CiA Petition Letter to BIS and DnA's Response

[chortles 263]

Whereas my grievances re: some of the complainers (about lacking features) was that unlike you they didn't seem to recognize the time/resources frame that the devs had to work with. :p Either that, or they didn't seem to accept that the devs actually made a conscious choice to "put off" instead of half-assing or pushing back the release date (which as your recognition of the timeframe indicates was not an allowed option).

[OMAC 254]

The bashing is extraordinary. But we must bend like supple reeds and deflect the bash. ;)

enhanced medical system (Knockdown on hit, Bleedout, Dual item medical system (Stop bleeding, Heal), increased body alarm response.).

WORD.

[Alwarren 2767]

I think the problem here is that the intended system was never fully implemented, much like the medical system that hints at more, but clearly is not taken as far as it apparently was meant to go.

Very likely, but I remember the mantra was "If we cannot make it right, we'll leave it out". Apparently, this has its limits.

The problem is that now the system is in place. A guy with a Carryall, Launcher and machine gun will be as good a CQB fighter as the lightly loaded guy with an SMG, and that is something that should not be. And before someone points out that there wasn't any CQB in Arma 2, yes, that is true, but that does't mean the system should be left as it is now.

You -can- load yourself down with tons of weapons, realistically, but right now the punishment for overloading yourself isn't existent, practically.

Sadly. While the current system at least punishes you with extra fatigue, the movement itself is not hampered by a heavy loadout, but it really should be. Otherwise it makes pistols, SMG's and carbines pointless.

Limiting the inventory by slots isn't the way to go, even though the current system is not perfect either, a weight based layout is more desireable.

Yeah, the old system wasn't good, and I am glad they got rid of it. The only advantage it had was that it "naturally" limited the number of items you could carry and demanded to make concessions (backpack or launcher but not both). Right now, the amount of stuff you can carry is big and the impact/penalty for it is low.

I doubt BI aren't realizing that some of the new features are somewhat inbalanced because of lack in other fields of the game, and I am sure we can get some synergy going to fix the infantry gameplay up to a truly superior standard.

That is my hope too.

Which, in my humble opinion, should focus on enhanced gunplay (Inertia, Weapon weight affecting stance and stamina depending on how you carry the weapon, more sensible animations for heavy weapons.), enhanced bodyarmor simulation (Using RVmats and new penetration system and ditching the mathematical modifiers entirely.) and enhanced medical system (Knockdown on hit, Bleedout, Dual item medical system (Stop bleeding, Heal), increased body alarm response.). These three things, gunhandling, hit handling and medical system (including stamina.) appear to be most important as far as the infantry is concerned.

Agreed, more so since these are things that make the Arma series stand out.

[antoineflemming 14]

No we cannot, because it's an essential part of the game. The game will be how BI wants it to be. There's nothing wrong with that. If they want it to be more casual and easier to learn, it's fine and we as their fnas have to cope with that which means that the hardcore-community has drawn the bad card.

So there has to be a mod revamping the game (and again, there is nothing wrong with that).

Well isn't this ironic coming from you? It's not the modders' job to fix the game. Modding/addon making sure append the game, not fix errors with it. That's the developers' job. Good that you've made tweaks to vehicle handling, but honestly, if handling isn't realistic enough, then BIS should either make their own fixes or adopt yours into the game. But we shouldn't have to settle for mod fixes to issues in the game. The developers need to fix their game.

The only egoistic flavor is the desire that players be dependent on certain modder's addons...

[wipman 1]

Well isn't this ironic coming from you? It's not the modders' job to fix the game. Modding/addon making sure append the game, not fix errors with it. That's the developers' job. Good that you've made tweaks to vehicle handling, but honestly, if handling isn't realistic enough, then BIS should either make their own fixes or adopt yours into the game. But we shouldn't have to settle for mod fixes to issues in the game. The developers need to fix their game.

The only egoistic flavor is the desire that players be dependent on certain modder's addons...

That's what draw me back from the ArmA series, that it depends too much on the addon/mod makers to fix issues or improve vital things, if the addon/mod is not 'the most popular' then forget about join public MP servers with it; things like... that the reflex sights crossairs dissapear under certain light conditions... the overbacked UV maps... the subrealistic weapon sway that i still don't understand and things like that. But the ArmA3 is a great improvement anyways from the ArmA2, it has surprised me for good.

[progamer 14]

That's what draw me back from the ArmA series, that it depends too much on the addon/mod makers to fix issues or improve vital things, if the addon/mod is not 'the most popular' then forget about join public MP servers with it; things like... that the reflex sights crossairs dissapear under certain light conditions... the overbacked UV maps... the subrealistic weapon sway that i still don't understand and things like that. But the ArmA3 is a great improvement anyways from the ArmA2, it has surprised me for good.

What drew me to Arma was the realism it had and the modding community, those are two thing I hope are never taken for granted.

[das attorney 858]

For example, MMG's should not be fired from the shoulder, and if only for short periods of time. You should be physically pushed back when firing MMG/LMG when firing standing, and have a special kneeling stance for firing them when on the knee.

Good post :)

Not even Rambo or John Matrix could fire the M60 from the shoulder, and they were fucking movie characters.

[Harbinger2456 10]

Yeah, the first time I tried to fire a full auto rifle ( modified SKS on full auto ), the gun went up about 60 degrees, and I nearly ended up on my butt. Luckily, I think the houses beyond the range were abandoned.:biggrin:

[{bdr}*nemesi* 22]

I would sign this petition letter as well if possible. Thanks CiA for exposing clearly what should be improved/fixed and thanks DnA for replying. Hope the matter can be addressed by BIS and Arma3 could maintain the Arma2 standards (and even better ones hopefully).

[chortles 263]

Ironically my following the 'debates' on these forums are as early as the public alpha is part of why I don't go just all praising for this letter, and why I think some of us aren't either -- "already known to us, nothing here actually newly revealed so not nearly the same level of sympathy"... ditto for DnA's remarks, I already saw most of it in devs' comments before the September 12 launch.

[Varanon 892]

Ironically my following the 'debates' on these forums are as early as the public alpha is part of why I don't go just all praising for this letter, and why I think some of us aren't either -- "already known to us, nothing here actually newly revealed so not nearly the same level of sympathy"... ditto for DnA's remarks, I already saw most of it in devs' comments before the September 12 launch.

You are missing the point completely. And you're not telling the truth here either. At the time of writing this letter, there was nothing "known to us already". At the time of writing, there was nothing done about, for example, inventory and carrying weights. In fact, you and others vigorously defended the ridiculous amounts of stuff you could carry. Only later did BIS start to reduce the weights (DnA himself said in one sitrep that the carrying weights were ridiculous (sic), basically contracdicting all the "its teh future" hype). At the time of writing this letter, nothing at all was known.

The fact that it's just revealed now is simply a timing issue. We sent it off way earlier (admittedly, at the same time the first adjustments to the carrying weights have been implemented). DnA promised to answer, but of course, with E3 and GamesCon and the release date on the horizon he was too busy to answer until a few days ago, when the letter and answer was published. Yeah, all those are "known issues" now. It's easy to say that looking back.

I don't know what you think the purpose of the publishing was. It was not to re-iterate the whole discussion again. it was simply meant to make it public knowledge. That's all. No hidden agenda, no secret behind the scene warmongering.

And I tell you this: The only reason why you not "praise" the letter is because your opinion differs greatly from what's presented in there. That's your right. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But let's be honest and tell it like it is.

[antoineflemming 14]

You are missing the point completely. And you're not telling the truth here either. At the time of writing this letter, there was nothing "known to us already". At the time of writing, there was nothing done about, for example, inventory and carrying weights. In fact, you and others vigorously defended the ridiculous amounts of stuff you could carry. Only later did BIS start to reduce the weights (DnA himself said in one sitrep that the carrying weights were ridiculous (sic), basically contracdicting all the "its teh future" hype). At the time of writing this letter, nothing at all was known.

The fact that it's just revealed now is simply a timing issue. We sent it off way earlier (admittedly, at the same time the first adjustments to the carrying weights have been implemented). DnA promised to answer, but of course, with E3 and GamesCon and the release date on the horizon he was too busy to answer until a few days ago, when the letter and answer was published. Yeah, all those are "known issues" now. It's easy to say that looking back.

I don't know what you think the purpose of the publishing was. It was not to re-iterate the whole discussion again. it was simply meant to make it public knowledge. That's all. No hidden agenda, no secret behind the scene warmongering.

And I tell you this: The only reason why you not "praise" the letter is because your opinion differs greatly from what's presented in there. That's your right. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But let's be honest and tell it like it is.

By the time this letter was sent, we knew that BI had a change of direction (we knew that right before the Alpha). These issues were issues that I'm pretty sure were laid out before August 1st. The point of the publishing of both letter and response I'm pretty sure was to serve as an official public statement of sorts. We really haven't seen such a lengthy response to the concerns of certain veteran customers. All we've seen is mods and users constantly put down people with issues as being rude complainers and whiners (some of that has been justified, other times not so much) and we've seen counter-responses from those with issues calling those without issues "fanboys" or even more vulgar terms. We have not seen such a lengthy response from the devs that actually addresses disappointed customers. Yet, at the same time, the response isn't necessarily a new one. It basically says that "we've seen changes in direction, we were a little too ambitious and couldn't complete stuff, etc". We've seen those responses before from DnA and RiE. What is new is a holistic sense of the vision of DnA and of the dev team - that Arma is a game, not a sim (which has been clear to me, but I guess not to others). It's a "sim-game". They explain certain design choices, but specify that it's not to make the game less hardcore. The thing that Chortles is saying, I believe, is that there are no real specifics. The response doesn't specifically address certain issues. I think that's what is being said. But the setbacks were definitely "known issues". Maybe you weren't aware of that. Maybe CiA wasn't aware of that. But there had already been talk of making the game more "accessible" back at E3 2012. Setbacks were largely part of failure to meet the winter 2012 deadline and the whole Lemnos fiasco, as well as unrealistic ambitions like a fully functional 3d editor, which devs said they really didn't have time for in addition to other features. All of this was clearly explained by RiE before the start of the Alpha, and it's what has been reiterated by DnA. So the response isn't necessarily new. It's just all compiled into one statement. So honestly, you're being a little harsh on Chortles reaction.

[Alwarren 2767]

Maybe you weren't aware of that. Maybe CiA wasn't aware of that. But there had already been talk of making the game more "accessible" back at E3 2012. Setbacks were largely part of failure to meet the winter 2012 deadline and the whole Lemnos fiasco,

Aware of what? The only thing that was iterated again and again was that certain things were not quite as they were supposed to be. As an example, the first aid system, it was said numerous times that they had a more complex system in mind but couldn't realize it because of time constraints.

What was explicitly NOT said was that any of the shortcomings would be fixed. In the case of the First Aid system, RiE specifically remarked on E3 (I think) that it is NOT being fixed before release, and left anything else open (i.e. will it EVER be gixed?). I don't know where people take the reassurance from that certain aspects of the game will be modified, especially since some of these changes would break a lot of existing missions.

So yes, we were pretty much aware that there were shortcomings that could not be addressed because of time, Lemnos incident, and other reasons, but nobody ever clearly stated that ANY of it would be fixed in the short or long run. So the only thing we WERE aware of was that it was broken. That is why we wrote the letter, because the things we mentioned there are the things that we considered of primary importance.

And here we are now, and we STILL do not know if any of it will be fixed. So far, there is no firm commitment to anything. Everything we know so far is "we won't make any promise"

as well as unrealistic ambitions like a fully functional 3d editor, which devs said they really didn't have time for in addition to other features.

I beg your pardon, but there was already a primitive 3D editor in Arma 2, three years ago. There were things like RTE, a mod, which added a 3D editor to Arma 2. Having a fully functional 3D editor isn't "overly ambitious" for just about any company. I realize that BIS is resource-limited, but let's not pretend that this is rocket science. It isn't.

All of this was clearly explained by RiE before the start of the Alpha, and it's what has been reiterated by DnA.

Again, what was acknowledged is merely the fact that certain features didn't make it into the game, NOT that they will be fixed. The letter aimed at pointing out those that we thought were important.

[galzohar 31]

Again, what was acknowledged is merely the fact that certain features didn't make it into the game, NOT that they will be fixed. The letter aimed at pointing out those that we thought were important.

And with that said, we still don't know if any of the main concerns mentioned in the letter will actually be fixed or not. Many we don't even know if BIS are even thinking of fixing (such as having proper effect of weapon and loadout weight).

[Smurf 12]

So, it's good to know the Dev team is aware of the problmes and are working on it despite everything.

\thread

[Harbinger2456 10]

YOU SHALL NOT CLOSE! *Slams staff against the ground. :p

[antoineflemming 14]

Aware of what? The only thing that was iterated again and again was that certain things were not quite as they were supposed to be. As an example, the first aid system, it was said numerous times that they had a more complex system in mind but couldn't realize it because of time constraints.

What was explicitly NOT said was that any of the shortcomings would be fixed. In the case of the First Aid system, RiE specifically remarked on E3 (I think) that it is NOT being fixed before release, and left anything else open (i.e. will it EVER be gixed?). I don't know where people take the reassurance from that certain aspects of the game will be modified, especially since some of these changes would break a lot of existing missions.

So yes, we were pretty much aware that there were shortcomings that could not be addressed because of time, Lemnos incident, and other reasons, but nobody ever clearly stated that ANY of it would be fixed in the short or long run. So the only thing we WERE aware of was that it was broken. That is why we wrote the letter, because the things we mentioned there are the things that we considered of primary importance.

And here we are now, and we STILL do not know if any of it will be fixed. So far, there is no firm commitment to anything. Everything we know so far is "we won't make any promise"

I beg your pardon, but there was already a primitive 3D editor in Arma 2, three years ago. There were things like RTE, a mod, which added a 3D editor to Arma 2. Having a fully functional 3D editor isn't "overly ambitious" for just about any company. I realize that BIS is resource-limited, but let's not pretend that this is rocket science. It isn't.

Again, what was acknowledged is merely the fact that certain features didn't make it into the game, NOT that they will be fixed. The letter aimed at pointing out those that we thought were important.

I'm just going off of what they've said in the past. It's just that they've said all this before. That's what I'm saying. I'm saying that this letter isn't really new. So pretty much what you're saying is that this letter is now saying that this stuff will be fixed. Am I right? Because I'm not getting that from this letter. It was NOT explicitly said that any of this stuff would be fixed. Meaning everything that was said is stuff that we, yes, already had heard.

"The only thing that was iterated again and again was that certain things were not quite as they were supposed to be. As an example, the first aid system, it was said numerous times that they had a more complex system in mind but couldn't realize it because of time constraints." And that's kinda what this response is, isn't it? Have I missed something that talks about specific features that are going to be "fixed"?

[Variable 322]

What's the point of this? Clearly, a lot of people liked to read the letter and the response and found value in it. If you don't find a thread or and announcement useful, go elsewhere.

[Pac Man 10]

What's the point of this? Clearly, a lot of people liked to read the letter and the response and found value in it.

Alot also didn't care for the fact it was posted here and not read only, but rather came across as a sort of public stunt to some. Whether that was it's intentions or not, you can surely see why some are expressing their opinions the way they are.

My opinions are irrelevant. I speak for how others have reacted, aswell as PMs conversations on the matter.

[Variable 322]

public stunt to some.

This is complete nonsense. DnA made an effort to make this letter public worthy, and that's why we published it; We felt obligated to share with the community an elaborated letter of the game's developer lead. That's it.

Also, all this "nothing new" here attitude is pretty sickening, and incidentally comes out only from those who object to the claims of the original letter, who must be thinking that this is how they can belittle the raised concerns.

Really, is this all you got?

[Pac Man 10]

All I've got? As I said my opinions are irrelevant. I was simply giving you some perspective on how some people view the thread in it's entirety. No need to attack me.

[Variable 322]

It wasn't directed specifically at you.

[Pac Man 10]

It wasn't directed specifically at you.

Ahh okay. Apologies then, I'd misunderstood.

[chortles 263]

I'm just going off of what they've said in the past. It's just that they've said all this before. That's what I'm saying. I'm saying that this letter isn't really new. So pretty much what you're saying is that this letter is now saying that this stuff will be fixed. Am I right? Because I'm not getting that from this letter. It was NOT explicitly said that any of this stuff would be fixed. Meaning everything that was said is stuff that we, yes, already had heard.

"The only thing that was iterated again and again was that certain things were not quite as they were supposed to be. As an example, the first aid system, it was said numerous times that they had a more complex system in mind but couldn't realize it because of time constraints." And that's kinda what this response is, isn't it? Have I missed something that talks about specific features that are going to be "fixed"?

Truthbetold at this point I'm not sure what else the devs have "committed to" besides "two CAS aircraft, three mini-campaigns, two heavy pistols, and CSAT marksman rifle", and those were all in SITREPs (that is, from DnA)...

[dwaight 17]

didnt know the medical system in arma 2 decreased performance... lol