ARMA 3 - Dropped out features

[progamer 14]

This was in early development, Hence no ingame footage in that trailer. I think this was so early in development that at that point they only had to make some minor model changes to 'change the direction'. From other early vids it was clear that they were testing a lot of stuff* to see what could work and what wouldn't. Also, i don't know if it was a minority, but as the series is usually mentioned in the same sentence as 'realistic' i think they didn't want to push it too far. In any case it doesn't explain most of the 'dropped features'.

*like the 'dress in enemy uniform to infiltrate their base', which sounds cool but at that point was so unfinished that it was even worse then simple scripting solutions i have seen or i could write in a couple of minutes.

There does appear to be some disconnection between the community and the higher ups in BI. They did run into many complication along the way and just threw all the work away basically. And they seemed to have went crazy with quality after Dayz...

---------- Post added at 06:13 ---------- Previous post was at 06:05 ----------

There was a very vocal group since the very first

(at the end it looks railgunny like or something) that threw a hissy fit because it was too futuristic for their taste, so i guess BI toned it down a bit after that, while still keeping the 2035 era.

That decision somewhat disappointed me, i would prefer to either get some real fancy toys to play with, or just full on realistic cold war era equipment. Now it feels like they couldn't decide between the 2 and it became really bland, which is a missed opportunity.

About the missing stuff that was in older screenshots: I think that they didn't want another buggy release like ArmA2* and they decided to throw out everything that wasn't finished enough and focus on polishing the core content that we got now. Remember: Showing something in a screenshot doesn't tell you shit about its development state, except that the model is done. I still hope that we will get some of the things that were previously shown and that they are still working on finishing the content.

*You can laugh and point at the ArmA3 bugtracker all you want, but compared to ArmA2 1.0 ArmA3 plays like a dream.

People wanted it to be realistic, everyone was thinking of the game being more realistic and aiming for functionality not graphics. Then people saw they went for a halo like sci-fi approach. Then when people saw the alpha and beta they thought it would get better. But BI hired a game balancer and just continued on with the more arcade/gamey direction ignoring some of the most top voted on feedback tracker tickets. They ditched the realistic aspects of Arma 2 movement for making Arma 3 supposedly less clunky but at the same time into a twitch shooter. The it's the future argument then became the norm for everything and a lot of player went back to Arma 2 or played Arma 3 without vanilla content.

---------- Post added at 06:14 ---------- Previous post was at 06:13 ----------

So a small group of people changed the whole path a game developer was taking? They didnt even bother what the community has to say in it, they just follow that minority of people apparently?

It was a large majority of the community at the time... That goes to show a huge disconnect from the community.

Edited December 29, 2013 by ProGamer

[roshnak 41]

People wanted it to be realistic, everyone was thinking of the game being more ACE like and realistic.

No, it was literally just you that wanted this. ACE is a great mod, but it's not for everyone and there is a large portion of the community that does not use it. You might also like to know that railguns are being worked on by the military right now. I'm not sure how you think anything about Arma 3 is like Halo. At all.

[progamer 14]

No, it was literally just you that wanted this. ACE is a great mod, but it's not for everyone and there is a large portion of the community that does not use it. You might also like to know that railguns are being worked on by the military right now. I'm not sure how you think anything about Arma 3 is like Halo. At all.

Just more of a rant but there was a big difference between the community and the dev team at the time. The community was expecting the game to be more realistic than it is now. I'm all for any tech futuristic, old, modern as long it's realistic. Rail guns are being used on ships, the more logical choice for ground vehicles is a coil-gun. In fact china has coil guns on tanks. Arma 3 was going to be a lot more futuristic at before.

They tried to taker the OFP direction with Arma 3.

But it does feel like Arma 3 is stuck between two groups with things being done for in between but few things being done for either side.

Edited December 29, 2013 by ProGamer

[roshnak 41]

That's the thing, though. There are very few differences between the gameplay of Arma 2 and Arma 3. It's one of the major problems I have with it. The only thing that could even kind of be construed as less realistic is the mouse control, and when we are talking about how I control my virtual body, I will take something that feels right over something that is right 100% of the time.

Other than that, the bullet penetration system is better. The vehicle damage system is mostly the same. The vehicle controls are mostly the same. The aircraft are exactly the same. The medical system is mostly the same (FAKs aren't really worse, just more of a continuation of the basic premise of the medical system in Arma 2). The movement system is better/more realistic.

So overall, it's not really more realistic, but it's not really less realistic either.

Edit: Don't want to keep bumping this thread

But the movement system in Arma 3 lacks inertia, how is a twitch shooter better?

Arma is far from a twitch shooter, and plenty of actual twitch shooters have inertia. CS, for example. Twitch shooter is always a term that bothered me, anyway. Many so called twitch shooters have substantial elements that require the exact opposite of twitch shooting: tracking, or the ability to hold your crosshair over a rapidly moving target for an extended period of time. Anyway, I agree that Arma should not be an arena shooter, but disagree that not feeling like I am fighting with the game to control my movements and aiming is unrealistic. I've never gotten stuck in a doorway in real life.

Aircraft are realistically armed. There is only one fixed wing vehicle, so I can't speak much on that topic, but I don't know what more you want from attack helicopters than AGMs, rockets, and a cannon.

I will admit that many factions have the same turrets, but that is more of an asset issue than a mechanics one.

FAKs just take the consistent Arma gameplay mechanic of allowing medics to fully heal players with a simple animation and apply it to an intermediate level of healing. It's exactly the same mechanic as Arma 2, with an intermediate stage of healing. Whether or not it's realistic is irrelevant to the fact that it is not less realistic than Arma 2.

I would argue that the low armor value of MRAPs is also an asset issue, as the game is completely missing light armored vehicles like HMMWVs to take their place.

The fact that OPFOR have full body armor when no one else does is the complete opposite of balance, and I believe that it's also a relatively new feature that is still being adjusted.

P.S. For someone so concerned with realism in all aspects, you don't seem to know the difference between a clip and a magazine.

Edited December 29, 2013 by roshnak

[progamer 14]

That's the thing, though. There are very few differences between the gameplay of Arma 2 and Arma 3. It's one of the major problems I have with it. The only thing that could even kind of be construed as less realistic is the mouse control, and when we are talking about how I control my virtual body, I will take something that feels right over something that is right 100% of the time.

Other than that, the bullet penetration system is better. The vehicle damage system is mostly the same. The vehicle controls are mostly the same. The aircraft are exactly the same. The medical system is mostly the same (FAKs aren't really worse, just more of a continuation of the basic premise of the medical system in Arma 2). The movement system is better/more realistic.

So overall, it's not really more realistic, but it's not really less realistic either.

There are many areas of improvement. But the movement system in Arma 3 lacks inertia, how is a twitch shooter better? The aircraft are more lightly armed because of a very small pool of weapon types. Statements like "we feel the factions should be distinguishable yet balanced" gives us sides that basically mirror each other (I doubt they will change the fact they use the same vehicle guns, uav and similar/shared vehicles.) Opfor have bullet resistant full body clothing instead of ballistic vests. FAKs are like a placeholder. The MRAPs act like unarmored vehicles and do not protect the occupants for very long, have easy to hit fuel tanks and can be destroyed in 2 6.5mm clips.

We do see though a more realistic penetration system, a more realistic ballistics system but it breaks at longer distances, and Physx which is not fully implemented. The ammunition amounts on vehicles are actually pretty realistic on some.

Edited December 29, 2013 by ProGamer

[NeMeSiS 11]

People

I dont think you can speak for 'the people'. Maybe try to dig up a poll from around that time, that would a better indication.

The medical system is mostly the same (FAKs aren't really worse, just more of a continuation of the basic premise of the medical system in Arma 2).

Well, at least in ArmA2 we had dragging and the uncouncious state with modules. With the removal of those, me, and probably some other people as well, expected that that system would be hardcoded in gamewide. Instead, we got FAKs which is a pretty big disappointment. :p

Intertia

Honestly, while the speed parameter in ArmA2 did do something, the values were so high that they didnt influence gameplay in any way. Are you sure you arent confusing it with mouselag? No one seemed to fix that in ArmA2.

Edited December 29, 2013 by NeMeSiS

[eymerich 11]

Seriously, why would someone remove already finished stuff from game that already has too less stuff than it should have ? What's the point ? :( I really would like to have some F-35B, MV-22, Railgun, etc. in game. I hope they will add the missing stuff in the next versions of the game.

Sorry:

what are the

"

Flash hiders/amplifiers

"

?

[chortles 263]

The idea was that that said attachment would cut down on muzzle flash without affecting sound but also not affecting ballistics; unlike features that BI did shoot down publicly (i.e. full-fledged 3D editor, uniform switching, and fast-roping were all explicitly ruled out in 2012) devs have never publicly commented on what happened to the flash hider attachment.

[ballistic09 241]

Sorry:

what are the

"

Flash hiders/amplifiers

"

?

It was a muzzle attachment that was supposed to reduce the muzzle flash of the weapon it was attached to. Here's a picture.

Ironically, what BIS modeled for their flash suppressor is actually the Noveske KX3, and it does just the opposite of suppress muzzle flash... Lets just say it's not nicknamed the "flaming pig" for nothing.

unlike features that BI did shoot down publicly (i.e. full-fledged 3D editor, uniform switching, and fast-roping were all explicitly ruled out in 2012) devs have never publicly commented on what happened to the flash hider attachment.

Well, it was shown in a screenshot (along with some unknown optic) less than a week before the alpha release early this year, so it likely survived "the great content cut of 2012," but for whatever reason, it was cut in the days leading up to the alpha.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Well, it was shown in a screenshot (along with some unknown optic) less than a week before the alpha release early this year, so it likely survived "the great content cut of 2012," but for whatever reason, it was cut in the days leading up to the alpha.

Maybe it didnt hide any flashes. :p

[TheMakaan 12]

Hello I Just remembering Arma 3 confirmed features was Vehicle towing and fast roping, I've tried searching about these around the net but cant find any information about them.

Is it to be implemented later or has been axed from the game ?

[tremanarch 6]

i saw this in missions.

[TheMakaan 12]

So can anyone give me honest answer on if Arma 3 will have Vehicle towing and or Fast roping in Arma 3, has it been axed, or do we not know anything or do we have to wait, I like to know because that answer pretty much makes me make or ditch my mod I'm trying to make ?

[NeMeSiS 11]

Chances are very small for an official solution, but it is definitely possible to script it yourself, people have been doing this long before ArmA3 was released.

[chortles 263]

I don't believe that the devs have ever publicly commented on vehicle towing, but fast roping was flat-out/openly axed over a year ago.

[TheMakaan 12]

Dam it. I remember it being on a confirmed feature before alpha got released ? is Bi related to Australian government ?

In confirmed features ?

Game play:

Customizable Soldier Load:

Choose your uniform (2), assemble your weapon kit, change your load out, get loaded up.

Multiplayer Gameplay:

Challenge both cooperative & competitive scenarios with full support of dedicated servers for both Windows and Linux.

Completely Extensible & Moddable:

Design & create countless customizable scenarios using the intuitive & easy-to-use mission editor.

Underwater operations now supported (2)

HALO

The majority of the buildings on Altis and Stratis are enterable and can be destroyed. .

Weapon modification on the fly is now possible.

Action menus will be improved

Helicopter sounds will be on par with the ones in TOH.

The player will be able to remotely operate mortars .

Improved MP interface

Hands now move with the steering wheel.

Different muzzle flash samples

Grenade launcher zeroing works like in real life.

Shock waves will be simulated.

Improved UAV's

Improved artillery system- set the angle etc manually

Vehicles can now be towed.

Micro UAV's that can be deployed on a squad level.

Some weapons platforms can be operated remotely and some can function on their own.

All the stationary armament can be dismantled and transported by troops or vehicles.

The MP chat system will be improved.

Edited January 1, 2014 by Gh0st AACF

[chortles 263]

Source? Because I've honestly never heard of the devs commenting one way or another on vehicle towing at any point in Arma 3 development. If you meant fast-roping, Ivan shot that down as early as Gamescom 2012.

[TheMakaan 12]

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?119512-Arma-3-Confirmed-features-info-amp-discussion

[Steakslim 1]

that topic was never the holy grail of features promised to be in the game, and it was maintained by members of the forum here based on news and promotional material (and some official word by devs) that may or may not be a reliable source of what would be in the final game (scripted moving train in ArmA2 video anyone?).

[oktyabr 12]

What?!?! No horses!?!?! I suppose the akimbo K9 units with shoulder mounted yogurt cannons is out too then...

Seriously though. How about AI that can manage to keep a vehicle in a convoy and stay on roads when it makes sense. And that don't spot you, identify you as enemy and headshoot you from 600+m away.

How about an ambient civ and ambient warfare module?

IF the devs are working on DayZ SA I at least hope they port over the improvements from that game into Arma 3. I'd love to see a melee system ;)

[Nicholas 5]

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?119512-Arma-3-Confirmed-features-info-amp-discussion

The "confirmed features" thread is not an official thread. Just as Steakslim said, it was maintained by community members and was really only assumptions. I wouldn't believe anything in there unless it was directly confirmed by a developer.

Chortles, vehicle towing was never confirmed by any developers, it was listed in the features section on the ArmA 3 website before they redesigned it. I think it was referring to a feature that would be in the campaign and not in the base game.

[barakokula31 10]

they went for a halo like sci-fi approach

FPDR

BI hired a game balancer

What!? When? Where?

It was a large majority of the community at the time... That goes to show a huge disconnect from the community.

That just doesn't make sense. A large majority of the community wanted something removed and BIS removed it, and that's a "disconnect from the community"?

[progamer 14]

FPDR

Sorry, that was the first thing that came to mind, and I do recall I corrected that.

What!? When? Where?

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?151829-CLOSED-Job-Opening-Game-Balance-Designer-at-Bohemia-Interactive

That just doesn't make sense. A large majority of the community wanted something removed and BIS removed it, and that's a "disconnect from the community"?

What removed?

[barakokula31 10]

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?151829-CLOSED-Job-Opening-Game-Balance-Designer-at-Bohemia-Interactive

Fair enough.

What removed?

I was referring to the railgun tanks. I probably misunderstood what you said there. :p But I still don't get it. Modder said "So a small group of people changed the whole path a game developer was taking?" and you said "It was a large majority of the community at the time".

That would mean BIS was listening to the majority of the community, wouldn't it? Or have I misunderstood something, again?

[disco.modder 116]

Dam it. I remember it being on a confirmed feature before alpha got released ? is Bi related to Australian government ?

:rofl:

They both would make a great combination I guess.