lol, the game is not good, you're basically buying a poorly optimized engine and an SDK where you have to wait for the community to do the work the developers should have been doing and that's making a game. I loved Minecraft and played a lot of SWG Pre CU back in the day and still play EVE Online to this day, I'm not against open ended games....... however the world is so static, there aren't any physics, chairs stay static on the ground. So it isn't like you can go world building or do something like a sandbox game, you've just got a boring lifeless island with fuck all to do in it because every single server sucks.

I keep getting the same answer "it's only a beta"..... well the game comes out soon, I doubt there will be a lot of stuff added between now and then.

Also, why does my perspective change to like a few inches off the ground when I'm running up a hill? I go for a run daily and up lots of hills and I don't suddenly change to being the height of a dog.

Edited August 30, 2013 by scaramoosh

[spanishsurfer 58]

It's a complicated game and it's understandable that you don't know how to play. Shame you're giving up, once you know what you're doing the game is epic.

---------- Post added at 10:29 ---------- Previous post was at 10:26 ----------

So I guess you will teach all the new players how to play it? Don't you think that the game itself should point player in some direction which leads to fun experience? Of course, this leads us to what I've said before, you can't have one without the other.

The game is complex and there is a field manual which is VERY well done. Most missions come with a readme in the briefing section. Honestly, I think if players just took an extra 5 minutes to read what developers of the game and modders have already put out there we wouldn't have so many people complaining and lost...

The issue lies in that games today we expect to be able to just pick up and play, this is not so with Arma. You actually have to read...so take the extra time and read the instructions.

[dmarkwick 261]

Scaramoosh, opinions like this thread happen when people just want all their gameplay spoonfed to them. The basic fact of ArmA is... you get out what you put in. Put nothing in - get nothing out.

DayZ is an example of having the gameplay spoonfed to you. I'm not being disparaging when I say that - most games do exactly that. I don't now whether DayZ will ever be ported though (I highly doubt it - unless someone does it illegally). you might be limited to buying the standalone DayZ.

[korewarp 10]

Not entirely sure I agree

[Smurf 12]

Scaramoosh, opinions like this thread happen when people just want all their gameplay spoonfed to them. The basic fact of ArmA is... you get out what you put in. Put nothing in - get nothing out.

DayZ is an example of having the gameplay spoonfed to you. I'm not being disparaging when I say that - most games do exactly that. I don't now whether DayZ will ever be ported though (I highly doubt it - unless someone does it illegally). you might be limited to buying the standalone DayZ.

Spoonfed? Sorry but I have to disagree on this.

Arma is a PITA to play, you REALLY have to want to play it to get something good out of it. First there is the machine needed to run this;the whole control and game machanics which are quite unique; the concept of an open game (read: No defined gamemodes or substacial changes between "mission" to do the same thing); the addons\mods issue; and finally the bugs, glitches or problems that happen sometimes, most proeminent on releases. Of course, you need to have a group of people with the same mindset to make things work aswell, but thats not a game issue.

People that don't think these are problems have some years of Arma in their backs, someone that just joined the bunch will struggle to learn how to deal with all these things, from in-game configuration to mod activation and so. Luckly the community is very proned to help anyone even with the very basics things (as long the newb can register and post here, which isn't as straight forward aswell) and it's something we should be proud with, but things could be easier.

[froggyluv 2130]

games like BF3 and Crysis3 prove you can make an amazing looking game and have it running at 100+ fps. I'm sick of the excuses of it being a large island...... fuck all is going on in it and it's not all rendered at the same time. GTA V is a massive land mass and oh look that runs well on console hardware that's 8 years old at this point and it looks amazing as well. If I look at my hardware usage while I'm playing the game isn't heavy on anything, it's just poorly optimized. If you cannot make a game run well on top of the line hardware from today, then you've failed, buy an engine that actually works....

.

Funny, I find BF3 to look like ass when flying around in helo or jet -the ground, trees and everything just looks horrible. The indoors look great though imo. Crysis is great looking in that glossy, hyper bloomed, small contained kind of way but pretty beat very quickly and it's also almost the complete antithesis of a sandbox shooter so barely qualifies for a comparison. I think I played Crysis 2 twice after buying and then shelved it. GTA 4 (I believe you meant) has more "poorly optimized" "runs like baby diaper" threads then you can shake a stick out -try a quick google and you'll see what I mean.

however the world is so static, there aren't any physics, chairs stay static on the ground.

Agree here and hope that clutter gets some PhysX love so we can smash some shit proper :)

[chortles 263]

DayZ is an example of having the gameplay spoonfed to you. I'm not being disparaging when I say that - most games do exactly that. I don't now whether DayZ will ever be ported though (I highly doubt it - unless someone does it illegally). you might be limited to buying the standalone DayZ.

Yet a "spoonfed gameplay" that gave Maruk "stronger emotions than I’d ever felt in Arma". :lol:

[Velvet_Llama 10]

I'm not interested in having to join a group to have fun... I just want to be able to log in and play a structured mode that is obvious how to play.

What is funny Ultra settings FPS = 13 (in the last game I played) low settings FPS = 29............

Seriously this is the worst optimized game I have ever played!

It is strange you're getting such sluggish performance. For instance, I'm playing this on a 3 year old laptop (grad student, no money :( ). i7 processor, ATI Mobility Radeon 5600, 1GB VRAM, 8GB RAM, and I usually get around 40-50 FPS using a mixture of low to standard settings. Hopefully whatever is causing your hardware to not get along with the engine is fixed by the time the full game is released.

---------- Post added at 18:32 ---------- Previous post was at 18:28 ----------

I agree with the sentiments of the original poster. What ARMA3 doesn't give you off the bat is a proper 'this is what you do' MP mode when you first join, unlike BF3 for example where you have brightly coloured flags in red, and you see everyone rushing in the same direction (or spawning directly into the action). I've put forward the following idea that I'm hoping BIS would do something about ie.

What would really be great is a proper 'Warfare' type MP scenario developed, preferably developed by BIS rather than left to the community. The scenario (which I've posted elsewhere on the forums) is really meant to simulate 'real' war between two roughly equivalent sides (BLUEFOR/OPFOR) and tries to mimick real life issues eg. logistics, tactics, etc. I've put down my thoughts below...

That sounds like a pretty cool set of ideas to me. Great way to try and integrate many of the different systems in Arma into one cohesive game. Make it happen, get to work! ;)

[Flogger23m 2]

That is part of the problem with ArmA. Getting good missions is a pain as just about every mission requires a new mod or per-requesite; often times they don't tell you in the README and assume you figure it out. And not surprisingly, these mission-mods conflict with each other so your install will become unstable and not work well. To top it off, most of the missions you can find are honestly garbage.

The editor is powerful but spending an hour setting loadouts or other menial tasks with the anarchic editor style is also a pain.

MP... add in the typical issues that arise from MP (finding people, finding time, a server, ect.) and the extra performance hit ArmA takes online and add it with all the things I previously mentioned. That is your co-op experience. If you want to play PvP and reinforcement/building style stuff then you're wasting the potential of the game and may as well play BF3.

The key is improving the editor, which has essentially been neglected since ArmA 1. Likewise, AI commands and overall AI competency needs a huge facelift to play said missions properly without the AI screwing things up, two other areas that have so far been neglected. With just weeks left until release in ArmA 3 I don't see that changing. I am not holding my breathe post release either.

But, we did get the worlds worst water interaction in video game history and underwater scuba diving combat.

[kylania 567]

Yet a "spoonfed gameplay" that gave Maruk "stronger emotions than I’d ever felt in Arma". :lol:

Same here. I never wanted to play a game less than when I was playing DayZ.

[grillob3 11]

Just wait until Arma 3 PR is out! ;)

[KingScuba 1]

arma 3 is a military sandbox, and one of the few true sandboxes. It's as interesting or as dull as you want it to be. Public servers are very hectic, while private servers are generally more structured. go to armaholic and dl sp missions, or find a group to play with.

[[evo] dan 79]

probably a while, the game keeps crashing on me because of physx, and no fix is in sight...

[scrim 1]

This game should be in Alpha stage, but yet it's less than two weeks away from full release. Way to go.

[phlux1 10]

Dan;2484709']probably a while' date=' the game keeps crashing on me because of physx, and no fix is in sight...[/quote']

They rolled out fixes yesterday for these.

My problem with it is there is no structure, it's sort of like a map where you just let players do what they want with it. Now this is great in concept but it just leads to 99% of the servers being complete garbage, the game isn't fun to play.

What? You're just going to leave it at that? Most missions aren't even out yet, many are waiting for the full release, don't forget you're still playing a beta. I have no problem finding good coop games. How about you tell us what type of mission you want to play and we'll tell you if you're wasting your time or not?

The biggest issue is I have a 780, 4770K, 16GB ram, installed to an SSD, an Asus D2X sound card and I'm only running at 1080p. However for some reason the game runs at 30fps and if I go into a town it's down to 13fps.

I don't know what to tell you, I'm running a 3570k, 8gb of ram and an older 6870 graphics card and I'm at ultra with SMAA and FSAA with a 5k view distance and 1700 object distance and I get 48fps outside of cities and about 32-35 inside cities. There are issues with people running 32bit operating systems, of course this will be fixed, but the dev build gets updated daily and sometimes broken so this is to be expected. If you are tired of having these problems, unsub from the dev build. As a side note, if you have 16gb of ram and are running 32bit windows then, well, you know...

GTA V is a massive land mass and oh look that runs well on console hardware that's 8 years old at this point and it looks amazing as well.

Nowhere near as detailed as the landmass in ARMA 3 and there is a lot less going on under the hood. Here, objectively, you are incorrect.

All I can do now is wait and hope someone makes a good mod so I haven't completely wasted my money.

I spent $30 AUD on ARMA III, having a pizza with sides delivered costs the same. Quit acting like an entitled child.

Edited August 30, 2013 by Phlux1

[progamer 14]

Same here. I never wanted to play a game less than when I was playing DayZ.

Dayz was just another mod in Arma for me to enjoy but it got old fast when I wanted to either make or play a Coop rescue type mission with zombies and all the Militery assets.

[Zokah 1]

As for topic, i love this game so damn much! I always play and make decisions just like i would in real life. That means no rambo play-style etc and this game really reward such play-style.

If you find it to be boring then maybe this simply isn't the type of game for you? Or maybe try some action packed mod.

My complaint would be that we didn't get the TOH stuff. Bought TOH and X52 pro with pedals just to prepare for ArmA3 and i really loved how the helicopters handled in that game, you could have so much control over it.

Oh and i also hate the PhysX3_x86.dll crash with passion. Makes it almost unplayable. And my ticket about it is still unanswered for 23 days and counting.

They rolled out fixes yesterday for these.

Are you referring to this? "Various tweaks to PhysX and related performance"

Had two separate PhysX crashes just today so i wouldn't call it fixed.

[TrippyVisionTV 10]

It is pretty good already I think :P

[Minoza 11]

The game is complex and there is a field manual which is VERY well done. Most missions come with a readme in the briefing section. Honestly, I think if players just took an extra 5 minutes to read what developers of the game and modders have already put out there we wouldn't have so many people complaining and lost...

The issue lies in that games today we expect to be able to just pick up and play, this is not so with Arma. You actually have to read...so take the extra time and read the instructions.

Complex and bad design is not the same. I am not really new to Arma series, been through it 3 times now, I didn't get a chance to play OFP though. You answered yourself actually, yes, we expect to pick up and play, what is wrong about it? Arma isn't that kind of game, I agree again, but it should and it could be! It doesn't have to be any less complex but it has to get rid of bad design decisions. No, people do not only give up because it is complex, but because the way you learn it and get to play is made more complex than it should be. There are some great suggestions and rather simple solutions out there (I even named few) which would turn it into a lot better game. Look at it like this, if you're exprienced Arma player, you wont have much trouble anyways, you know what to expect, but if you're a new player, the game isn't really making it easy for you even in places where it could thus getting you frustrated before you could even get the experience. I can understand that bunch of Arma fans are ok with accepting bad design decisions because there are alternatives in terms of mods and they love the game so much, I love it too, but after A1, A2 and now A3, I'm a bit frustrated and disappointed to see same bad design decisions making it into the game.

[hellfire257 3]

Scaramoosh, opinions like this thread happen when people just want all their gameplay spoonfed to them. The basic fact of ArmA is... you get out what you put in. Put nothing in - get nothing out.

DayZ is an example of having the gameplay spoonfed to you. I'm not being disparaging when I say that - most games do exactly that. I don't now whether DayZ will ever be ported though (I highly doubt it - unless someone does it illegally). you might be limited to buying the standalone DayZ.

100% agree. If you're not willing to put anything in then this game is not for you.

[becario 1]

My problem with it is there is no structure, it's sort of like a map where you just let players do what they want with it. Now this is great in concept but it just leads to 99% of the servers being complete garbage, the game isn't fun to play. I've only have 1 or 2 great experiences and those were months apart, it just takes too long to get anything good going on in this game and I end up just not bothering. It's why I liked Dayz because it put structure into ARMA 2, made it simple to just get in and play and not have to spend ages looking for a good server with something going on. If I'm honest the only reason I bought this game was the hope of Dayz being ported to the main island. However I have genuinely tried to play it as an ARMA game....... sadly though it's just too time consuming to try and find fun gameplay on a server.

Maybe ArmaIII is not the right game for you. Almost every time I play I have awesome moments, and the occasional epic one. Two days ago, for example, I got into a Ahoy server to play I&A. My friends were not online so I didn't expect to play as a team. But 3 other guys and me started playing as a squad, communicating, covering every angle, taking roles... that was an epic unexpected moment.

What missions are you playing? Are you going full wasteland like most of the people? Are you trying SP or coop missions? Have you played in hardcore servers, following roles (military missions, not "stratis/altis life ones)?

I agree with the sentiments of the original poster. What ARMA3 doesn't give you off the bat is a proper 'this is what you do' MP mode when you first join, unlike BF3 for example where you have brightly coloured flags in red, and you see everyone rushing in the same direction (or spawning directly into the action). I've put forward the following idea that I'm hoping BIS would do something about ie.

What would really be great is a proper 'Warfare' type MP scenario developed, preferably developed by BIS rather than left to the community. The scenario (which I've posted elsewhere on the forums) is really meant to simulate 'real' war between two roughly equivalent sides (BLUEFOR/OPFOR) and tries to mimick real life issues eg. logistics, tactics, etc. I've put down my thoughts below:

A dynamic war campaign encompassing the following:

- the island (Altis) commences with a visible 'front line' (on the map that is) with everything behind enemy lines being red on the map. You can't see any enemy movement on the map unless you undertake LLRP or UAV missions. Whatever they can see will be visible on the map eg. vehicles, inf, a/c, etc. Hopefully this promotes the need for a 'general' or someone who can come up with tactics/strategy as to where to attack, etc.

- the 'front line' is visible on the map and is based on what towns/area we capture vs OPFOR captures (so its consistently moving).

- each side has a main base from which major reinforcements are provided. Each side will also have FOBs and/or towns that they capture/occupy. The inf/vehicles at each FOB MUST be resupplied on a regular basis by vehicle convoys (or helicopters but with less capacity, more for urgent supplies, etc). This brings in the whole logistics function into the game, and the need to constantly resupply enemy forces. No unlimited virtual ammo boxes here. This also allows for interdiction missions and the ability to ambush convoys (air and/or LRRPs).

- if we attack a town and capture it, the front line then has a 'bulge' in it, and if we keep pushing forward, we create a bigger bulge..however this just means our flanks are exposed (as IRL). This works similar to the Domination type mode however there's more 'structure' to it rather than purely jumping from place to place with no clear plan/direction. On the same token, OPFOR may attack a town, capture it and leave a token force eg. 1 platoon or even a squad with a BMP or something (depending on the size of the town) before moving on OR may leave a large force.

- as we attack a town, the OPFOR may choose to defend, not defend (ie. run), counterattack or attack somewhere else. So if you put all your resources into attacking a small town, the enemy could do the same to your base, etc. Again, recon becomes very important (this is where little birds would be excellent..kind of like LOH missions in vietnam)

- if we're defending a town, OPFOR forces may attack it in force ie. atleast a company of inf, armoured vehicles, artillery, etc thus leading to a major battle which could result in either victory or defeat.

- this should allow us to do air strikes on their main base or interdiction missions against their trucks, armour, etc (and same for them)

- we should have air strikes on a regular basis by OPFOR thus requiring squads/platoons/etc to constantly have anti air weapons available.

- OPFOR can launch commando missions in squads of maybe 5 like LRRPs calling in arty, air strikes, etc. This should include the use of 'frogmen' or submersibles.

- OPFOR should have heavy artillery (SP) which would constantly move around after doing a fire mission. Imagine launching an attack on a town only to lose 3/4s of your armour/infantry through well placed artillery.

- the OPFOR main base must be heavily defended esp from air attack and should have the ability to call in some reinforcements from off-map

- this should promote using LRRPs or something ie. where a small squad (like the OPFOR) gets dropped behind enemy lines to observe/report/call in arty, etc.

Obviously the above is not everything but just a starter. The key here is a constantly evolving/moving battlefield, the need for logistics (and the need to protect said logistics) as well as the need for updated intelligence which makes good use of automated intelligence gathering (UAVs incl the vehicles) as well as manned intel eg. LRRPs or little birds flying recon and reporting back.

Can you imagine the immersiveness of this compared to something like Domination? In Dom, everyone runs around to randomly generated 'capture this' points...this atleast gives each person an idea of the large scale of the war, so you may end up taking your squad south (instead of north) because there appears to be a large push. Think about armour, artillery (SP), etc....if the OPFOR are massing south and all your heavy armour is north...how do you stop them?

Anyway, thats my $0.02 worth. I'd love to see something like this implemented. "

This is where you have a proper command structure with someone who allocates 'missions' eg. - sniping missions (get dropped off in the middle of nowhere to snipe a general, or go in by sea, etc)

- air strikes on vehicle convoys

- air strikes on ammo dumps, etc

- SF strikes on key positions/objectives/etc

this gives purpose to playing online rather than the usual ' run from red spot to red spot'. I reckon it would be perfect if we could get something like that...just like playing an online campaign like 'Scorched Earth' for IL2 1946 (where you were allocated proper missions that had implications if you were successful or a failure).

The above is just my idea and by no means perfect or something that should be developed...but its an idea of SOMETHING that BIS should be pushing out ie. more MP modes which are easy for the new players to jump in and realise 'oh thats what I have to do'.

There are missions like that. For example "Benny Warfare".

Edited August 31, 2013 by becario

[zukov 484]

Maybe ArmaIII is not the right game for you. Almost every time I play I have awesome moments, and the occasional epic one. Two days ago, for example, I got into a Ahoy server to play I&A. My friends were not online so I didn't expect to play as a team. But 3 other guys and me started playing as a squad, communicating, covering every angle, taking roles... that was an epic unexpected moment.

What missions are you playing? Are you going full wasteland like most of the people? Are you trying SP or coop missions? Have you played in hardcore servers, following roles (military missions, not "stratis/altis life ones)?

coop isn't multiplayer

[Varanon 892]

coop isn't multiplayer

It involves more than one player, so I would call it multiplayer.

[zukov 484]

this game on 12 september will ship without SP campaign and MP! a part maybe with 2 missions "seize something", that no one has seen on footage. so far the MP part of this game is "wasteland" stop

[becario 1]

coop isn't multiplayer

this game on 12 september will ship without SP campaign and MP! a part maybe with 2 missions "seize something", that no one has seen on footage. so far the MP part of this game is "wasteland" stop

Do you really know the meaning of "multiplayer"?