A Complete Arma 3 - Not That Far Away

[arthuro12 10]

I wish BI had more room in the development department.

Somehow I feel like they are held back a little..

[ratszo 17]

I wish BI had more room in the development department.

Somehow I feel like they are held back a little..

Fair comment.

Are they held back?

The week-day changelogs, every day, seems to me like alot of out-put for a dev team ..., shall i say 'post release'.

I'd like to point out, Bis polished A2 for many years past prime --then netcode v1.60 came --then Dayz was possible.

Imagine a 4 year old title being *1 seller on steam for many months.

To me, this shows well how Bis runs.

It's called, "Track Record".

I got pet peeves; I still play.

[Tvok 10]

It's nice to see a wise post every now and then :)

I just want to add that a game that doesn't work is not just boring: it's annoying. Besides, engine and gameplay features are moddable to a point. You can't change the code

Honestly when I went from Arma2 to Arma3, I felt like all the things I hated in Arma2 were still there. Random deaths/damage from clipping geometry, not being able to open a fence gate because you're not looking -exactly- at one of the bars on the fence, the way the camera is directly attached to the head so it clips walls and looks awkward, getting stuck in random states because you accidentally hit a key (surrender, head look, etc).

I could care less about content, I'd rather see bugs fixed and the game made a lot more friendly. Mods are awesome and give me all the content I could ask for!

[roshnak 41]

Fair comment.

Are they held back?

Yes. "Held back a little" is far from a strong statement.

Arma 3 has failed to address some of the longest running feature requests and issues with the series. The development team has failed to implement a number of promised features. Either BIS is being held back, or they don't care.

Even if they weren't being held back, are you saying that you don't want BIS to have a larger development department -- to have more time and resources to devote to improving Arma 3? Think about what you are arguing against here.

[tupolov 520]

BIS did address a lot of issues with A3 and considering the rocky road of development actually delivered a much improved game over A2. If A3 was just A2 with bug fixes, it simply would not be successful commercially. They had to deliver improved graphics & lighting, physx, move to steam, new content and engine improvements. Of course these features are bugged too, the physx in particular seems pretty bad, but that is game development BIS style.

I think we can all agree that Altis is a masterpiece that really shows off the visual and scale improvements in A3.

Arma 3 won't be complete ... until BIS decide to drop Arma. A2 was never completed and in fact A3 is just a branch from it. We're lucky that BIS are one of the few companies in the world that just keeps improving their products.

For me personally, A3 needs:

1. MP performance and high priority bugs fixed

2. Sort out physx

3. Port official A2 content (or at least provide more support/incentive for this)

4. Fix inventory system

5. Lighting improvements (i.e. stop light bleeding from rooms/houses etc)

i think DLCs should focus on delivering major new features and content. My asks would be:

1. Winter DLC - major feature would be environmental weather system to provide mud, snow and more immersive conditions along with some winter units and appropriate map(s).

2. Littoral Ops DLC - with the introduction of underwater environment, BIS should expand this to an improvement in ocean, shore and river simulation and operations. Could also introduce improved naval units and amphibious vehicles. Map that showcases new features.

3. SF DLC - no doubt a popular one! Features that focus on improving CQB, infil and exfil options (yes ok fast roping), introduce new infantry models (maybe even character customization for height/weight?), SF specific units, animations, vehicles and weapons, no need for maps (maybe a token effort based around ship/airliner boarding or building clearance to showcase features).

my 2 pennies..

Edited April 21, 2014 by Tupolov

[k0rd 3]

If A3 was just A2 with bug fixes, it simply would not be successful commercially.

I'm not completely convinced of this. ( I do like your fix priority list though :) )

[tupolov 520]

Ok, let me rephrase that, you can't sell a large patch as A3 :)

[oldy41 61]

I'm not completely convinced of this. ( I do like your fix priority list though :) )

Neither am I: I did not buy A3 to get those great new units and that fancy new scenario nor to defend the western world against a new foe.

Instead I primarily bought the improved engine with some nice new features like improved stance system, ragdolls, improved performance (yes, at least a bit :-) ), those fancy PhysX which was advertised in the first teasers, and the proven ability of the series to load any community mods I like (eagerly waiting for e.g. the A3 release of I44...)

That being said, my reasoning was the same when I bought A2, and A1, and Resistance and OFP...

I am still addicted to the series despite all its flaws. But I cannot imagine any unit or weapon pack which could make me happier than a few good bug fixes and AI improvements.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Alot of points here touch on some good things. Bug improvements over all, optimizations (no such thing as too much optimization!!!), and polishing of exsisting features. However, adding features (not a million new ones) even if its a few, such as a new approach to interaction and engine capabilities would be simply amazing. You cannot tell me you didn't love when the new rain came out over the Arma 2 rain that was still in the engine. Personally now, i would love to see new weather options, such as lower cloud level, sort of like how they had in arma 2, but to fit the A3 Engine. I would like to see the scroll menu over hauled (for example, the scroll menu still exsists, however, there are 3d Icons on objects in which would enable you to do more things, or more important things that would clutter the scroll menu). Most people would agree those few things would make Arma 3 20% better than it is now. For bug fixes, i'm sure they're working more on those than other items now that Zeus and the Full game how been released. However, if you guys want improvements, the only way to get it is to push them harder to get it done.

Neither am I: I did not buy A3 to get those great new units and that fancy new scenario nor to defend the western world against a new foe.

Instead I primarily bought the improved engine with some nice new features like improved stance system, ragdolls, improved performance (yes, at least a bit :-) ), those fancy PhysX which was advertised in the first teasers, and the proven ability of the series to load any community mods I like (eagerly waiting for e.g. the A3 release of I44...)

That being said, my reasoning was the same when I bought A2, and A1, and Resistance and OFP...

I am still addicted to the series despite all its flaws. But I cannot imagine any unit or weapon pack which could make me happier than a few good bug fixes and AI improvements.

I'm pretty certain the physx engine was there. They had it during Alpha, and somewhat through Beta. But what i think happened is they realized those physics, you cant really control a vehicle the same way with a mouse and keyboard, as you can with the wheel, the pedals, and all the things that make having these physics viable. That being said, they probably dumbed down the PhysX's a bit in order to compensate for some things we would not have control over. But that's just my speculation.

[ratszo 17]

.... Think about what you are arguing against here.

I have.

I also like clubbing baby seals in my spare time.

..., it's a Canadian thing....

Edited April 21, 2014 by Ratszo
..., it's a Canadian thing....

[chrisb 196]

So, does this mean we feel the game might reach a complete state merely a year or so after release. No, I know that's silly, it won't be complete until they finish the game, being its a sandbox, maybe that's never and perhaps that's a good thing. I believe A3 might have to last us, for many years to come..;)

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

So, does this mean we feel the game might reach a complete state merely a year or so after release. No, I know that's silly, it won't be complete until they finish the game, being its a sandbox, maybe that's never and perhaps that's a good thing. I believe A3 might have to last us, for many years to come..;)

***^^^ This ^^^***

Winner Winner, Chicken Dinner! (lol)

The best insight I've heard yet far.

[doveman 7]

I want more engine side things like

Weapon resting

Fatigue

Wound/medical system

Audio tweaks

Performance optimizations

Complete destruction of the action menu

When audio tweaks, fatigue and some optimization and bug fixes are in then I say it's complete but naturally the development doesn't stop there and I hope to see everything from my list.

Whilst it would be nice to have those things in as default, the fact is there's mods for weapon resting (VTS), wounding/medical, improved audio, action menu (sakus mods). Personally, I'd like to see BIS improve the interface, as that's what gives a good/bad impression of the game before you even start playing. Of course, I agree that performance optimisation should be a priority as well, as there's not much point having features if the game is unplayable for many/most players.

A long time ago, I started or joined a ticket about making A3 automatically load the required mods for a SP mission, as BIS promised that user-made content was going to be a priority for A3 but when players have to manually create profiles with a launcher for each mission to load A3 with the required mods, it makes people not bother playing missions that require mods and thus creators mostly end up not creating missions that use any mods, which in turn discourages the mod creators.

The fact that the engine loads with the specified mods when launching A3 makes it more complicated and I originally suggested splitting the interface and engine to solve this problem but thinking about, perhaps a simpler way would be for it to be left as is but when launching a SP-mission which uses mods, just unload the engine and reload it with the required mods. I'm sure this could be done in the background without closing the interface, so it would be transparent to the user. The mission would just need a simple text file accompanying it which specifies which mods are required and then A3 could download them if necessary from the Six network but BIS need to decide on a solution and implement it before mission creators can use it.

Other changes I'd like to see are:

a) showing a summary briefing of the mission in the MP mission selection screen

b) being able to swap between the briefing screen and slot screen, so that people can switch slots as needed AFTER reading the briefing and having an idea what might be needed (sometimes there's only 5 players in a 6-player co-op mission so we have to leave one slot as AI, or maybe the mission looks particularly hard and a more experienced player needs to swap slots with someone else)

c) being able to access the player's gear from the briefing/slot screen. When selecting a slot, we should be able to see at least a list of the gear, so that maybe one player who's OK with a certain type of AT but not another can take another role if he's not confident with the particular weaponary used in that misison and likewise in the briefing screen, so that when planning a mission we can see what weapons we have available. I want it to go further though, so it's like A2 where we could change our gear from the briefing screen (and do so from the slot screen as well, so that players don't have to be switching between screens too much when setting up)

[JamesSaga 1]

^^ This may well improve once the steam workshop support for mods comes in.

[kilroy the nerd 14]

Go kart DLC, a civilian fixed wing passenger plane (I dream for another Cessna-esque plane still), policemen and policecars ready in editor menus to match the boat, cargo planes, vans (there's already a wreck of one, why not a proper), buses, and tractors. That's contentwise, anyway. I don't think it's necessary to ask for features when so many others already have.

[Gutsnav 13]

I guess we just wait like 6 months for the community to make all the mods for the stuff we wanted in A3. It's kinda how the Arma series has always been.

---------- Post added at 19:32 ---------- Previous post was at 19:31 ----------

Which isn't too much of a bad thing. Some stuff should be in the game, but I'm sure that will be added in the near future.

[jgbtl292 0]

I guess we just wait like 6 months for the community to make all the mods for the stuff we wanted in A3. It's kinda how the Arma series has always been

mods are no solution for me and many players. i play only mp - and 95% of the server allowed no mods - that's is - for me useless :(

and start game - oh ah mod - arma off mod off - start mission oh a mod - arma off mod off - start arma - other mission ( other server is full now . oh will not a mod. ) arma off other mod off - start arma .....and so soon that sucks ^^

Edited April 27, 2014 by JgBtl292

[chrisb 196]

95%, that many servers don't take any mods! wow...

Surprising when they change the game to the better so much.

Group playing is better, using a private setup if possible.

[chortles 263]

Aren't these public servers as opposed to private/clan servers, JgBtl292?

[theevancat 277]

mods are no solution for me and many players. i play only mp - and 95% of the server allowed no mods - that's is - for me useless :(

Aren't there a lot of ACE servers in A2? I'm sure once something consolidated like that comes out there'll be bigger implementation on public servers.

[Sub-Human 10]

I wonder when Bohemia plans on releasing the next big expansion, akin to Operation Arrowhead...

[arthuro12 10]

What we really need to get the community content to accelerate is better TOOLS! :)

The workflow at the moment is too tedious and delicate and often projects are abandoned because of the very steep learning curves and outdated software.

Better and more up-to-date documentation should be a priority for BIS as well!

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Mod support would be great in my opinion, and would help down the time consuming annoyance of manually finding them all, installing them all, enabling them all via. Expansions or Line Command, and help new people out a bit. Better tools are a good thought as well, though, i've not tried making mods myself, as i don't have the time for that. Hehe. For the community to make all the content for us would then require as stated already, better mod support.

---------- Post added at 15:17 ---------- Previous post was at 15:12 ----------

I wonder when Bohemia plans on releasing the next big expansion, akin to Operation Arrowhead...

Could have sworn i heard something about a new Terrain, but that's all i know, and for all i know, it could be a rumor. Also, an expansion pack would require new content to go with said Terrain, and maybe new factions/weapons according to who they are, etc.

I was thinking if Arma 3 has better Physics, if BI could use all aspects in the Vanilla. for example, there are a few Amphibious vehicles. What about Amphibious aircraft of the likes, i think I've seen mods with them. Also, something new, maybe something we wont expect, but interesting and fitting within the Engine. Just a few more thoughts, as "Complete" for Arma is more of a far stretched idea. =P