Arma 2 had too much content? Dayz effecting Arma?

[chortles 263]

It's not about whether you perceived Arma 2 as failed or not good enough, it's BI or at least its CEO internally viewing Arma 2 as flawed and deriving "lessons learned" from that when it came into building/designing Arma 3, hence the direction having been set in stone for over a year now with DnA and RiE designing and executing that vision with Maruk's approval... for example, the "quality" emphasis that you attribute to media criticism.

P.S. Turns out that, interestingly enough, some "small object" scenery items from DayZ actually have made it over into dev branch and thereby contributing to scenery assets.

[progamer 14]

It's not about whether you perceived Arma 2 as failed or not good enough, it's BI or at least its CEO internally viewing Arma 2 as flawed and deriving "lessons learned" from that when it came into building/designing Arma 3, hence the direction having been set in stone for over a year now with DnA and RiE designing and executing that vision with Maruk's approval... for example, the "quality" emphasis that you attribute to media criticism.

P.S. Turns out that, interestingly enough, some "small object" scenery items from DayZ actually have made it over into dev branch and thereby contributing to scenery assets.

What direction though? Away from the Milsim like ideals arma 2 had? Towards a casual friendly game? Or towards a game with futuristic weapons and vehicles so that everything can remain balanced and away from realism?

---------- Post added at 20:17 ---------- Previous post was at 20:13 ----------

I understand that some realism things are because of lack of time and/ or resources and that perfectly fine. There are lots of things that make Arma 3 much more realistic than Arma 2 but there are also choices like a mosh pit of vehicles which could be for the sake of balance or artistic views.

[chortles 263]

What direction though? Away from the Milsim like ideals arma 2 had? Towards a casual friendly game? Or towards a game with futuristic weapons and vehicles so that everything can remain balanced and away from realism?

The thing is, if you're treating "realism" as Arma 2: Operation Arrowhead "faction imbalance"... then yeah, they're specifically trying to move away from OA in that respect and devs have said as much, that they were going for having an OPFOR with more parity and comparable "tech level" to BLUFOR. How many times do I have say that?

I understand that some realism things are because of lack of time and/ or resources and that perfectly fine. There are lots of things that make Arma 3 much more realistic than Arma 2 but there are also choices like a mosh pit of vehicles which could be for the sake of balance or artistic views.

The thing is that if you're looking at the represented content (not how it's represented) as a realism issue but chalking that up to "lack of time and/ or resources", it's why some of the posters were more concerned with 'realistic simulation' than what's represented (content assets) or how it's distributed (seems to be what people were getting at by "faction balance"), since as I pointed out in at least one other thread, a paucity of content or "cloned assets" are the more readily remediable: add more content and change the distribution of that content.

The only post-release small arms development seen thusfar is CSAT essentially losing half the magazine capacity on their DMR in return for a higher-end optic (in terms of what the CSAT marksmen now wield on dev branch), but that's a substantive difference if you're not using custom loadouts... the CSAT marksmen's use of the Mk18 ABR was a placeholder, no matter how much players may not have liked it, but now it's undergoing replaced. Likewise, at one point the TRG series was a "BLUFOR" rifle with no faction attached in the alpha, I believe even a 6.5 mm weapon with its own magazines, but near the end of pre-September 12th development it got "assigned" (to FIA) and before that became 5.56 mm, so I expect that down the line we may see further changes in faction inventories as time goes on.

[progamer 14]

The only post-release small arms development seen thusfar is CSAT essentially losing half the magazine capacity on their DMR in return for a higher-end optic (in terms of what the CSAT marksmen now wield on dev branch), but that's a substantive difference if you're not using custom loadouts... the CSAT marksmen's use of the Mk18 ABR was a placeholder, no matter how much players may not have liked it, but now it's undergoing replaced. Likewise, at one point the TRG series was a "BLUFOR" rifle with no faction attached in the alpha, I believe even a 6.5 mm weapon with its own magazines, but near the end of pre-September 12th development it got "assigned" (to FIA) and before that became 5.56 mm, so I expect that down the line we may see further changes in faction inventories as time goes on.

Loosing half the magazine capacity because it would be unbalanced? Modifying or having a weapon unrealistically set up for some stupid balance? New content is great, but giving it artificial stats for the sake of balance is not ok. Since we're never going to see Arma 2 level of content again, we're stuck with a mosh pit of random weapons and vehicles.

Edited October 20, 2013 by ProGamer

[chortles 263]

You mistake me here... in terms of gameplay those are the differences (since the Mk18 ABR and the new DMR are otherwise both full-auto-capable 7.62 mm scoped rifles), but what they did was find a real-life rifle, rename it, and give that to OPFOR instead of the Mk18 ABR. There's a way to "balance" without artificial stats, that's called what content is chosen to be represented. ;)

(The "Rahim" DMR is currently represented as unable to mount lasers/lights or a sound suppressor -- no idea where the flash hider went -- but that can be changed by config, and right now it can mount any of the optics in the game except for the handgun micro collimators. Mind you, that's due to the ubiquity of "standardized" optics rails... but at least in the case of the Rahim that's realistic though, the VS-121 does have "Western-style Picatinny" rails!)

Edited October 20, 2013 by Chortles

[Peaty 10]

M16, Ak-47 and RPGs should have been included from the beginning and it annoys me that these still aren't in the game. I don't understand BIS's policy on not just buying assets(small $) or receiving them from free from active modellers or even giving out Arma 3 as a gift to those who create fully working replicas. I'm also disappointed that their wasn't a miltia faction which was inflated with Ak47s, Humvees, T72s and whatever else they got their hands on.

I'll be really annoyed if they are currently working on these assets as paid DLC especially considering the lack of Assets in A3.

[lkincheloe 12]

One thing to consider here: in Arma 2 each little variant of every gun had to be a separate weapon, meaning if you wanted to have a different sight for your M4 or a grenade launcher for your AK you have to go find a different weapon with that on there.

Now with the attachment system in Arma 3 we have just one main weapon and we can put what we want onto it. Yeah okay the Grenade Launchers are still technically different weapons, but I have hopes that BIS can find a way to make those into attachments as well. Because putting Grenade Launchers onto SMGs is always fun.

[[aps]gnat 28]

Clearly BI wants moding otherwise Marek is schizophrenic.

Why claim you want Quality and less (their own) Quantity, but allow almost everything from ArmA1&2 to be easily ported to ArmA3. (Quality would likely mean, "start again")

Smart(er) move in my book vs ArmA2 I'd suggest.

Get the "base" right and the community will go nuts building on it.

But their claimed issue is a lot of their own doing. ...... did they forget how many DLC I paid for .... :)

[progamer 14]

Looking back at Arma 2, there are so many things I doubt we will see again. Like the wide range of civilian vehicles, large and medium transport aircraft, the AMVs and BMPs, PMC's SUV and a whole host of other stuff.

I can just imagine how hard it will be to get server owners to use one of the millions of Arma 2 vanilla content port mods that will spring up and the varying levels of quality and management they will have.

[maffa 29]

We arent even going to see the real new stuff coming in. Russia's new standard rifle, for example, the AK-12. Instead we have to cope with made up stuff.