CiA Petition Letter to BIS and DnA's Response

[Varanon 892]

Well only elitist military roleplayers would write such a well worded document to the development branch of the game requesting such changes? How else could you classify the persons? That comment certainly wasn't meant to offend as the letter certainly didn't come from a casuals perspective...

Oh my god. Sure, you didn't mean to offend someone with an offensive label.

[Pac Man 10]

Oh my god. Sure, you didn't mean to offend someone with an offensive label.

... Done here then. I just tried to very rationally let you see my point of view. And no it wasn't meant to be offensive. As I said, I used to be really big into military role playing, elitism back in Arma1. Everything had to be done using procedure. People had to carry the correct ammo. Saluting. Formations. Drills. You name it, we did it by the book.

Edited September 27, 2013 by Pac Man

[antoineflemming 14]

Yet you knew what kinds of "debates" this thread would bring. Or maybe you didn't? I sure am "used to flame wars", have you seen all of the "arma 3 is bad" threads within the last ~8 months? You can't tell me it didn't cross your mind what kind of "discussions" would come about in the thread.:rolleyes: All this thread is, is another "arma 3 is bad, we still play arma2" thread, but put forth in a more "polite" manner, in the form of a letter, where there's *gasp* a return letter from a dev. So all should completely just agree with the letters initial intent.. or gtfo. If they don't fully agree, then they're deemed as a "fanboy" and shunned from the thread. Yet, we're all just here to have a civil discussion right?

I'm asking humbly and nicely here; So let's get down to brass tacks, what's the point of this thread?

I tried to express my opinion in the thread and was immediately jumped on, since I had a different opinion.

And yet, if they do agree, they are considered whiners/bitchers/complainers/old timers/BI haters, and are told to leave the forum. It goes both ways. The point is, you can discuss without flame baiting and name calling.

Well only elitist military roleplayers would write such a well worded document to the development branch of the game requesting such changes? How else could you classify the persons? That comment certainly wasn't meant to offend as the letter certainly didn't come from a casuals perspective...

I myself used to be a really hardcore military elitist roleplayer. We used to have huge TvT campaigns in Arma1. We used to salute, formations, use correct terminology, the whole drill. Not saying these guys do that, but they are far from casual, from the looks of it.

How are they being elitist? I get serious. I get hardcore. I get military roleplayer. But how the hell is that being elitist? They aren't saying that being serious is better or superior to being casual. In fact, they say that they hope or believe there's a way to make both casual and serious players happy. This is the sort of offensive name calling that Varanon is talking about.

While the author didn't technically say "the whole community", he did dramatically emphasis in bold red letters as if 67 people were a good majority or spoke for everyone.

I find the complaints un-needed since most can be avoided. I mean, if people are such hard core milsim elitist role players, then play the game as such. Don't like that you can carry so much? Then don't. Find yourself "cheating" in this regard? Then you can even write a function to limit the amount you could carry. Don't like the medical system? Take FAKs out & also there's already revive / bleedout / body drag frameworks available. I like realism too, but I know how to work around what I don't like. It's all very trivial.

As said before by others, there seems to be this rampant fear that someone else may not be forced to play the game the way you think it should be. The fear that other people just may be enjoying themselves. The fear that others just may utilize these changes instead of trying to revert back to the way things used to be.

Also, all of this hub-bub about realism, yet the vanilla Arma2 first aid modules will make it all better? What's realistic about getting dragged and/or revived more than once or at all for that matter? Usually when someone gets shot in the head, they're past the state of unconsciousness. They're dead. There is no revive. If you guys are so hardcore, then lets laugh at any respawn or revive. :) Heck, lets write a script that allows for 95% failed revives. Where only 5 % of the time can a revive be successful, like in real life. That'd be fun eh?

Kind Regards,

Pac Man

This was the post that was jumped on. It was jumped on because you trivialized the complaints of others. YOU jumped on the opinions of others that their complaints and their desires for realism were trivial. YOU basically told them to mod realism back in the game, where the game has generally been realistic. YOU generalized the concerns of others to simply being fear of people wanting to play the game their own way. So if you hadn't jumped on the concerns and misgivings of others, then no one would have called out your post.

This call to being mannerable should not simply be directed towards those who find fault with the game (which seems to be the norm around here for some odd reason. Apparently people can freely get away with name calling those with issues whiners or complainers or haters, but not the other way around). It should also be directed at those who have no issue with the game whatsoever. Perhaps part of the reason there's still alot of mudslinging going on is because only people with issues are being told to be mannerable while those without problems freely trivialize and generalize others' legitimate complaints. If everyone is held to the same standard, then perhaps we will see some mutual respect. But as long as anyone with an issue is criticized for having such a "trivial" problem, especially some of those realism squads/clans who've been with the series for a while, then there won't be any mutual respect. And this is something that should not just be promoted by mods. Mods and regular users need to encourage mutual respect, regardless of your opinion.

Now, like I've said, my issues with the game aren't really realism related or amount of content related, but more state or condition of content (i.e. incomplete assets, unfinished textures, no hiddenSelections, etc). stuff that seems trivial to others. But I'm not going to criticize those who wrote the letter because their opinions don't 100% line up with mine.

Edited September 27, 2013 by antoineflemming

[bad benson 1733]

@Pac the Man: what is more pointless? a thread showing a dev response to a letter for everyone, and not only the alleged elitists who wrote it, to see. or you jumping on the authors for being such elitists (used as an insult) role players (used to ridicule). i'm not agreeing with the tone about "direction of the game" in the letter and i personally find it a bit silly in its seriousness but so what? doesn't make me post lame attempts at insulting them.

you basically have nothing to say except "i don't like these guys". say it once. it doesn't get better. why make such a drama about it. if you can't take the heat, don't engage in the silly war of factions on these forums. i have nothing against you personally but such empty posts make me think sometimes that the forum only consists of teenage girls.

"i used to be really big into elitism" that made my day. seriously.

btw what does a medical system, inertia etc have to do with roleplaying? you don't need that if you role play. just "be" out of breath...

Edited September 27, 2013 by Bad Benson

[Pac Man 10]

@Pac the Man: what is more pointless? a thread showing a dev response to a letter for everyone, and not only the alleged elitists who wrote it, to see. or you jumping on the authors for being such elitists (used as an insult) role players (used to ridicule).

You're right. I'll just avoid threads like this in the future. Because Idk which is more pointless... me coming across as a big meanie or the thread.

Edited September 27, 2013 by Pac Man

[andersson 285]

Well only elitist military roleplayers would write such a well worded document to the development branch of the game requesting such changes? How else could you classify the persons? That comment certainly wasn't meant to offend as the letter certainly didn't come from a casuals perspective...

I myself used to be a really hardcore military elitist roleplayer. We used to have huge TvT campaigns in Arma1. We used to salute, formations, use correct terminology, the whole drill. Not saying these guys do that, but they are far from casual, from the looks of it.

I am not an elitist nor roleplayer, I'm very casual I would say, but I do like teamwork and a feeling of realism. If I had the chance I would have signed this letter, maybe even write it if I played as much as I used to. The points brought up are definite changes from the last 3 games in this series, which affect the teamwork and use of different weapons.

Teamwork does not mean roleplay. I don't like to play that way, that way you played when you were a hardcore military elitist roleplayer. What I do want is teamwork. Imagine changing the game team fortress so no real difference existed between the players and all could rambo their way. I'm sure it would not be as fun anymore.

About DnA's letter:

Of course it is also possible that those involved with Arma 3 now, have a different vision of what the game should be, than those involved over the past decade. There is no definitive balance between authenticity, realism and fun that suits every person. For most of us in the team, we don’t want to make a true (procedure) simulator; Arma is still a game to us. A sim-game, but a game.

It's always been a game for me too, and what kept me playing is the game mechanics and team play. Some inertia, weapon collision model and less dumbed down navigation doesn't make it into a "true simulator", it just keep it as the fantastic game it always has been. Well, as long as you implement/keep "configuration hooks" I cannot really complain about different visions :) But you have to make that awful "zoom in on player position" button a difficulty setting that can be turned off.... please.. That completely kills 90% of all the missions I like to play..

[Variable 322]

CiA was never about milsim. Quite the contrary. We are casual players who like to play with teamwork. We play only community made missions we get from Armaholic, just coop, no respawnvive. I really don't understand how anyone can conclude we must be milsimer from the letter.

But enough of that, I wish a dev would come and address in detail the issues laid out in DnA's letter... :D

Edited September 27, 2013 by Variable

[dayglow 2]

I think the devs are reluctant to post any plans because ideas become promises and we will go through the same cycle all over again.

[chortles 263]

I think the devs are reluctant to post any plans because ideas become promises and we will go through the same cycle all over again.

There've been multiple devs who have said more or less this, especially since the "axed features" thread.

[Tonci87 163]

CiA a Milsim community? You should watch one of their videos.

[ProfTournesol 956]

The regression in the community makes me want to live in a cave instead...

The CiA community made a petition, DnA, a BIS developer responded it with an insight of how ARMA3 development went. It was a nice response. Lets just keep it at that shall we?

I think a minimum standard of not calling each other names would be a good start.

This and this.

[HKFlash 9]

But enough of that, I wish a dev would come and address in detail the issues laid out in DnA's letter... :D

I think it's better they don't, its has caused more harm than good in the past.

[pils 49]

Great response by DnA!

Glad to hear they actually will keep on working on Arma 3. I mean, you never can be sure about that. Many games were put down after the release, because they flopped or just because the devs had to move on to another project.

DnA's response is making me confident :)

[MissionCreep 12]

I think the devs are reluctant to post any plans because ideas become promises and we will go through the same cycle all over again.

People should quit slamming Devs ... project leads and management make the final decisions.

[pd3 25]

This was the post that was jumped on. It was jumped on because you trivialized the complaints of others. YOU jumped on the opinions of others that their complaints and their desires for realism were trivial. YOU basically told them to mod realism back in the game, where the game has generally been realistic. YOU generalized the concerns of others to simply being fear of people wanting to play the game their own way. So if you hadn't jumped on the concerns and misgivings of others, then no one would have called out your post.

Though few would admit it, I think the ones who are working hard to trivialize and contextualize the people who support this letter are sublimating a lot of selfish fears that if somehow we get our way, it will come at their expense.

Which is funny because it would basically be restoring a level of consistency to the series.

It doesn't even have to be a "this or that" dichotomy, but I sense there's a lot of fear coming from that side, and considering such people are spoiled for options, and we are not, I really can't see how anyone can be sympathetic to them.

If they honestly believe the vast majority of individuals wouldn't want to play with most of the changes this letter is recommending, then why would they be so fearful of people hoping to get some features implemented?

It makes no sense.

---------- Post added at 20:55 ---------- Previous post was at 20:54 ----------

People should quit slamming Devs ... project leads and management make the final decisions.

I don't see how he was slamming the developers, they were simply illustrating the fact that they would be refusing to make promises in order to prevent an outcry.

Perhaps he misspoke when referring to devs, but most people knew what he was talking about.

[MavericK96 0]

Great response by DnA!

Glad to hear they actually will keep on working on Arma 3. I mean, you never can be sure about that. Many games were put down after the release, because they flopped or just because the devs had to move on to another project.

DnA's response is making me confident :)

I'm not sure anyone was thinking they were dropping support. I mean, they've supported ArmA 2 for how many years?

[chrisb 196]

Well done to CIA group for producing the letter.

I didn’t sign it when it was sent to me to read a while back, but I could see at the time it was a well laid out letter expressing their concerns in a polite but positive way.

Also nice the fact they got a good reply, all in all a good exercise.

[wipman 1]

Hi, i would had added some more things to the CIA letter, like graphic bugs or issues that are there from the ArmA, ArmA:QG, ArmA2 and ArmA2:OA; things like the reticle of the reflex optic dissapearing under certain light conditions, when you turn On the flashlight and things like that... too strong RVMAT maps covering this reflex optics glasses aswell many if not all the vehicles glasses at least from the inside or from the player's POV, wich can impeed you to aim/shoot or view right. Also the same too strong RVMAT maps over the soldiers skin, their eyes (they all look drunk or about to cry) and things like that, they're there since the ArmA some of this issues and others are there since the ArmA2 and they (BIS) were warned about already, but they didn't fixed/changed this issues aswell as many others. My old CIT tickets of this issues from the ArmA & ArmA2 are there, check the date if you don't belive me... but i've to say that the ArmA3 is a surprinsingly good game and is many times better in all forms to the ArmA2 (and much more to the loathing OA) and a great work; it has impressed me how they'd improved their main product since the ArmA2 even having some of the same issues/bugs that the ArmA/ArmA:QG & ArmA2 had and i hope that it be improved over the time and made more stable ASAP. Let's C ya

[OMAC 254]

Kudos to Variable/CiA for writing such a constructive letter, and thanks to DnA for his lengthy, thoughtful, and truthful response. Such a letter from a project lead must be very, very rare in the gaming industry, and I appreciate his candor. It is a little disconcerting to hear of all the tribulations that occurred during A3 development, such as mistaken/premature proof-of-concept rollouts, failed attempts (inertia, medical system, etc.), changed plans, lost work, "resource problems" (with 70 staff members working on A3 ???), etc. To some, this candor can appear as excuses, but I don't think it is entirely. Shite happened, some of it self-imposed/inflicted, and BIS did the best they could to pull through, although the Sep. 12 deadline appears to have caused more problems than it was worth.

Although I am disappointed about the paucity of official mission content, especially until the campaign installments start coming, I am generally happy with the current result, especially as I paid only $27 for the whole deal when the Alpha first came out, and knowing that it is still very much a WIP. If I had paid the full price of $60, my smile would turn upside down for sure. I do think that BIS has generally succeeded in introducing a solid platform for the next few years of development, although I think a new engine will be required to progress beyond A3 in the gaming marketplace.

I am not that unhappy with the simple new medical system, as the FAKS, although overpowered a little, just serve to get you out of a tight spot, and full healing by a medic or ambulance is still necessary. The apparent lack of the ability to drag or carry wounded mates in A3 is problematic (or am I missing that somehow?) The admission that the whole system is just a placeholder gives hope of future changes, but is quite odd in that such an important aspect of a mil sim-game was given short shrift. Is it really true that the first aid modules of A2 don't exist in A3 (I haven't checked them out in A3 editor yet)? If so, that is a major problem, as it was great to give commandos and specops healing capabilities. It is also not good that a man will die immediately from 3 shots to the shin. Why won't he become unable to walk and go prone like in OFP (video shown earlier in thread)? I think all of us would have appreciated a little more complex med system, but I can play A2 +/- ACE if I want the "old" way, for now.

Vast numbers of current vehicles and weapons are already in A2, so I don't really care if they aren't recreated in A3 (and there's AiA); I'm looking for something new in A3. As others have said, there just isn't a whole lot new about A3 in terms of vehicles and weapons (with drones being a VERY BIG and EXCITING exception;

would have been cool), but what there is is good, and getting better.

The super-soldier loadouts and ability to carry like 4 AT rockets + sniper rifle are quite odd. But man is it good to have that ability in combat. ;) But realistic? Hoo boy. I figured that there was a reason BIS added this mega-ability, something I was not aware of, but perhaps I am wrong. But I don't think it makes armor and APCs obsolete. I'd rather engage in an APC or tank any day of the week, even without infantry escort. Just be observant and fast, use cover, and take out those AT infantry from range using thermal optics.

A3 infantry movement and stances are so good it is ridiculous, but would have been better if inertia was added. Too bad that effort failed. But the lack of inertia is certainly not a show-stopper, and is not that big of a deal for me.

AI has been substantially improved from A2. But of course issues still exist that are maddening, like route finding, but even that is improved, and is being continually enhanced.

I agree with the letter about the lack of clipping of larger weapons in CQB, like in houses. That is one aspect of A3 that appears dumbed down for sure. But overall, not a very big deal.

The most disconcerting thing I heard from this thread is that some "sim people" left BIS, so that other, "non-sim" people took up the slack, as someone here insinuated from DnA's response. If this is true, my heart sinks in a big way. That sounds like the really talented folks who made the CWC and Resistance OFP campaigns leaving around the time of the Codemasters split. What I cannot tolerate is hearing that DayZ is pulling resources from A3. At all. Maruk wearing a DayZ t-shirt at E3? Please shoot me now. ;)

So, while I agree that the main points brought up in the CiA letter are valid in that they are a departure from A2 moving in the wrong direction, I do not think that those points are important enough to me and my gameplay to warrant signing the letter. I am most interested in seeing what new ideas and directions BIS comes up with for A3 on their own, warts and all, as I generally agree with most of the choices they have made with their games since A2 came out in 2009, and they have enriched my gaming life in a serious way. I think that writing detailed bug reports/feature requests in the tracker and dev-heaven is the most efficient and useful way to respond to BIS games and influence their development.

Seeing how far down the forums have fallen from the heady days of A2OA 1.60 patch development is sickening. The CiA letter is rooted in serious devotion to BIS games built up over many years, and thus comes from a good place. However, it is not hard to see how some could view the letter as coming from a group of "hardcore elitists" whether that is true or not (they are ass-kicking yet thoughtful COOP people who value teamwork, not hardcore roleplayers like some other "military" clans AFAIK). But even if they were elitist roleplayers, so what, their constructive criticisms are still valid. Having to rely on mods to address the core issues they discuss would be unfortunate, to say the least, if it is even possible. Some people, especially new players who are enthusiastic about A3 and don't like perceived "elitists" raining on their parade should have the right to criticize the letter in a respectful way without being dumped on. The letter and response were added to a public forum to elicit responses, after all. But these noobs should understand that most people with >~500 forum posts, especially those who take the trouble to write letters of constructive criticisms, are very serious BIS fans at heart, and should not be dumped on every time they "dare" to criticize "godlike" BIS. :j: The forum mods sure have their work cut out for them...

I don't focus on things A2 CO +/- mods has that A3 does not. After all, I have A2 CO and can play it any time I want. I'm interested in the new things A3 has to offer, massive amounts of official BIS playable content backed up by a great story, and, of course, bug-free play that balances reality and FPS fun in a seamless way.

[-Coulum- 35]

...

Its a long read but its a good one. I especially agree about the forums - in the end everyone just wants the game to be perfect.

The post release support and DnA's letter give me hope. Arma 3 is going to be awesome if they keep working at it.

Until then it's still a great amount of entertainment and I will never go back to arma 2.

[OMAC 254]

Never? Have you tried CWR2 mod, for which missions are still being ported from OFP and new COOP missions made? Or what about this cool-looking new one (which I haven't tried)? :cool:

DnA's letter gives me hope, too. Thumbs-up.

[Phantom Six 25]

Never? Have you tried CWR2 mod, for which missions are still being ported from OFP and new COOP missions made? Or what about this cool-looking new one (which I haven't tried)? :cool:

DnA's letter gives me hope, too. Thumbs-up.

A really good reason to keep ARMA 2 :P CWR2. One of the big mods that have a lot of heart and effort put into it with hundreds of missions to plays and lots of goodies to toy around with.

I see the new patch now have blinding sunlight so now the sun can be used as a tactical advantage or disadvantage to attack while not facing the sun or facing the sun. I have yet to check out what more is to be offer later.

[David77 10]

Oh how I love this letter & the response :notworthy:

[-Coulum- 35]

Never? Have you tried CWR2 mod, for which missions are still being ported from OFP and new COOP missions made? Or what about this cool-looking new one (which I haven't tried)?

Well Yeah your probably right. I will crack it open again just for old times sake and of course for awesome mods like CWR2. But then again other mods like I44 are being ported so I will be able to enjoy them in arma 3 as well.

But in my mind there is no doubt that arma 3 is the better game - it just seems so much more smooth than arma 2 - not just in movement but in the general presentation of the game. Arma 2 had very "patched" together sort of feel. Arma 3 seems much more cohesive and better planned out. Of course there is still work to be done but its much better than arma 2 even if its lacking some realism. As user made mods, missions, campaigns, and dev patches build up I really don't see myself having a hard time choosing whether to choose 2 or 3 - Arma 3 will pretty much have everything arma 2 had to offer - but better.

[chortles 263]

I see the new patch now have blinding sunlight so now the sun can be used as a tactical advantage or disadvantage to attack while not facing the sun or facing the sun. I have yet to check out what more is to be offer later.

Funny thing is that I remember this being one of the things that metalcraze harped on about... when in reality BI didn't forget about it. :p

I have to say, OMAC, I believe that quite a few players would be happy to play Arma 3 takes on CWC/CWA missions such as [TDNL]SiC's remakes of Operation Morton, Ambush, After Montignac and even Invasion (Red Hammer). Even though I recognize that CWR2 brought more to the table than just "SP campaign remakes", perhaps that's why some people are all "no going back to Arma 2"? Not a knock on CWR2, considering what -Coulum- posted above me about "awesome mods like CWR2". ;) I'd just also be pointed to what else -Coulum- said as to why some would feel that strongly about Arma 3 being better in their opinion than Arma 2.