Priority of Bugfixing and features of BIS

[St. Jimmy 272]

Imo i think the game has been dumped not entirely but left to a skeleton crew, and most of the coders have moved onto proberly getting dayz out the door. Once that has been released then perhaps you may see some more progress on the higher priority requests but if the main core team have gone over to dayz to get that released then BI arnt going to pull resources or people off that because there isnt any money in completing requested features or fixing minor issues, there is however money to be made by releasing a new product which was highly popular.

Imo it was like they wanted A3 out the way so they could work on DayZ insted.

Rocket, Ondrej and Ivan are the only guys working fully on DayZ from Arma 3 dev team that I know. Then there are bunch of new faces that were only hired for DayZ. The dev team for DayZ is 20-30 persons according to Rocket.

Edited November 27, 2013 by St. Jimmy

[dnk 13]

Sooo, days passed, new Updates, new SITREP and still:

No word about any of the highly requested features from the feedbacktracker.

You're going to keep being disappointed and upset for quite some time. I'm not sure why you keep expecting anything, since I'm unaware of anything really coming from feedbacktracker feature requests to date.

if we can await any new featuers in vanilla game, or if u just focus on easing the way for addons.

Well, they've not mentioned any new features, so there's your answer. Wait for the expansion. Maybe some will be included, and maybe a few smaller ones will be added with patches over time.

Agree with the original poster...Why BIS does not even attempt to implement some of the top voted features is beyond me.

Because it's a bugtracker now, and those aren't bugs. Seems clear it never was meant to be a feature-requester. I mean, it's a feedback tracker, not a "vote for new features" tracker. Some people have yet, after almost a full year, to understand this. You are one of them.

It may be that they consider new features for the expansion, and they take them from the tracker, but it's not clear that they ever intended to take community suggestions and implement them once they hit mid-alpha. Indeed, that would be a bit hard to pull off when they've been quite far behind schedule as is.

[Tonci87 163]

Rocket(?), Ondrej and Ivan are the only guys working fully on DayZ from Arma 3 dev team that I know. Then there are bunch of new faces that were only hired for DayZ. The dev team for DayZ is 20-30 persons according to Rocket.

Think about this: Who is making the assets for DayZ? New Weapons, houses, item etc.? Maybe this is the reason we have so few stuff in A3 :p

[chortles 263]

Funny that, considering how little content is supposed to be in the DayZ initial public release...

[spanishsurfer 58]

Because it's a bugtracker now, and those aren't bugs. Seems clear it never was meant to be a feature-requester. I mean, it's a feedback tracker, not a "vote for new features" tracker. Some people have yet, after almost a full year, to understand this. You are one of them.

If it's so clear that its not a feature-requester, then why are ideas like this one being worked on: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=3505

Remember when BIS switched to 3d scopes? Yeah, that was a feature request.

Also, if you've ever submitted feedback (like I have) you'd know there is a tab that allows you to categorize your type of feedback. BUG reporting is just ONE of many options you have. BIS is not just working on bugs, they're working on some feature requests. They're just weird on how they pick things. You should pay more attention DNK before you put out such condescending posts.

[Greenfist 1863]

BIS isn't working on feature requests, they're working on features, as they see fit. Their priority has nothing to do with some arbitrary voting system. Why should it?

And what makes you think they're working on the linked grass rendering feature? There's not even a single comment from developers? The 'assigned' status merely means they have looked in to it or plan to.

I think the 'feature request' category was put in just for the minor feasible features, like "Vehicle steering with mouse indicator" or "Automatically abort long lasting actions like healing by movement controls" etc.

Not "Some sort of melee?" or Bibods or "Ability to climb trees and dig foxholes and build underground airfields" or other major game changing features.

[maddogx 13]

Their priority has nothing to do with some arbitrary voting system. Why should it?

As far as I know, they do look at the votes to see what features and bugs are most important to the community (that's why Dwarden keeps pestering people to vote on certain tickets), but they obviously can't and won't base their entire development schedule around that. Especially where the implementation of features is concerned, they have to take many more factors into account aside from overall demand.

This expectation that the highest voted features on the tracker should automatically be on the top of the devs' priority list is definitely flawed though.

[Greenfist 1863]

As far as I know, they do look at the votes to see what features and bugs are most important to the community (that's why Dwarden keeps pestering people to vote on certain tickets), but they obviously can't and won't base their entire development schedule around that. Especially where the implementation of features is concerned, they have to take many more factors into account aside from overall demand.

This expectation that the highest voted features on the tracker should automatically be on the top of the devs' priority list is definitely flawed though.

Exactly. Voting is there just to make some tickets more visible, for us and them.

And most people don't seem to realize how big effects implementing some simple looking features would raise. Like bipods, sure modders can hack them in the game but if BIS were to implement them, they would have to be absolutely foolproof (working with AI and in every situation imaginable etc.) and that's a huge job.

[windies 11]

Imo i think the game has been dumped not entirely but left to a skeleton crew, and most of the coders have moved onto proberly getting dayz out the door. Once that has been released then perhaps you may see some more progress on the higher priority requests but if the main core team have gone over to dayz to get that released then BI arnt going to pull resources or people off that because there isnt any money in completing requested features or fixing minor issues, there is however money to be made by releasing a new product which was highly popular.

Imo it was like they wanted A3 out the way so they could work on DayZ insted.

Took the words out of my mouth about how I feel on that subject. It is what it is I guess.

[dnk 13]

If it's so clear that its not a feature-requester, then why are ideas like this one being worked on: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=3505

Remember when BIS switched to 3d scopes? Yeah, that was a feature request.

One thing. Out of dozens. One thing that might have been on their to-do list before the tracker went up. Also note it was a model/art asset thing, which they've mostly had a much easier time releasing. I'm just guessing they've got an art-heavy development team. Perhaps a lot of the underlying engine and coding gets done by the other VBS side of the company, and the Arma side works mostly on polishing the engine for mass consumption (read: graphics, detailed models and art, godrays, etc). This is getting into pure conjecture, though.

I'm fairly sure the devs have said nothing about that grass feature, as I've been keeping close track of it, as I've been one of the most vocal supporters of it on the forums. Have you read its related thread? Do people keep posting this particular issue to me ironically? Do link if you've got any real evidence of this claim, as I'd be very interested.

You should pay more attention DNK before you put out such condescending posts.

Yeah, okay. You and a bunch of other posters are convinced that this feedback tracker was intended as some great democratic method of getting new features added to the game, and that these features could be added months after release. After months and months of this supposed system not materializing, you're still convinced it's just one patch around the corner and complain when it continues to not materialize as though BI is supposed to be following through. Just keep waiting and complain every week that "BI doesn't care about its fans". Tiresome.

Other posters said the rest already.

[chortles 263]

I'll also note that the "3D scopes" implementation that BI did do wasn't even actually fulfilling the request which specifically called for Red Orchestra style.

[roshnak 41]

I'll also note that the "3D scopes" implementation that BI did do wasn't even actually fulfilling the request which specifically called for Red Orchestra style.

Come on, now. You can't seriously be suggesting that just because a feature wasn't implemented exactly as it was requested that it wasn't intended to fulfill the request at all. Especially since using RTT for scopes would have made them basically unusable for people with moderate to low-end systems.

At least one dev has said that they're not using the 'workarounds' that modders are using to implement these features, i.e. scripting, due to a preference for features to be in-engine, so we have that much of an answer for why they're not doing what modders are doing, because the preferred method is something that modders can't do. As for why the features in question aren't in-engine, well... mum's the word.

The thing is, it should probably be easier to build features into the engine than to figure out convoluted hacks that modders have to. Someone had a post a while back about the crazy stuff the ACE team had to do to get their CCIP pipper working. That would have been drastically more simple to do engine side. (Note: I am not requesting a CCIP pipper. Please do not be angry at me.)

This expectation that the highest voted features on the tracker should automatically be on the top of the devs' priority list is definitely flawed though.

I wouldn't necessarily expect them to be the highest priority, but surely some of the most frequently requested features over the years should be fairly high on the list, right?

[chortles 263]

I most certainly can! We might just be disagreeing on the extent of causation vs. correlation between the feature request and what BI did in practice... but I saw the request as being quite specific about the intended gameplay difference, and what BI did very much not doing that.

As far as priorities... should, could, would... all that can be empirically verified and not just inferred is that they're not even when the devs talk about them in public. I mean, we've already had Dwarden reveal that "shooting from vehicles" was deprioritized internally, while Jay Crowe knew enough about the lack of weapon resting to name-drop it as "simulation fever" during an E3 interview...

[L3TUC3 32]

The thing is, it should probably be easier to build features into the engine than to figure out convoluted hacks that modders have to. Someone had a post a while back about the crazy stuff the ACE team had to do to get their CCIP pipper working. That would have been drastically more simple to do engine side. (Note: I am not requesting a CCIP pipper. Please do not be angry at me.)

It's not really about ease of implementation. Per feature it would certainly take some time for an initial assessment by a staff member, then a brainstorm with the game designer, programmer and technical director. Then a more minute report on feasibility, importance, possible problem points, time/people required and other details by someone spearheading it. Sent off for approval up the chain, then reviewed. If approved, signed off for production of any code and art assets to support it and assigned to relevant divisions. After that (timeframe X) implemented and tested. Then a review of the feature for problems and if (intended) behavior is up to standards set. Then more thorough QA and ultimately release to customers.

This stuff takes it sweet time to do right and at any point something might be cancelled for loads of different reasons. Most things never go past step 1 to 4. It's all about the priorities.

At the moment it's about bringing the campaign and the game to the original release state in terms of content and functionality. The new guns/tanks/stuff are being marketed in such a way that it glosses over that.

I guess we will see a lot more attention on anything that got pushed away due to time-constraints after that.

[all3n 1]

I'm just going to throw my two cents in here, it's just my opinion, and it's not going to change, so don't bother flaming me, but if Dwarden said this (((You got it a bit wrong - Arma 3 is a sandbox platform. We provide the core and features we are able to finish in certain quality. I believe that our improved radio protocol is more than enough for most of players, why would we even bother to spend our resources on something if we could just say "Hey, use ACRE for that"? If the community is able to provide anything better, we would like to promote the content and make it as accessible as possible within our resources (missions on Steam Workshop anyone?) )))

Then why would they release a game that they call a "platform", and not even launch it with any updated or new mod tools, yes I know they are coming soon, but think of the content we would have by now if they were released with the game

---------- Post added at 03:44 ---------- Previous post was at 03:42 ----------

It was a rushed game, and no one can deny that, they talked for months, even years about their "deadline" to release, that's not how a game should be made

[Greenfist 1863]

Then why would they release a game that they call a "platform", and not even launch it with any updated or new mod tools, yes I know they are coming soon, but think of the content we would have by now if they were released with the game

Well the tools are already released. And the game's been out for only 2 months, it's not a long time to wait for tools for a game that will be played for years.

[dm 9]

Well the tools are already released. And the game's been out for only 2 months, it's not a long time to wait for tools for a game that will be played for years.

Indeed, its also not a lot of time to create any meaningful content. And you'll find that the people devoted enough to make quality content have already been working dilligently even using the older Arma2 tools.

A3 tools being released at the same time as A3 would not really have had any impact on the amount of content we're seeing...

[L3TUC3 32]

I'm just going to throw my two cents in here, it's just my opinion, and it's not going to change, so don't bother flaming me, but if Dwarden said this (((You got it a bit wrong - Arma 3 is a sandbox platform. We provide the core and features we are able to finish in certain quality. I believe that our improved radio protocol is more than enough for most of players, why would we even bother to spend our resources on something if we could just say "Hey, use ACRE for that"? If the community is able to provide anything better, we would like to promote the content and make it as accessible as possible within our resources (missions on Steam Workshop anyone?) )))

Then why would they release a game that they call a "platform", and not even launch it with any updated or new mod tools, yes I know they are coming soon, but think of the content we would have by now if they were released with the game

---------- Post added at 03:44 ---------- Previous post was at 03:42 ----------

It was a rushed game, and no one can deny that, they talked for months, even years about their "deadline" to release, that's not how a game should be made

Well, yes. Unfortunately the realities of budget, deadlines and development hiccups results in sub-prime conditions for the game. But it is not just BIS that struggles with these things and considering that they've been very forthcoming on what was going on and what they're doing to add/fix things it's not entirely fair to call foul. The state of the game is pretty robust and only looking up from my standpoint.

[eXpouk 10]

To everyone moaning about BI and their patches etc.

Take a quick look at the BF4 PC forums over at Battlelog and realise how lucky we are to have devs that are trying.

http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf4/forum/view/2955065670116713685/

Looking at that, it could be ALOT worse.....

[bruhmis 10]

those aren't major game changing features. foxholes aren't feasible obviously. but modders with less than 2% of the resources BIS has who don't get paid for anything have already successfully implemented weapon resting and melee combat. there's really no reason this game should have launched without weapon resting/bipods. it's not difficult to implement at all, it enhances everyone's experience and it belongs in any game that claims to be a military simulator.

[clydefrog 3]

To everyone moaning about BI and their patches etc.

Take a quick look at the BF4 PC forums over at Battlelog and realise how lucky we are to have devs that are trying.

http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf4/forum/view/2955065670116713685/

Looking at that, it could be ALOT worse.....

1. Battlelog is an absolute cesspool of a forum.

2. DICE will fix things and it won't take them that long. Arma 3 has been out almost 3 months now and they have done absolutely nothing about the performance and optimisation of the game in that time! Are you sure they're trying? Because to me it seems more like they are more resigned to the fact it runs badly and can't do anything about it whilst also not fixing other problems with the game that have been present since before release. In the case of some of these issues it seems like they are trying about as much as they tried to put different weapons on the vehicles of different factions.

You can't compare them really apart from that both games are still really in beta stage despite their official status as final releases.

Edited November 29, 2013 by clydefrog

[eXpouk 10]

1. Battlelog is an absolute cesspool of a forum.

2. DICE will fix things and it won't take them that long. Arma 3 has been out almost 4 months now and they have done absolutely nothing about the performance and optimisation of the game! Are you sure they're trying? Because to me it seems more like they are more resigned to the fact it runs badly and can't do anything about it whilst also not fixing other problems with the game that have been present since before release.

You can't compare them really.

BF4 has been out awhile and loads of people are still crashing... Some players can't even finish a round and this was after a beta test. It took DICE awhile to fix BF3 and Im sure BF4 will be the same.

Anyway this isn't the BF4 forums but what Im saying is, look at the state of A3 and compare it to BF4.... It could be a lot worse for us as players... BI has done a better job than DICE.

[clydefrog 3]

BF4 has been out awhile and loads of people are still crashing... Some players can't even finish a round and this was after a beta test. It took DICE awhile to fix BF3 and Im sure BF4 will be the same.

Anyway this isn't the BF4 forums but what Im saying is, look at the state of A3 and compare it to BF4.... It could be a lot worse for us as players... BI has done a better job than DICE.

BF4 has been out 4 weeks and even during the beta they managed to make big performance improvements and put out a patch in the space of about 4 days after being informed of the problem. As for BI doing a better job than DICE, BF4 is a multiplatform game with a lot more stuff in it than Arma 3 and they have been rushed into releasing it by EA. Yeah it could be worse but let's see how long it takes DICE to fix the main issues from the release date and how long it takes BI to fix Arma 3s main issues from the release date.

Edited November 29, 2013 by clydefrog

[progamer 14]

BF4 has been out 4 weeks and even during the beta they managed to make big performance improvements and put out a patch in the space of about 4 days after being informed of the problem. As for BI doing a better job than DICE, BF4 is a multiplatform game with a lot more stuff in it than Arma 3 and they have been rushed into releasing it by EA. Yeah it could be worse but let's see how long it takes DICE to fix the main issues from the release date and how long it takes BI to fix Arma 3s main issues from the release date.

The beta was more a advertising stunt. They purposely released it more unoptimized then it was so that they could "fix" it to gain more publicity.

[roshnak 41]

Haha, that's supposed to be a joke, right?

Edit: I mean you can't really believe that.

Edited November 29, 2013 by roshnak