Arma 3: concerns with latent issues

[DrHat 10]

Dear Bohemia Interactive,

I have been a great admirer of your work for some years now; it stands to your credit that you have so captured my attention for as long as you have.

Well done you! ^_^

Sadly however ( ), I am recently finding myself being "reduced" to, what can only be described as, a provisional admirer of your, otherwise very accomplished, studio. ( Don't get me wrong; I extend my utmost admiration to all involved

developers for their work up until this point) It is in this capacity, as a concerned provisional admirer, that I write to you/this forum.

This is about Armored Assault 3 (Arma 3) - a game I have had high expectations for, especially considering the work that preceded it (Arma 2, VBS etc.) and have patiently been watching ever since it became available to me during the initial Alpha stages (having bought the pre-release). Over a year later, it has more content, it has fixes, it has potential, it has singleplayer missions and upcoming Zeus DLC..but it doesn't feel like anything really happened. It still feels like it sits somewhere between beta and an RC. This is DESPITE all the additional content and fixes that I make this observation..

Why do I feel like this? Is it just me? Am I just being an obnoxious and self-entitled git? I certainly hope not! As it turns out, the public bugtracker seems to agree with me. I took a look at the bugtracker, sorting by Open issues, with most votes; what I then see, are most of the grievances I currently have with arma 3, which in a way is good because it means I'm not just imagining things and that these things deserve to get attention. At least I think they do - whether you agree with me or not, is another matter altogether.

What I don't understand, is why most of these issues are close to a year old, if not slightly more, yet remain open and unattended. I am especially perplexed from the point of view of my professional career, which is in Quality Assurance of the Gaming Industry and has been for 8 years of my life now

I have seen issues classified as 'Major' in severity, meaning they should be resolved before the next major patch (at least this is true in most game development environments that I've been in - you might choose to delay some for the patch after that, but we're talking exceptional circumstances here) - Not only that, but many of these 'Major' severity issues, have not been *updated* since mid 2013.

Example 1: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=432

Submitted: 2013-03-05 23:07

Status: Open

Priority: Normal

Severity: Feature (True, it is a feature request, and so are goodly amount of the other tickets on the first page, which isn't my original concern - however it does worry me a bit)

Example 2: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=3663

Submitted: 2013-03-10 12:52

Status: Assigned

Priority: High

Severity: Major

Example 3: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=3889

Submitted: 2013-03-11 00:40 (last update: 2013-10-01 00:50 (!))

Status: New (Means it hasn't been touched yet, doesn't it?)

Priority: Normal

Severity: Major

Example 4: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=3920

Submitted: 2013-03-11 02:34 (last update: 2013-10-26 00:25 (!))

Status: Assigned

Priority: High

Severity: Major

Example 5: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=5408

Submitted: 2013-03-18 11:03

Status: Assigned

Priority: High

Severity: Major

Please don't misunderstand me, I know very well that it is extremely unlikely that anyone has a blatant disregard for their work, nor their customers..so I am not assuming foul play here by Bohemia Interactive - and yes I know you are developing content, but then I am not asking about content (important distinction!)

Yet I am forced to wonder and I desperately wish I would get an answer as to what the hold up is?

Here is a link to what I mean:

http://feedback.arma3.com/plugin.php...0&pagination=1

I keep imagining that somewhere behind all this, there is a gargantuan patch rolling our way that addresses a lot of these things, however I rather doubt it.

I barely know what I want to ask you, however to simplify it, I guess the overall question could be: Do you have an answer for my concern?

Best Regards

- DrHat

Edited March 18, 2014 by DrHat
Added examples and fixed some typos

[OrLoK 20]

Hello there

Im sure there are sound reasons for any "issue" being put aside (whether *we* agree or not) but it may be that they are just outside the scope of what the Project Lead wants to deliver.

Ill be surprised if we will get a clear answer on every issue, but some of the ones you have flagged up have been addressed/changed and we have had snippets of info on others like the bipod deployment.

I too would like to know the inner workings and direction/design decisions of the company but I just dont see it happening in the way you wish.

Fingers crossed though!

Rgds

LoK

[DrHat 10]

Hello there

Im sure there are sound reasons for any "issue" being put aside (whether *we* agree or not) but it may be that they are just outside the scope of what the Project Lead wants to deliver.

Ill be surprised if we will get a clear answer on every issue, but some of the ones you have flagged up have been addressed/changed and we have had snippets of info on others like the bipod deployment.

I too would like to know the inner workings and direction/design decisions of the company but I just dont see it happening in the way you wish.

Fingers crossed though!

Rgds

LoK

I try to always assume that people are doing the best they can with what they have - that principle is no different when I regard Bohemia Interactive. It is for this reason that I am seeking answers, rather than doing something stupid like brooding, which might turn into a hostile attitude (can't have that!).

It is true that in some cases, minor info updates have happened...and it is also true that it is unlikely that I will get the answers I want - but if I don't try, I will never know. Whats more if I don't try, I will kick myself for not voicing my concern when I genuinely have them. I'm fairly sure you understand what I mean :)

Indeed fingers crossed!

[Furret 0]

Take a look at the old bug tracker, it has nearly identical issues dating back years.

[Westonsammy 1]

BI do fix a lot of things on the feedback tracker, but for some reason everyone gets pissy about a few issues.

Also, some of the things you listed aren't exactly "issues", and some are going to be damn hard to fix.

Your first example, deploying use of bipods, is a feature request. It's not something that needs to be fixed, it's something they want added into the game

The "Terrible Sound Immersion" for example two is also another feature request. Again, not saying that the sound is good in ArmA 3, but right now it works.

For your third example "Vehicles act like rubber". That's not a problem, that's a opinion. I have seen many people say that the vehicle handling in ArmA 3 is good, I've seen people say it is bad. Personally, I think tanks and APC's need to be a bit heavier, but otherwise vehicles drive like they should.

For the fourth example, this is one of the ones that is a problem, but is going to be damn hard to fix. As anyone who plays ArmA knows, the AI is pretty complex, and is prone to breaking/acting like idiots a lot. This is due to them not being scripted at all, and having to pathfind through any terrain, react to any situation, ect. This seems like something that isn't going to be as simple as a small patch, or something that BI can fix in a few weeks.

Your fifth example "Unrealistic Explosions", is once again, an opinion. Obviously in the world of video games, we aren't going to get %100 realistic explosions anytime soon. But the explosions in ArmA 3 are definitely a big step up from ArmA 2, so although they may not be realistic, they are getting closer.

However, besides the examples listed here there are some very big ones with easy fixes that BI hasn't gotten to yet, and personally I have no idea why. But i'm tired of people focusing on what are pretty much feature requests, when there are actual issues that need to be solved on the tracker.

[marcai 1]

For your third example "Vehicles act like rubber". That's not a problem, that's a opinion. I have seen many people say that the vehicle handling in ArmA 3 is good, I've seen people say it is bad. Personally, I think tanks and APC's need to be a bit heavier, but otherwise vehicles drive like they should.

With all due respect, earlier on today I crashed a Wipeout nose first into a tree at 160Kmp/h and it came to a soft landing, upside down and rested there before slowly sliding off and bouncing (again nose-first) into the ground where it came to rest for a few seconds before blowing up. I don't think it's an 'opinion' to say that planes don't do that IRL and it's acting a bit rubbery!

I'd love to see more realistic crash physics, or even a total removal of plane/helo wrecks if they crash above a certain speed, as they tend to break apart and leave wreckage rather than a neat fuselage... But hey, what can you do but hope?

[Bee8190 10]

For your third example "Vehicles act like rubber". That's not a problem, that's a opinion. I have seen many people say that the vehicle handling in ArmA 3 is good, I've seen people say it is bad. Personally, I think tanks and APC's need to be a bit heavier, but otherwise vehicles drive like they should.

Oh really do they now? It's not an opinion it IS a problem contrary to your wrong opinion. Vehicle handling and their behaviour are still even far behind what some people call arcadey. Obviously if you ever only played arma 2 and need for speed you wouldn't know any better as to base your comparison on. :rolleyes:

but otherwise vehicles drive like they should

You know just because they can move forward and backwards while making some noise doesn't mean that the implementation has been successful FPDR

.

[enex 11]

Bee I would love if you would past why.You are wrong because...Just saying someone else opinion is wrong without supporting fact behind doesn't

bring us anywhere.

For example I like vehicles beacuse they are more then moving forward and backwards, they have simulated gearbox now.And looking up to a

future expanding physix part of the engine can get us amazing results.Heck even nou said that this would be possible in arma

[andreher 10]

Onde thing I don't understand is: Why did they made a pixel perfect model for an ugly and useless truck (the civilian transport) and we get a black screen with a small window while on a tank or APC (the main vehicles of the game).

The bipod / deploy weapon on objects is pretty necessary too, specially in A3 where your soldier can't fire while standing at all, he looks like to have the parkinson disease.

[hekuball 10]

Although I don't necessarily agree with the specific examples given, I agree with the overall tone of the thread.

If I were to characterise BI as developers based on Arma 3 I would say they were ambitious but entirely inconsistent on the detail, it's a mystery to me how they prioritise some fixes and featuresabove others, I guess it is based on how long they take rather then how important they are. Therefore, not knowing the mind of the developers is kind of frustrating for the community as we don't really know what needs to be modded vs what we can expect to be developed.

Pity really, if they put a bit more work into improving the basics this would be hands-down the best military shooter out there, at the moment it's kind of in limbo.

Edited March 21, 2014 by hekuball

[RushHour 11]

they have simulated gearbox now

That doesn´t work properly. It´s a potato.

-

What amazes me the most out of anything is the bipods. They pushed the idea of an infantry style game and it left out one of the most basic features.

The 3D artist even put them on some of the guns!

You´ve also got sniper rifles in the game that is designed to take out targets that are over a kilometer away and you forgot the most important accessory of the gun apart from the scope.

Edited March 21, 2014 by RushHour

[Bee8190 10]

Bee I would love if you would past why.You are wrong because...Just saying someone else opinion is wrong without supporting fact behind doesn't

bring us anywhere.

For example I like vehicles beacuse they are more then moving forward and backwards, they have simulated gearbox now.And looking up to a

future expanding physix part of the engine can get us amazing results.Heck even nou said that this would be possible in arma

It would be lengthy post to list how those vehicle should drive and under what conditions but the fact that they lack any kind of feedback and drive rubbery still stands. The whole physx was just marketing and I don't see BI tweaking the physx much further if at all but if you're genuinely interested in what physx and driving model looks like ( feels like ) on simulation side I suggest you try out one of the known race sim titles like Project Cars or Asseto Corsa.

Edit - as for the previously mentioned gears - let's avoid the terrible illusion that they are even anywhere near working properly :rolleyes:

[enex 11]

It would be lengthy post to list how those vehicle should drive and under what conditions but the fact that they lack any kind of feedback and drive rubbery still stands. The whole physx was just marketing and I don't see BI tweaking the physx much further if at all but if you're genuinely interested in what physx and driving model looks like ( feels like ) on simulation side I suggest you try out one of the known race sim titles like Project Cars or Asseto Corsa.

Edit - as for the previously mentioned gears - let's avoid the terrible illusion that they are even anywhere near working properly :rolleyes:

-Physx is marketting

-No futher tweaking of physx

-comparing with driving simulators

-gearbox is not working properly

I don't understand how are people so jaded.Why would you just talk about negatives?

[Bee8190 10]

-Physx is marketting

-No futher tweaking of physx

-comparing with driving simulators

-gearbox is not working properly

I don't understand how are people so jaded.Why would you just talk about negatives?

Because there are hardly any positives left to talk about. I already said the models and textures are nice but that alone doesn't make me enjoy them and just to clarify, I don't expect them to refine the physx to racing simulation levels

but enlighten people who doesn't know better what physx is capable of in race sim games, opposed to saying they ''handle as they should'' and hence why I said that vehicles in arma are not even fit for arcade simulation.

Furthermore it's outright naive to expect BI tweak the physx to the level that one would say ''it's little arcadey but believable and fun''. As for gears, they still fucked up ever since alpha

[metralla 19]

We are in the 1.14 version of this game and now is when you feel some maturity, but if you start to notice many general aspects of the game you get to the conclusion that no quality in almost anything, graphics, AI, etc etc. .. ..

All I see in the game that has some quality is in the trees and lights so others do not have any quality.

Game bugs at this point I still see many to put one of them and related to IA, up to a tank commander and command to march backwards hehe you'll be surprised how little moving backwards the tank.

Final Conclusion: We have sold a shoddy game:mad:

[jgbtl292 0]

the game looks like a big construction site, see no basis :( everywhere a little nothing is done ...

new features and gamemodes - but no old fundamental things where you can say " it's finished now, now we make and add new things "

and about one year after gold status ....

bugs in the DEV come into stable. nobody cares ...

good new things " no AT shell can kill a house was removed .....

bad new things replaced good old things - new thigns not final - old things come back - new bugs was removed and so soon ....

one messed up.

one gets the impression, everyone does and is working on what he wants - without ever getting ready. that's is very sad for this really good game that it might be.

that's my impression after 14 years

Edited March 22, 2014 by JgBtl292

[Rydygier 1317]

Perhaps not issues, I would bring as biggest problems currently, but I agree with such approach. I mean, I do not know nothing about game industry from inside, including BIS' workflow and its limitations over this dozen of years, and perhaps I'm 100% wrong here, I know, business aspect is crucial, but. But personally, also as script maker, I'm 100% convinced to quality over quantity approach. Knowing about issues, that are severe and widely criticised 10 years, like driver's AI, and still not fixed personally I would be deeply ashamed, if this is would be my responsibility. I wouldn't work on anything new until all known issues will be 100% fixed.

Edited March 22, 2014 by Rydygier

[jgbtl292 0]

yes that's is it

Edited March 22, 2014 by JgBtl292

[Nexerius 10]

My only real problem with ArmA 3 is the extremely low performance. I dont really play it anymore because its so terrible for me now.Ill just have to wait, and hope that we will see a performance patch or something in the future.

[mamasan8 11]

We are in the 1.14 version of this game and now is when you feel some maturity, but if you start to notice many general aspects of the game you get to the conclusion that no quality in almost anything, graphics, AI, etc etc. .. ..

All I see in the game that has some quality is in the trees and lights so others do not have any quality.

Game bugs at this point I still see many to put one of them and related to IA, up to a tank commander and command to march backwards hehe you'll be surprised how little moving backwards the tank.

Final Conclusion: We have sold a shoddy game:mad:

I can't agree with you on the lights issue. Turn on the light in any vehicle and they only lit up a cone of 5 metres infront of the vehicle. It was better than this in Need for speed 2, which was released in the 90s, I think.

Driving at night with lights on is just impossible, can't see anything. Much better to turn off lights and turn on NV googles. Sure, the lights look good but they are not practical. I'm trying to play the game, not look at a video.

I think the graphics are beautiful, the texture detail. Also the effect behind the jets engines and tanks rear are cool.

But what does that matter when Im getting 20 fps.

I'm thinking of one thing the Eve devs did, or rather their community.

They compiled a list of most important issues to fix (even numbered by how critical the issue was) and brought it to the attention of the devs via CSM (Community representatives who visit devs and talk to them often). It was a long list and most of those got fixed over time (if not all issues).

Could that be something of use here? I know we can vote on issues but its not like the average person will wade thru all the feedback-tracker issues and vote. I surely don't. I also don't feel like the feedback-tracker serves a big role in what issues get fixed, judging by the devbranch fixlists.

[RushHour 11]

who doesn't know better what physx is capable of in race sim games

Actually everyone who builds simracing games knows PhysX is shit. PCARS (which can´t even be considered a true sim, more simcade) only use it for when the cars is airborne.

All other real sims, Rfactor, Assetto Corsa, iRacing uses their own physics engine built from scratch because that will always give the best result.

[Bee8190 10]

Actually everyone who builds simracing games knows PhysX is shit. PCARS (which can´t even be considered a true sim, more simcade) only use it for when the cars is airborne.

All other real sims, Rfactor, Assetto Corsa, iRacing uses their own physics engine built from scratch because that will always give the best result.

I hear you but I am talking about the poor handling, poor feedback of arma vehicles and how they handling are unfit for even arcade based games. Also pCARS have not even reach beta yet so I will save my judgement for later.

[RushHour 11]

Yea it can certainly be better. When you release a small hatchback that will outrun supercars and with the invisible downforce of an open wheeler you sort of know where the bar has been set in the physics department.

The reason you don´t notice it that much in the air vehicles is because it´s many orders of magnitude easier to simulate aircraft then vehicles.

[k0rd 3]

Although I don't necessarily think that BI should automatically prioritize their fixes based on votes, I do think that they should provide an update on the feedback tracker to popular, old, open tickets. I'm sure most of us would rather just get a "no" than just be in limbo forever.

I'm not sure - do they even close feature requests ever?