What would you like to see worked on next in ArmA 3?

[Flaky 10]

Point well made seany.

I would like to take a moment to look back and see what people feel were the best improvements over arma 2 that we have seen so far, and how that may inform design decisions.

Firstly there are some clear points where Arma 3 is still lacking even relative to Arma 2 (overall number of units, terrain variety) and there are some areas where there has been quite frankly excellent progress (massively the case wrt. to performance... no seriously, people seem to forget that the view-distances in Arma 3 for most players are twice what they were in arma 2 and it still runs smoother and looks way better). These type of changes are continual and represent the maturing of the overall game (egs. might be things like the overhauled inventory, lighting technology, steam integration, netcode, animations etc)

Secondly there are some areas where a lot of under-the-hood content may have been updated, but the underlying design philosophy needs modernising (things like AI, and the sound engine, action menu). Although the metaphorical bare bones of these systems may have been totally reworked, the results have not yet come to full fruition due to time constraints. This is imo where those *essential* mods have the greatest impact, by capitalising on the fundamental changes wrought in the engine (eg. sound mods, texture replacers, AI enhancements etc).

Personally I would rather see the official devs continue to focus on the second point and continue to innovate with their design philosophy and engine. This is not simply improving performance, but imagining what is next for the whole direction of the series. To be honest BI does this really well already. I think the compromise on amount of content in favour of sheer innovation relative to Arma 2 will continue to pay off as more ported and original content is created by the community and as we can see in the road-map with priority on working towards unparalleled rotary-wing and vehicle model simulation. This will be a coup for the series if it can be pulled off.

With all that said I voted for improved damage modelling. I believe it will capitalise best on the decisions already set out (TOH flight model, possible vehicle model improvements, ballistics improvements) and make the most of others (like PhysX implementation). Not rushing to implement a half-baked medical system for release has created the opportunity to revisit this area in greater detail. I believe it represents a good opportunity to maximise the return on the hard work already done and integrate PhysX, updated ballistics and changes to the skeleton and inventory into a comprehensive damage model for infantry and to some extent vehicles. This will bring the Arma engine to a new level of realism, where the consequences of war are real physically and hopefully psychologically for the players. I feel that the engine is mature enough now that this can be handled tastefully and that it would tie in well with the respectful and honest stance that the Arma series has always displayed in simulating armed conflict. Evidence such as the generous 'Make Arma Not War' competition shows that there is deeper underlying philosophy to BI, and I would like to see this continued most of all.

Edited June 19, 2014 by Flaky

[GShock 10]

Every 2 or 3 months I come back to check the state of this game... this time I played 5 minutes a workshop mission, I started with 6 clips, I was killed after I'd been shooting 3 clips onto the same target at 180m. I must have hit it at least 7 times but then, in the end I died. During the mission, I had 7 AI in line formation. We were basically 8 vs 3.

Half of my team was killed, me included, and ALL of the AI went out of ammo.

If this is not index of a BAD damage model I don't know what can be. Entire clips don't make a kill in this game.

[Brisse 78]

Strange. It's usually enough with two shots, unless you are using the wrong tool for the job.

[Alwarren 2767]

Strange. It's usually enough with two shots, unless you are using the wrong tool for the job.

Usually, you use the tools that you have. If that is a 5.56 rifle, then you're pretty much effed.

[Brisse 78]

If that is a 5.56 rifle, then you're pretty much effed.

Unless..... the enemy is fighting naked. :D

[Varanon 892]

Strange. It's usually enough with two shots, unless you are using the wrong tool for the job.

Using the wrong tool for the job... right... how about using the tool you are given ?

What you say is pretty ridiculous... of course you can kill anyone with a .50 cal, but that's hardly the point.

[Kakarotto 0]

Although it isn't on the poll, I think an improvement of medium and long distance terrain-related rendering is one of the most important things that needs to be worked on. The current situation, where it's easier to spot "hidden" enemies that are 600 meters away (if you have a telescopic sight) than those that are hiding 50 meters away, has a considerable and negative effect on gameplay.

Also the action menu needs a total overhaul.

Edited June 18, 2014 by Kakarotto

[roshnak 41]

Every 2 or 3 months I come back to check the state of this game... this time I played 5 minutes a workshop mission, I started with 6 clips, I was killed after I'd been shooting 3 clips onto the same target at 180m. I must have hit it at least 7 times but then, in the end I died. During the mission, I had 7 AI in line formation. We were basically 8 vs 3.

Half of my team was killed, me included, and ALL of the AI went out of ammo.

If this is not index of a BAD damage model I don't know what can be. Entire clips don't make a kill in this game.

Well that's not even true. There isn't a situation where you can hit a person 90 times and not kill them in this game. You were missing.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

The amount of ammo, or heck, the tool someone has doesn't determine the fate of the mission. But rather how that tool is utilized. Though, in terms of ballistics, 5.56 could use some attention.

[DomZ 15]

The problem is that the AI can shot more accurately than it is possible to do with player controls because the weapon aim wobbles about so much. Is it still 3 hits to kill at 180m? At least 6 hits to kill was fixed in march!

Edited June 18, 2014 by DomZ

[starcos 15]

These are problems, but hardly the worst of it.

Biggest problem is the crap collision detection. How many times you see people halfway through walls (even shooting through, when their weapon is outside), or merged into objects, etc.

Most of us would like to see things like for example auto lowering weapons in houses when they collide with walls, so the shorter weapons can have an advantage there. But how can we expect something like that, when even the basic stuff doesn't work.

Second is the pathfinding...

(Third is the indestructible objects. For example: driving through a wooden roadblock with a tank... everything flies away in one piece. Fences just lay down when you knock them over. I don't expect every object to be destructible, there are far too many, but at least those few that are expected to get in these kind of situation.)

[UkropyPrivyet 32]

Yes so insulting, 35 different, individual weapons (for infantry, not including variants such as MX black but including major variance such as carbine versions or GLs fitted..)

25 weapons accessories

24 types of headgear, (not including variants)

7 military uniform variants, and 7 guerilla uniforms, and civilian clothes. (Not including Kart clothing)

19 vests (not including different colours but does include where the vests are genuinely different, e.g. Tactical vests were counted as one but since there is a difference betweeen the plate carrier lite and plate carrier GL they count as seperate vests.)

10 different aircraft (not including variants like the camo ghosthawk.)

3 boats, 3 drones (since they're all basically the same for each faction they count as three)

1 SDV

14, distinct armoured vehicles (the Sochor and the Scorcher count as one here since they're basically the same.

7 distinct vehicles, not including variations like the multiple versions of the HEMMT.

many miscellaneous objects. In addition doesn't include the weapons on those vehicles or aircraft.

Now we go onto other features:

25 full campaign missions, not including hubs or scouting missions.

14 showcase missions, not including the Faction showcases

10 firing drill challenges

5 Time trial challenges if you want to include those

9 MP missions.

Fully functioning and highly sophisticated mission editor

Character customisation

Mod support

A 20km^2 map.

A 270km^2 map.

How despicable that they make you pay money for all this.

Feel free to point out anything I've missed...

EDIT: To be on topic it's the vehicle AI that I'm most interested in improving, the infantry AI do have their moments of actually being quite good (and moments of stupidity) but I think the vehicle AI does leave something to be desired.

Counting the MX variants as different weapons is absolutely retarded in and of itself first off, but then to even have the audacity to say "NOT INCLUDING THE DIFFERENT COLOR VERSION" is just so outrageous I almost laughed. Twenty-four types of headgear, 7 uniforms, and 19 vests? What about all those vests that are clearly at least partially complete that are in the files that are easily seen in the virtual ammo box? Ten aircraft? How many of those are the Albatros with a different loadout, because those don't count as more than one plane, either. Twenty-five weapon accessories, is that including the red-dot that has a green and red dot and the EOTech that's for rifles and the one for SMGs? Fourteen armored vehicles, of that all of which feel the exact same to the point where it's about as bland as drinking water? Misc, unusable, stupid objects? How can you forget about defense companies contracting the same HMGs and mines and all that bullcrap to different nations with a different skin, or the same with ATVs. How about the fact that we were sold a "futuristic" game when I can only point out a single usable item that isn't a prototype that comes from the 80s, 90s, or late 2000s? It's absolutely sickening that people will defend this and consider it acceptable. A 270km squared map? Is that including the salt flat that is unusable garbage? Really, it's sad.

[Jona33 51]

Counting the MX variants as different weapons is absolutely retarded in and of itself first off, but then to even have the audacity to say "NOT INCLUDING THE DIFFERENT COLOR VERSION" is just so outrageous I almost laughed.

Yes, I counted the MX variants as separate weapons because they have genuinely different 3D models, they provide actually different results. That's my reasoning.

Twenty-four types of headgear, 7 uniforms, and 19 vests? What about all those vests that are clearly at least partially complete that are in the files that are easily seen in the virtual ammo box?

And what about those vests, what do you want me to do about them

Ten aircraft? How many of those are the Albatros with a different loadout, because those don't count as more than one plane, either.

You know how I wrote different "aircraft", I quite literally meant different aircraft. E.g. Ghosthawk, Pawnee/Hummingbird similar enough I'll count them as one, just for you, Blackfoot,Wipeout, Mohawk, Hellcat, Albatros, Orca, Kajman, Neophron.

Twenty-five weapon accessories, is that including the red-dot that has a green and red dot and the EOTech that's for rifles and the one for SMGs?

Yes, I counted all the items under the "Weapon Accessories" list, even discounting those then that makes 23. Oh the Horror!

Fourteen armored vehicles, of that all of which feel the exact same to the point where it's about as bland as drinking water?

Well diddums, they're undeniably unique content, sure they're are some shared turrets. Since the Cheetah and ZSU also share a turret I believe we'll also count those as 1, so that's 13 unique ARMOURED vehicles.

Misc, unusable, stupid objects?

Wow, just Wow.

How can you forget about defense companies contracting the same HMGs and mines and all that bullcrap to different nations with a different skin, or the same with ATVs.

Yeah you make a point here, a poorly presented one but it does actually exist I suppose, I just hope they'll diversify in the future.

How about the fact that we were sold a "futuristic" game when I can only point out a single usable item that isn't a prototype that comes from the 80s, 90s, or late 2000s?

Again, diddums. The stuff looks mostly futuristic, it's not unreasonable.

It's absolutely sickening that people will defend this and consider it acceptable.

A

"Sickening"? The phrase "First World Problems" really does apply here.

270km squared map? Is that including the salt flat that is unusable garbage? Really, it's sad.

Well it isn't unusable garbage, it's a perfectly reasonable part of the map that offers some diversity, even discounting that which is maybe 1km x 1km. Still quite a big map isn't it?

Look, the game's not perfect. It could do with more content, it can always do with more content I agree. But you're ranting about how it's pathetic and sickening makes you look a fool.

[vegeta897 13]

So FR4NCH3K's argument boils down to chiseling away at the boulder of evidence presented against him by Jona33. And also he hates the salt flats, for some reason, even though it's both an interesting part of the map as well as offers mission makers a nice playground for various things. I've seen it used dozens of times in custom missions. It has utility, style, and not to mention it's true to the real life island. Give me a break.

[Brisse 78]

Yep, I'm with Jona33 on this one :)

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

270km squared map? Is that including the salt flat that is unusable garbage? Really, it's sad.

Wrong. I'll do a video about this when i get off work to show you how NOT useless the salt flats are.

[Sterlingarcherz101 15]

Would be nice if they slat beds actually filled with waters stated during load screens.

I like Altis when you really walk it. is a work of art. to see it back in arma1 would have blown minds.. seen in fog at sunrise, is really Amazeballs if you have not go to editor and try.

my only complaint would be the obvious mp stability. And they should have deviated from the actual map and added rivers, making boats and subs used more often. One or 2 big woodlands. Again I know they did keep to the original environment but be nice to have these. I don't think anyone could disagree.

[EDcase 87]

Apart from MP netcode improvement which is already being worked on...

I'd like a bit more radio simulation for VoIP. Interference/noise linked to distance for small radios and signal blocking from terrrain.

Similar to ACRE without the need for TeamSpeak. Radios don't need ultra high fidelity audio anyway.

Also general sound channel isolation still needs work. Close sounds lose their direction completely which is wrong.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Would be nice if they slat beds actually filled with waters stated during load screens.

I like Altis when you really walk it. is a work of art. to see it back in arma1 would have blown minds.. seen in fog at sunrise, is really Amazeballs if you have not go to editor and try.

my only complaint would be the obvious mp stability. And they should have deviated from the actual map and added rivers, making boats and subs used more often. One or 2 big woodlands. Again I know they did keep to the original environment but be nice to have these. I don't think anyone could disagree.

I have hope the new Terrain will be something amazing. I thought i read that it focused on diverse, and new terrain. New meaning we probably never experienced the biome it's located in. Maybe. Idk. Fog is good. I would like to see some more weather side effects. Like low level cloud cover. That would blow my mind.

[UkropyPrivyet 32]

Yes, I counted the MX variants as separate weapons because they have genuinely different 3D models, they provide actually different results. That's my reasoning.

And what about those vests, what do you want me to do about them

You know how I wrote different "aircraft", I quite literally meant different aircraft. E.g. Ghosthawk, Pawnee/Hummingbird similar enough I'll count them as one, just for you, Blackfoot,Wipeout, Mohawk, Hellcat, Albatros, Orca, Kajman, Neophron.

Yes, I counted all the items under the "Weapon Accessories" list, even discounting those then that makes 23. Oh the Horror!

Well diddums, they're undeniably unique content, sure they're are some shared turrets. Since the Cheetah and ZSU also share a turret I believe we'll also count those as 1, so that's 13 unique ARMOURED vehicles.

Wow, just Wow.

Yeah you make a point here, a poorly presented one but it does actually exist I suppose, I just hope they'll diversify in the future.

Again, diddums. The stuff looks mostly futuristic, it's not unreasonable.

A

"Sickening"? The phrase "First World Problems" really does apply here.

Well it isn't unusable garbage, it's a perfectly reasonable part of the map that offers some diversity, even discounting that which is maybe 1km x 1km. Still quite a big map isn't it?

Look, the game's not perfect. It could do with more content, it can always do with more content I agree. But you're ranting about how it's pathetic and sickening makes you look a fool.

What do I want you to do about the vests? Nothing as you're not a developer. I want the developers of this game to finish the textures and whatever else is needed on these uniforms, vests, backpacks, and pieces of headgear so they can be used in game.

Artillery pieces use the same turret as well, just a few different tack-ons like gas cans on the NATO variant. They all use the same gunboat and RHIB as well. I've also already pointed out the use of the same quads.

The MX does NOT count as separate weapon systems in the same way that the Katiba, TRG, and F2000 weapons don't count as more than one either. Just because you change the barrel length and in-game function does not make it a new weapon that gives it the right to be counted as such. Let's not forget about how there's also pistols and then SUPPRESSED PISTOLS as well.

Call it poorly presented but then again so was the game that I paid money for, the only difference is I can add bits and pieces to my argument to make it look better and have a more solid footing and I won't charge money to complete it.

"First World Problems?" What the hell is this, Tumblr? Yeah, it's first world but that doesn't mean it's not a problem. It's a "first world problem" that gas prices are above 3 dollars a gallon, doesn't mean it's not a problem. It's a "first world problem" when a meal isn't cooked the way it was supposed to, doesn't mean it's not a problem. This is a forum to discuss in game problems, this place exists entirely to cater to the needs of "first world problems" so take your stupidity elsewhere.

This stuff "looking" futuristic is completely a matter of opinion, and the opinion among those who are actually interested in the military, the target audience of the game, know these things are all past military projects. Either way, "looking futuristic" is absolute nonsense, especially when these "futuristic looking" weapons systems were all denied military service for perfectly viable reasons. Hell, some of these things were actually accepted and are used on the battlefield. A great example of this is the M2A1 Slammer, the Merkava IV. If they were going to use a current-service MBT for NATO, why not at least use one that isn't more valuable as scrap than as a tank, maybe one the US contingent of NATO would actually use, like the Abrams, not the Israeli's mistake? Another great example of one of these stupid placement decisions is the AH-99 Blackfoot, aka the Comanche which was designed to replace the Cayuse as a scout, yet it is the main attack chopper of NATO?

While you say the salt flats are useful, I've yet to see how. In real life salt flats are used to test vehicle top speeds, yet in game the salt flats actually slow down vehicles? It's a large piece of flat, bland land, something that is all over the rest of the map, just not bland?

So FR4NCH3K's argument boils down to chiseling away at the boulder of evidence presented against him by Jona33. And also he hates the salt flats, for some reason, even though it's both an interesting part of the map as well as offers mission makers a nice playground for various things. I've seen it used dozens of times in custom missions. It has utility, style, and not to mention it's true to the real life island. Give me a break.

You want a break? Log off the forums or switch threads as you won't get it from me. It's true to the island, give ME a break, they changed the name of the island to avoid an issue with the Greek military, Altis doesn't exist, but Lemnos does. Lemnos is also a much larger island than Altis is; Altis is actually a scaled down version of Lemnos. From what I remember Lemnos also has a river running through it during summer, and since it's summer in-game, where is that river? None of this matters because you see as developers they have this thing called artistic license, something they can use to distort the truth a bit to make it less boring and bland and make it more interesting. Why did they choose to keep a salt flat when they could've had say a Omaha-esque beach for naval invasions?

[Jona33 51]

So on one hand you argue the developers should have used artistic license, then on the other hand you say it's unacceptable for them to use a bit of imagination and put in vehicles that aren't strictly speaking in use with the military?

(As for the "First world problem" bit, I'm sorry it's just a joke. Used sarcastically to indicate that the problem is pretty minor in the grand scheme of things.)

[sorophx 25]

all of you who vote for sound redesign are just crazy. it's the easiest thing to mod, and also it's terribly subjective. wasting development resources and time on recording new sounds, implementing them etc. would be the biggest mistake ever. Arma 3 has so many issues that make the game near unplayable, that I'm not even sure we play the same game

[roberthammer 582]

all of you who vote for sound redesign are just crazy. it's the easiest thing to mod, and also it's terribly subjective. wasting development resources and time on recording new sounds, implementing them etc. would be the biggest mistake ever. Arma 3 has so many issues that make the game near unplayable, that I'm not even sure we play the same game

BIS wont be reRecording new sounds if even community says so but most likely these guys meant - the sound in the game is bugged , 5.1 not working , some sounds are too quiet other too loud

or reload/firemode/bombs sounds can be heard from far distance

and alot other which i cant remember now

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

BIS wont be reRecording new sounds if even community says so but most likely these guys meant - the sound in the game is bugged , 5.1 not working , some sounds are too quiet other too loud

or reload/firemode/bombs sounds can be heard from far distance

and alot other which i cant remember now

Well those could be fairly easy to fix. Get rid of the bomb sounds, it's un realistic and not present in real life. The fire mode could be, ot rather SHOULD be switch to client side, because your not going to hear a guy switch fire modes unless your right up next to him in real life. Now for the reload, idk. turn it down or something.

And yeah, i probably shouldn't have voted for sound. I have changed my opinion from sound, to more content and improvements. That's more important at the moment, as they are already working on optimization, and wont stop any time soon on that. Why is that even on the list? Also, AI will always be worked on, that's a given.

[-Coulum- 35]

Yeah I am kind of suprised so many people went for sound. Don't get me wrong, good sounds can totally change the immersion of the game. But in the end they are pretty superficial. And there are good sound mods out there/soon to come. So its probably the last thing I want to get worked on. Stuff like Ai, Damage moddeling and performance are much more important imo.

Bipods would have blown this poll away.