CiA Petition Letter to BIS and DnA's Response

[HKFlash 9]

Who said they "lost" us? It's just a commentary on how the game mechanic has changed since ArmA 2.

This.

[Pac Man 10]

Are people upset that this just had 67 signatures? Because I would bet there would be thousands if it were public

No ones upset. Some just think putting such a heavy emphasis on the whole "** ... 67 people signed it" is coming across as trying speak for everyone. It'd be fairly easy to find out who would have or who would have not signed it. It's already been made public we just need a poll "Would you have signed this" Yes - No. I think you'll find that the number wouldn't be in the thousands.

[mr_centipede 31]

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?

[mazza 1]

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?

ditto

[Pac Man 10]

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?

What did you expect to happen in a thread like this? This cia clan wrote a letter & *gasp* not everyone agrees with it or it's initial intentions when it was sent. I suppose if everyone were to grovel at the feet of this thread, agreeing entirely, that'd be okay though right?

If the true intentions of this thread were to only share the letter & response, and nothing more (like debates & flame wars), then he would have had a moderator lock the thread as soon as it was created. For read only. Else... well yea, people don't always agree with one another, it's human nature. Especially when this is the topic at hand..

Edited September 27, 2013 by Pac Man

[max power 21]

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

[blackmamb 2]

No ones upset. Some just think putting such a heavy emphasis on the whole "** ... 67 people signed it" is coming across as trying speak for everyone. It'd be fairly easy to find out who would have or who would have not signed it. It's already been made public we just need a poll "Would you have signed this" Yes - No. I think you'll find that the number wouldn't be in the thousands.

Come on. What emphasis? Variable mentioned it in the first paragraph, which is just, as far as I can tell, a quick explanation of what he's posting. It's then mentioned at the very end, as a replacement for the names and nicknames of all who signed it, because at some point it was decided that personal information about those would not be made public. That's it. Does that seem much? The letter itself doesn't mention it, and for a quite obvious reason: it was written before it was signed, mind!

67 people signed that letter, they never meant to be speaking for anyone else than themselves. I don't see the need to argue over that as this is a pretty simple fact. Why see some kind of twisted evil everywhere?

Whether numbers could have been in the thousands or not is besides the point and pure speculation. A particular state of mind was expressed, by a reduced number of people, and it was deemed of enough interest by DnA to deserve an answer, which it was felt was worth sharing with the community.

Nobody's saying you should agree with either the letter or the answer, or the way it was done or whatever. Please don't just give the people who signed it intentions they didn't, and still don't, have.

Edited September 27, 2013 by BlackMamb

[Alwarren 2767]

The modding community can pick up the rest of the slack

That's the usual mantra. "The modding community will fix it". And it almost always comes from people that haven't done any modding themselves.

[chortles 263]

I believe that I can safely say that we're seeing so much thread drama over CiA and "realism or not" is because the whole thing, as DnA's own response alludes to, is one big fait accompli... that is, by the time CiA received a reply it was way too late for any pre-September 12 changes (aka the time frame that a bunch of the concerned seemed most concerned with), even if a bunch of people are offering their happiness with the idea of post-September 12 revisions... so substantively there's not much to latch onto, what'll actually happen is out of the forums-goers' hands. :p

[Varanon 892]

If the true intentions of this thread were to only share the letter & response, and nothing more (like debates & flame wars), then he would have had a moderator lock the thread as soon as it was created. For read only. Else... well yea, people don't always agree with one another, it's human nature. Especially when this is the topic at hand..

What's wrong with discussion ? Nothing. It's actually a very good thing, because it clears up misunderstandings, shows what people really want, and makes people understand each other.

Note that insults, name calling and ridiculing is NOT discussion. That is where you are making your misconception. And if you complain about this thread derailing, let me quote a few parts of your very first contribution to it:

hard core milsim elitist role players,

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?

Yeah, right, you did nothing to derail the thread. You did not call anyone names or ridiculed anyone's preferred style of play ?

The problem here is that people immediately start to rage when they see something that they don't agree with. Hell, I admit, I have that too sometimes, but at least I am not resorting to name calling like others do.

I can only stress again: Argumentation is, as the name implies, done with arguments, with verifiable, truthful arguments. This does not include calling people elitist, or (a common practice as well) claiming things that aren't there, or saying "The silent majority has this opinion" and similar stuff.

---------- Post added at 08:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:37 AM ----------

I believe that I can safely say that we're seeing so much thread drama over CiA and "realism or not" is because the whole thing, as DnA's own response alludes to, is one big fait accompli... that is, by the time CiA received a reply it was way too late for any pre-September 12 changes (aka the time frame that a bunch of the concerned seemed most concerned with), even if a bunch of people are offering their happiness with the idea of post-September 12 revisions... so substantively there's not much to latch onto, what'll actually happen is out of the forums-goers' hands. :p

Funny you mention this, since you are basically contradicting yourself. On one hand, you claim it's already a done deal, and on the other hand you claim there will be post-release patches.

And most of all, they assertion that "a bunch of the concerned" were concerned with the timeframe: The letter was actually written LONG before a release date was announced (it was only 3rd quarter, and not even sure it would make it), and quite frankly, NO ONE of the undersigned expressed any dependency on the release itself, being content with the possibility of after-release patches. In fact, the request for a module solution for, for example, the medical system is something that can be retrofitted and was mentioned in the letter for exactly this reason.

So I wonder where you read this "concern" in the letter, and I wonder if that isn't just something that you WANT to see because it fits your agenda ?

Out of the forum-goers hands ? Definitely. As it has been for the whole duration of Alpha and Beta, since there always was only the possibility to suggest and give feedback (which was, I have to repeat for the xth time, requested by the developer). This letter was just a feedback, one that was shared by a number of people who signed to give weight to the real concern (the departure from authenticity displayed by the oversimplification and arcadish character of some items, not the release date). Nothing more, nothing less. I honestly can't understand the commotion about it all, and what people read into this (statements like "wanting to speak for the whole community", or ridiculous comments by someone complaining about how we complain about missing content which was never even mentioned in the letter at all)

Edited September 27, 2013 by Varanon
Typo

[Variable 322]

If the true intentions of this thread were to only share the letter & response, and nothing more (like debates & flame wars), then he would have had a moderator lock the thread as soon as it was created.

Look what happened to us. People are so used to flame wars they actually think it's an inevitable part of discussion. That's just sad. I guess this current reality on the BIS forum made people to lose their objectivity towards what "a discussion" actually means.

We shared DnA's response and the letter because we thought that we could all enjoy a good discussion, not senseless name calling, ridiculing and mockery as we see in some of the posts.

[Azzur33 1]

That's the usual mantra. "The modding community will fix it". And it almost always comes from people that haven't done any modding themselves.

Think about the "mantra" in a differend way.

Some people want more and more realism, hardcore stuff, some people want differend kind of experience, and some people are ok with more basic gameplay.

ACE, for example, was interesting, cool and served well. But was not for everybody. I used ACE for some scenarios, "vanilla" for some, and "vanilla" and modules for some.

When the basic game works well enough, mods are not a "fix", but more like enhancement. You can choose if you want a complex but more realistic kind of gameplay (like ACE) or not.

So I don't quite understand why "mods will fix things (closer to your personal liking)" is a bad thing.

I do only texture and sound modding myself, but I do not think that the modders in general are forced to do anything.

They mod because it is fun and rewarding.

[runforrest 10]

Nice letter CiA guys, although i dont play much ArmA 3, i would have signed it. That u guys have to deal with so much braindamage in this topic is just... i dunno what to say... on the other hand, the world is ruled by morons so what do we expect uh?

[instagoat 133]

Nice letter CiA guys, although i dont play much ArmA 3, i would have signed it. That u guys have to deal with so much braindamage in this topic is just... i dunno what to say... on the other hand, the world is ruled by morons so what do we expect uh?

The irony here is that you are taking part in the moroniciticities by blanket name calling other people.

The letter was aimed to get a response, so the letter itself in this moment is not as important as BI's reply, which is the thing that is relevant to future development for us as a community.

[Alwarren 2767]

Some people want more and more realism, hardcore stuff, some people want differend kind of experience, and some people are ok with more basic gameplay.

ACE, for example, was interesting, cool and served well. But was not for everybody. I used ACE for some scenarios, "vanilla" for some, and "vanilla" and modules for some.

When the basic game works well enough, mods are not a "fix", but more like enhancement. You can choose if you want a complex but more realistic kind of gameplay (like ACE) or not.

So I don't quite understand why "mods will fix things (closer to your personal liking)" is a bad thing.

I do only texture and sound modding myself, but I do not think that the modders in general are forced to do anything.

They mod because it is fun and rewarding.

It's not only the realism. It's everything. Everywhere you look people including BIS are pointing to player content.

People complain about lack of assets? "Modders will fix it"

People complain about lack of missions? "Mission makers will fix it"

People complain about missing features? "Modders will fix it"

DLC from BIS? Not that much, but modders will fix it.

It's always the same thing. Everybody relies on modders to fix one thing or the other, provide extra content, whatever else. And those that yell the loudest are those that don't do anything but just want to consume.

And the basic game doesn't work well enough. Each review I have seen mentions the lack of playable content (just a few showcase missions), again everybody points to user-made content. It doesn't need to be mods, it can be missions as well. Yes, there are X thousands of them on the workshop, but not all of them are good, and you will have to wade through a lot of bad ones to find the good ones. User-Made content is no excuse for lack of game content, or features.

So I stick with my original assessment of the mantra. Everything is left to the user-made content. And don't tell me not everybody uses them. Unless you want to play the same showcases over and over, you are at least relying on user-made missions, even if its Wasteland. This game would hardly be noticed if it weren't for user made content, and it is time that people stop brandishing this in front of them, especially when they are just consuming anyway.

[Pac Man 10]

Look what happened to us. People are so used to flame wars they actually think it's an inevitable part of discussion. That's just sad. I guess this current reality on the BIS forum made people to lose their objectivity towards what "a discussion" actually means.

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.

Edited September 27, 2013 by Pac Man

[HKFlash 9]

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

Discuss DnA's response?

[bad benson 1733]

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

go back and read again. you were jumped on because YOU attacked and accused and because your arguments sucked. boo fucking hoo.

[Variable 322]

So all should completely just agree with the letters initial intent.. or gtfo.

Not at all, I was hoping that an official BI statement like the one DnA provided could serve a basis for opinions from all sides of the community. That's all. I think we on CiA are open for discussion, but when we receive name calling and curse words and general cinicism and mockery, that's not allowing any kind of constructive discussion.

Can we now stop discussing the circumstances and the justification of the letter and instead concentrate on the substance which is DnA's response?

[Pac Man 10]

Discuss DnA's response?

Okay, and so if I were to agree or disagree with DnA's response there would be either A) Name calling, & belittling or B) Cheers & beers. Anyway you put it, if you're not on the "good" side, you just a fanboy and need to gtfo.

---------- Post added at 12:35 ---------- Previous post was at 12:33 ----------

go back and read again. you were jumped on because YOU attacked and accused and because your arguments sucked. boo fucking hoo.

And how... this is a prime example. As I attacked no one, I only expressed my opinions. Too bad my opinions "sucked" though... "boo fucking hoo" right?

Edited September 27, 2013 by Pac Man

[bad benson 1733]

And how... pot meet accused kettle. I could say the same about your arguments I see daily.

yea you could but then you would have to put in some effort and make a proper case instead of a generic post that ignores most everything that has been said. good luck!

[Pac Man 10]

yea you could but then you would have to put in some effort and make a proper case instead of a generic post that ignores most everything that has been said. good luck!

No, good luck to you sir.

[Varanon 892]

OAnd how... this is a prime example. As I attacked no one, I only expressed my opinions. Too bad my opinions "sucked" though... "boo fucking hoo" right?

Example: "I think you suck."

See ? That's also an opinion, but rather offensive.

Another example: "You are hard-core elitist roleplayers".

Another opinion, but also offensive.

Yet another example: "I see your point, but my opinion is different: <insert arguments>

'nuf siad.

[Azzur33 1]

And don't tell me not everybody uses them. Unless you want to play the same showcases over and over, you are at least relying on user-made missions, even if its Wasteland.

I was referring to actual modifications like ACE, I44, sound mods, FDF, CWR and so on.

"This game would hardly be noticed if it weren't for user made content, and it is time that people stop brandishing this in front of them, especially when they are just consuming anyway. "

I dont get it. I'll try.

The "mod-consumers" have a happy face, because they know the modders will eventually do the hard work providing them free stuff. Ok.

But are the modders somehow annoyed by that "their work is still needed!"..?

Or why it bothers you so much?

There would be user made content even if the game had all the stuff from OFP/AA/A2/CO/DLC's from the beginning.

There would be modifications to the medical system, even if there were A2-like modules.

[Pac Man 10]

Example: "I think you suck."

See ? That's also an opinion, but rather offensive.

Another example: "You are hard-core elitist roleplayers".

Another opinion, but also offensive.

Yet another example: "I see your point, but my opinion is different: <insert arguments>

'nuf siad.

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.

Edited September 27, 2013 by Pac Man