Disapointed with the full release content

[metalcraze 290]

ArmA2 had campaign, more than two APCs which also had cockpits and more than two turrets for them. It also had a lot of nice editor modules which were cut out in ArmA3. How exactly was it worse?

Bugs? ArmA3 is ridden with them.

Instability? ArmA3 still suffers from random crashes, bad performance in MP and runs out of memory.

Of course there's no campaign and a huge chunk of editor modules is gone so you can't really encounter any "gamebreaking" bugs since there's nothing to break.

[xx_fr0st-w0lf_xx 10]

I'm used to the buggy release, I don't mind the AI I got used to that as well (and there will be some mods to improve it) but what is absolutely inexcusable is the content. I just do not understand how they could release so little content after we had so much in arma 2.

[David77 10]

ArmA2 had campaign, more than two APCs which also had cockpits and more than two turrets for them. It also had a lot of nice editor modules which were cut out in ArmA3. How exactly was it worse?

Bugs? ArmA3 is ridden with them.

Instability? ArmA3 still suffers from random crashes, bad performance in MP and runs out of memory.

Of course there's no campaign and a huge chunk of editor modules is gone so you can't really encounter any "gamebreaking" bugs since there's nothing to break.

I've not had even one CTD thus far. The other titles were riddled with bugs aswell. Also, which gamebreaking editor modules were taken out of A3? A good portion of A2s modules didn't even work as intended or were half assed. On another note; The editor has also improved alot, and became much more convenient than ever before. Sure I could get into the cfg viewer and the gui editor back in A2 with no problems, but now these things are built in =P. Aside from people being mad about no 3d editor, the editor has improved.

Edited September 16, 2013 by David77

[Gekkibi 11]

Also, which gamebreaking editor modules were taken out of A3? A good portion of A2s modules didn't even work as intended or were half assed.

Wounding modules for starters. Right now we have access-extra-life-by-using-your-action-menu -model.

[David77 10]

Wounding modules for starters. Right now we have access-extra-life-by-using-your-action-menu -model.

Fair enough. Give it some time, there will be plenty "wounding" scripts =)

[Gekkibi 11]

Fair enough. Give it some time, there will be plenty "wounding" scripts =)

But not yesterday when we needed it the most. Maybe we're going to get one after Arma 3 gets its first -75% discount on steam. "Give it some time" is not a valid argument because the price of the paid product is going down while we wait...

Besides, I was hoping for something more than just a wounding script. Before the 180 degree turn they were talking about improved wounding system.

[David77 10]

But not yesterday when we needed it the most. Maybe we're going to get one after Arma 3 gets its first -75% discount on steam. "Give it some time" is not a valid argument because the price of the paid product is going down while we wait...

Besides, I was hoping for something more than just a wounding script. Before the 180 degree turn they were talking about improved wounding system.

Well, the wounding modules in A2 weren't that great to begin with imo. Also, I didn't mean that Bi would give us a script or modules for wounding, but a community member rather. Could happen today, tomorrow or w/e. There will be alot of "needed" content released after the price goes down... That's not any different than arma2 or any other game for that matter.

[Harbinger2456 10]

Maybe we're going to get one after Arma 3 gets its first -75% discount on steam.

I'd give that about a month, seeing as how A2 beats this game in every way.

[David77 10]

I'd give that about a month, seeing as how A2 beats this game in every way.

What does Arma2 beating Arma3 in every way (your opinion) have to do with waiting a month for a community made wounding module or scripts? Where do you get that estimate? Maybe I'll go write a wounding script or make my own module today...

[Tyl3r99 41]

i know its off topic, but for everyone who wants wounding... download TPW_MOD it adds some good aspects of gameplay including...

foggy breath

wounding bleed out system

ambient civs

ambient cars

ambient boats

ambient helicopters (as thats all we pretty much have!)

house lights (sp/mp)

in vehicle radio chatter

which all is configurable! is userconfig

back to topic...

we need more content soon :rolleyes:

[-RFP-Avi 10]

I personally disagree with statement: "we need more content". I don't want that pile of crap to grow bigger. I would be much happier if I'd have properly working infantry with weapon resting and bipods. I don't need vehicles with modern design which technical specifications come right out of 1950. I don't need so much helos with such handling. I prefer just 3 MRAPS but properly made with differrent turrets for differrent factions. I prefer no heavy armored vehicles but differrent rocket launcers for each side. I prefer no combat helos but differrent AA launchers for differrent factions. I need no character stuck in textures, no shooting through the walls, and no dropping out of buildings through the walls.

I prefer little content which is done good. And scheduled addition of another content which also done good. Why to release tanks with no weaponry, no targeting system, no speed, but with huge ammount of HP? Like Ants in Fallout? Better to have no tanks at all as for me.

Edited September 16, 2013 by [RFP]Avi

[eymerich 11]

I'd give that about a month, seeing as how A2 beats this game in every way.

No.

Never.

Just consider to the very, very very bad implementation of Hdr which was unforgivable to me... Arma3 luckly doesn't have such problem.

[zukov 484]

Avi;2505247']I personally disagree with statement: "we need more content". I don't want that pile of crap to grow bigger. I would be much happier if I'd have properly working infantry with weapon resting and bipods. I don't need vehicles with modern design which technical specifications come right out of 1950. I don't need so much helos with such handling. I prefer just 3 MRAPS but properly made with differrent turrets for differrent factions. I prefer no heavy armored vehicles but differrent rocket launcers for each side. I prefer no combat helos but differrent AA launchers for differrent factions. I need no character stuck in textures' date=' no shooting through the walls, and no dropping out of buildings through the walls.

I prefer little content which is done good. And scheduled addition of another content which also done good. Why to release tanks with no weaponry, no targeting system, no speed, but with huge ammount of HP? Like Ants in Fallout? Better to have no tanks at all as for me.[/quote']

I prefer the contents that in game now, will be finished and fixed

[-RFP-Avi 10]

I prefer the contents that in game now, will be finished and fixed

Would be great, if it'll be so.

[Gekkibi 11]

Well, the wounding modules in A2 weren't that great to begin with imo. Also, I didn't mean that Bi would give us a script or modules for wounding, but a community member rather. Could happen today, tomorrow or w/e. There will be alot of "needed" content released after the price goes down... That's not any different than arma2 or any other game for that matter.

I know A2 wounding module was pretty simple and slightly buggy, but it beats A3 first aid 1-up's every time. And I don't like "mods will fix this" either! Why? Because then I would have to download 9001 different mods when I join other server than the usual one I use. Then I join another event and have to download other 9001 mods. Mods that shouldn't even exist in the first place. I only use few selected addons in Arma 2: ACE, and the island if needed. Voi'la.

[SabotAndHeat 10]

Here's a couple issues.

BIS told us well after early purchase that the campaign would come later in three DLCs. This also compounds the fact that vehicle access and module access is very limited compared to A2. So many people, like me are astonished.

For example, in the early screens there are divers with a full size sub (not SDV). This sub has yet to be released, along with scads of other vehicles that have been eluded to through glimpses like that. You can argue some of those vehicles were "place holders" brought from A2...but, the big sub wasn't. So where is it? Oh, it's going to be released later? Then why call it a "full" release? Oh, the big sub was a preview of pay DLC. Really?...that implies something of BIS that I'm not willing to believe at this juncture. DLC is supposed to be content created after full release...not "full" release content, shaved off and resold as individual packs.

What also adds to it is, people like me who bought the special edition were promised all DLCs were paid for therein. BIS has yet to insure us that the campaign DLC is truly different than what was guaranteed through pre-purchase. Cause if it isn't, why buy the special edition? Just lack of transparency and shifting product content has got people frustrated....myself included.

Some people argue that had there been no alpha and beta release, the full release would not be currently targeted for disappointment. The problem is that A3 "Full" is not being compared to A3 Alpha and Beta....it's being compared to Arma 2! While Arma 2 was full of bugs, was not optimized very well and lacked PhysX...the content was massive and was never officially added to until the pay DLC's. So, we've gained PhysX and optimization. Is it really so horrible to ask for A2 standards, plus some? That is the march of progression is it not? Add to...never take away.

I just can't understand why some posters on this thread would rather an individual take these complaints and concerns and go post them on Steam. How is this going to benefit BIS? They may control this forum, but they don't control the Steam forum. The damage by airing dirty laundry on Steam could be very detrimental to BIS. That would not be MY intent. So where do some get off questioning others about posting concerns, disagreements or content issues here on this forum?

One can only conclude that those attempting to suppress disappointment with A3 are generally just disagreeable trolls, sycophantic yes men to BIS or sincerely want to hurt BIS by attempting to push concerns over to Steam threads.

An open dialogue can only advance A3.

Sincerely SabotAndHeat (formerly FrostyBowman)

Edited September 16, 2013 by SabotAndHeat

[dm 9]

^ THIS is how you complain about the content problem. Not with butthurt and whineing.

As far as we know, more content is due in free DLCs. BI have alluded to the existance of both free and paid for DLC containing additional content. And based on their track record, I think we can safely expect a fair bit of additional content FoC.

[barakokula31 10]

For example, in the early screens there are divers with a full size sub (not SDV). This sub has yet to be released, along with scads of other vehicles that have been eluded to through glimpses like that. You can argue some of those vehicles were "place holders" brought from A2...but, the big sub wasn't. So where is it? Oh, it's going to be released later? Then why call it a "full" release? Oh, the big sub was a preview of pay DLC. Really?...that implies something of BIS that I'm not willing to believe at this juncture. DLC is supposed to be content created after full release...not "full" release content, shaved off and resold as individual packs.

The big sub is just a static model. It's as useful for underwater combat as a big rock.

[Azzur33 1]

One can only conclude that those attempting to suppress disappointment with A3 are generally just disagreeable trolls, sycophantic yes men to BIS or sincerely want to hurt BIS by attempting to push concerns over to Steam threads.

An open dialogue can only advance A3.

It is really easy to be labeled as a "troll", "yes man" or "fanboy" when having a "dialogue" with a "disappointed one".

After that, even the valid points of that poster is considered as "trying to polish a turd" or "being naive" or whatever.

Is this attempting to push the "happy" and "not so disappointed" and those who say "it has potential" (which is true, by the way), over to Steam forums?

The fact is that the loudest ones in this forum are the "disappointed ones".

I'd say they are the most hard-headed ones too. They won't jump to Steam forums if someone disagrees with them. They'll just add some steam and carry on.

I just wonder how long would they want to show their disappointment. I'm pretty sure BIS knows all the issues they are complaining about already.

Now, some valid points more:

Went through Arma 3 screenshots, but I couldn't find Any vehicles that weren't in the game already, except that placeholder jet and that "submarine" which was in one shot.

Some were disappointed when they expected as many or even more vehicles as in A2, although it was never promised or shown.

The Campaign is free for everybody, but do not expect a lot of additional vehicles and weapons. They won't bring those UAZ:s, Humvees, skodas, ladas and .. back. (But a motorcycle would be nice..)

The paid DLC's won't have nothing to do with the Campaign and most likely are not just addon-stuff for the existing main factions.

The game can and will be called as a full release in order to get it to be sold at the stores.

If you want to think more positive and less negative about it, think it as a full base game, which is to be built on with patches, polishing and additional stuff, official and user made. As the OFP, AA, A1 and A2 were.

PS. The open dialogue with less passion can benefit A3. The open raging, whining, and bashing will not.

Showing the disappointment IS ok, for a while. But when the disappointment is caused by way too high expectations, one could think first who and what to blame, before pointing their finger towards BIS or fellow community members who may have had more realistic expectations.

The game still needs bug-reporting, feature- and improvement-suggesting members, and not so much members who mainly want to express their hurt feelings.

Positive attitude is healthier, too.

Edited September 16, 2013 by Azzur33

[ric 1]

The big sub is just a static model. It's as useful for underwater combat as a big rock.

I believe this is incorrect, the sub is from VBS2 along with the entire underwater content.

[barakokula31 10]

I believe this is incorrect, the sub is from VBS2 along with the entire underwater content.

I believe several people told me that the sub is a static model, way back in the alpha.

[SabotAndHeat 10]

@ Azzur33

After that, even the valid points of that poster is considered as "trying to polish a turd" or "being naive" or whatever.

Interesting that you recognize that in one direction, but not the other. Exactly why, not calling A3 a "polished gem" for example doesnt make the "loudest" and "disappointed ones" with valid points, just "complaining." This is exactly why dialogue is important to A3's development. Attacking posters that have a less than perfect viewpoint of A3 makes one a "troll" or a "sychophant fan boy"...while simply defending A3 "full" with open dialogue and information does not. (The same can be said visa versa.)

The fact is that the loudest ones in this forum are the "disappointed ones".

You can't audibly hear anyone at all on this forum, so how exactly are you measuring loudness? Or is anyone that constitutes being "loud", simply resisting your attempts to subvert communication that's less than favorable to A3? That was my closing arguement in post #641, was it not? Not that some enjoy A3 as is and some do not...but, that some here on this forum are attempting to suppress disappointment in A3's full release.

I'm pretty sure BIS knows all the issues they are complaining about already.

This is an assumption. If we were to assume BIS knows every issue a consumer thinks, why even allow threads like this?

Went through Arma 3 screenshots, but I couldn't find Any vehicles that weren't in the game already, except that placeholder jet and that "submarine" which was in one shot.

The Opsrey was also in early shots. Also, check the Tactical guide. It was just released and has vehicles not even released in the early shots.

The paid DLC's won't have nothing to do with the Campaign and most likely are not just addon-stuff for the existing main factions.

Azzur33, please cite the official BIS source for this information.

(As DM stated above, BIS has "alluded" to the existance of both types of DLC. But, alluded to is not guaranteed...as we've discussed already. I would just like a little more transparency in light of content shifting.)

If you want to think more positive and less negative about it...

It's foolish to conclude that a less than perfect critique equals negative thinking.

Edited September 16, 2013 by SabotAndHeat

[zukov 484]

so far i don't know if BIS on incoming patches will fix and finish all contents

apparently all opfor veichles are unfinished (no recoil, no lights and especially the T100 really a shame), how time we wait?

i'd be less upset, if i hear /read this problems are in queue

[massasster 1]

Say what you want, my feelings remain the same, I feel like I some how paid for an engine and feel BIS is waiting for the community to "make the game". BIS said, hey , here is a $60 engine, you guys have done great things in previous arma's, we are just going to build the basement, good luck with the rest!

[trent 14]

I believe several people told me that the sub is a static model, way back in the alpha.

Those were educated guesses.