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

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

- The AI also shot far to accurately in Arma 3 with small arms, compared to how accurately the player can shoot. This was not a problem in Arma 2 where shooting skills were more balanced between player and AI.

Really? You saying it should be literally impossible for one or the other team, (AI Vs. Player or Player Vs. AI) to out shoot each other in any given situation? Arma isn't a balancing game here, its a sandbox. I know for a fact, and AI can't shoot more accurately than me. I mean, i guess if their skill is obviously at 100% than hell yeah, they will start dropping kids a hot day in the Mohave Desert, but i mean come on. In regular missions, AI don't really count as a threat unless your doing something wrong. It's all about tactics. I like all your other points though, i realized Arma 3 runs faster than Arma 2 when there's going on (for me anyway), but when there's tons of things, than Arma 3 runs slower than Arma 2 with the same or greater amount of things. Sometimes.

[maturin 12]

AI first, followed by damage modeling.

[remifenta 10]

AI driving skills sorely need improvement.

[boomit4 11]

Would like to see some sort of expansion in the future that brings back the modern days of ARMA 2/ARMA 2:OA.

[mamasan8 11]

As I mainly play single-player the mission breakers are the AI not being able to drive and disobeying orders, and occasionally low FPS that drops to unplayable levels. After that are the annoying things such as the action menu and doors not opening, etc as well as the long list of places for your AI team mates to re-arm. While better sounds would be welcome that would be in my third category of improving immersion along with a better damage/injury simulation and medical/healing system. I agree that at this stage of the release cycle, my first category shouldn't be there, but you need the basics right before you can build on them. Then perhaps things wouldn't break so much when the game gets updated.

There are some brilliant mission makers/modders out there but, if they move on to something else/become ill/die, there isn't always someone to jump into their shoes and carry on. It would be good for them to have well documented tools and editors to use. Without third party content, this game would not gain as much attention as it does.

Would be nice if we had a command saying just REARM. And AI would find nearest gun/ammo, either from friendly or enemy instead of us having to wade through menus. And for realisms sake, only if gun/ammo was found within 1000metres (and not in hostile territory, obviosly). The same could work with tanks (only they look for rearm truck).

Then comes commanding a squad. Picking soldiers and then assigning them a team, team red for example doesn't really make it a whole lot easier. It's still 3 buttonpresses to pick that team. Mostly it is faster for me to NOT make groups. Why can't teams be divided like in RTS games? Ctrl+1 picks team red, Ctrl+2 picks the next color-team etc. A lot faster than current system.

And please, a bindable Open Door-command.

FYI, I voted on Performance. I find it pretty sad that MP servers have to be rebooted multiple times per day so they don't just bog down and die. In what other field of work would this be acceptable? Say, Youtube had to reboot all their servers 4 times per day...they would be out of business right quick.

[Trauma.au 10]

My first choice would have been deffered lighting/shading, but it was not an option, so I chose damage model not for body armor but for an overhaul of vehicle damage. FPS/performance/Net code is a never ending thing so no point in it being on this poll imo.

[jonekone 1]

re making the sound engine part, i dunno, but it sound like arma2 and arma1.... ambient souns even lag the client... sound mods are so laggy.

[DancZer 65]

I think the FPS/Performance is not about that people want to play with 10k+ view distance. I play arma on Lenovo y510p and i found a visual settings with i have 30+ FPS in the editor! But i simply can't play the campaign or missions with that settings fluid. I don't care when sometime the FPS drop(huge explosions), but it isn't the case. I don't know why is that. AI? Scripts?

I would rather have more FPS instead of better/smarter AI or graphic.

If the AI is the CPU killer, then why we can't change AI settings like the graphics? I know that it sounds strange.

I don't know what is the bottleneck, but I imagine settings like /Fast, Normal, Precise/ which manage how much time the AI "think".

Or maybe I'm voracious and i want to much from my HW?

[Varanon 892]

My first choice would have been deffered lighting/shading

Oh, right. That was something hinted at being a possibility but never realized... having it would be awesome

[hoern 10]

I think the FPS/Performance is not about that people want to play with 10k+ view distance. I play arma on Lenovo y510p and i found a visual settings with i have 30+ FPS in the editor! But i simply can't play the campaign or missions with that settings fluid. I don't care when sometime the FPS drop(huge explosions), but it isn't the case. I don't know why is that. AI? Scripts?

I would rather have more FPS instead of better/smarter AI or graphic.

If the AI is the CPU killer, then why we can't change AI settings like the graphics? I know that it sounds strange.

I don't know what is the bottleneck, but I imagine settings like /Fast, Normal, Precise/ which manage how much time the AI "think".

Or maybe I'm voracious and i want to much from my HW?

its about the low cpu/gpu usage while playing i think. my rig has 40%~ usage with arma 3 ,sure many ai reduce the fps in simulatin´s but 40-20fps < 80-20fps with auto detected settings .

[iburnfurbies 10]

I would love to see a 2 seater fighter / bomber like the su 27 & a c 130

[ofp_comissar 130]

I think,that game need return features, that was in A2 - wounding system (in A3 you do not feel wound in legs, because "i can't stand" mode is off), some modules. Then - damage system, body armor, and, finally - MORE CONTENT. Just because after beutiful DLC on Arma 2, when each DLC contained full fraction with units, map, missions, announced DLC on Arma 3 looks like joke, or even worse, with all respect to BIS.

[vegeta897 13]

Just because after beutiful DLC on Arma 2, when each DLC contained full fraction with units, map, missions, announced DLC on Arma 3 looks like joke, or even worse, with all respect to BIS.

It's true that the DLC won't have new terrains, but we don't know how much other content is going to be in them yet, so how can you really say that?

[kanzer 10]

All of them except for DLC's to be honest. Sound is what I chose just because every gun sounds exactly the same as the next. All AR's sound the same as other AR's. Pistols sound the same as other pistols. Etc, etc.

It ruins my immersion because I can't distinguish friendly and enemy fire as the AI tends to use different weapons than us.

What he said

[UkropyPrivyet 32]

I choose none of the above and select my own option: add some actual content as the current FULL RELEASE is absolutely horrendous in terms of in-game content. It's actually insulting that they're asking $60.00 for this game and then expect me to pay another $15.00 for additional helicopters and then another $15.00 for more guns. It's saddening what companies are getting away with nowadays.

[barakokula31 10]

I choose none of the above and select my own option: add some actual content as the current FULL RELEASE is absolutely horrendous in terms of in-game content. It's actually insulting that they're asking $60.00 for this game and then expect me to pay another $15.00 for additional helicopters and then another $15.00 for more guns. It's saddening what companies are getting away with nowadays.

Yeah, because Arma 2 had sooooooo much content when it was first released.

[TomSawyer 10]

I voted for the Damage Modeling because for modders it is very difficult to improve it. There are already really nice mods for Sound, Ai, Editor/Zeus and Medical Sys. Modding Tools and Performance also not that bad in the Vanilla Game. At the moment the Damage Model is too unrealistic.

[stilton 0]

Existing content fixed:

...

Fixed cloud 'rotation' when using a FOV larger than default

Overall, game looks prettier... Feels less polished.

The inventory system is improved... But why does the gun and body create 2 different 'piles' that are hard to take stuff from when you can clearly see it lying on the ground?? Please Fix picking up objects, using inventory. dare i say it.. Dayz has implemented a 'radius' around your character where you can quickly take objects from... You should be able to grab a gun if you are standing on it, regardless of which pile of inventory you are looking at.

3 Reasons vehicles feel cheap:

- No driver 3d cockpits still? : It wouldn't be so bad, if head-tracking was enabled and you had the same or even smaller amount of lateral head movement you have in the hummingbird, whilst driving tanks.. Then you could move your head around slightly and use the tiny viewing window as a 'keyhole' for driving -- then there would be no need for 3rd person and the driver of a tank wouldn't be so completely blind and helpless whilst turned in..... It would be a slight improvement...

- Fix SLI flickering PIP : Driving in first person in a vehicle with mirrors, you are begging for a seizure. [guess not a problem if you don't have SLI]

- Fix Vehicle physx : A Heavily armored jeep loaded with ammunition, and passengers -- Should not flip over when making a very shallow turn at high speed? Or should it?

Edited June 18, 2014 by Stilton
bolded key points for tldr

[Jona33 51]

I choose none of the above and select my own option: add some actual content as the current FULL RELEASE is absolutely horrendous in terms of in-game content. It's actually insulting that they're asking $60.00 for this game and then expect me to pay another $15.00 for additional helicopters and then another $15.00 for more guns. It's saddening what companies are getting away with nowadays.

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.

Edited June 18, 2014 by Jona33

[-=seany=- 5]

Kind of a weird response to this thread in today's SITREP.

It's great to see that BIS acknowledge this thread. But they say it's "Interesting" to see what "we think their priorities" should be. Like they are surprised by what people have chosen. I always knew that Performance would be number one (imo that should not have been added to the Poll). Lots of people will always want more performance. BIS then posted a link to their Road map, which really doesn't say what bugs they intend to prioritise or even acknowledge problem areas they need to work on, just what features they intend to add.

The fact that sound is second highest should be a serious wake up call to BIS. Unless sound had serious problems (which it does), it would normally be pretty much bottom in a poll like this. It's like they don't recognise the problems with sound.

Its not so much the samples, they all sound great imo. It's the engine, the positioning, occlusion, Volume balancing, etc, etc. Basically all the things that make you feel like your in an environment (combat or not) and let you react to sounds around you. Arma2 had this working fine....and BIS spent a large part of post Arma1 release development getting this right....so why do we have to go backwards in Arma3? And how come BIS don't seem to understand how broken it is?

Why do I have to turn my volume down and then back up every time I use the Titan AT launcher? Why can't I tell where I'm being shot from? Why can't I hear a chopper or any other vehicle until it is on top of me? why can't I hear the nature and environment sounds when I have my volume set so that Gun shots from my own weapon don't deafen me? Why can't I hear battles and attenuated explosions etc in the distance? All of this was fine in Arma2....it's the regression that annoys me most...

Edited June 18, 2014 by -=seany=-

[metralla 19]

I also want it to change the damage model in the game. I think it lacks that touch of realism from the beginning of creation until now. Imagine seeing the damage to the vehicles or objects with realistic destruction + system?

I think the formula to be the best military simulator game is in this and would have a lot more popularity. But being realistic in this aspect, it is possible to do this with the RV4 engine? in my opinion I think not.

[Onno 22]

1. Modding tools:

Create a compiler, debugger and unit test environment for more advanced development capabilities. --> http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=18485

Why spend 500k on a content creation contest when the creation methods available to us are just outright prehistoric? If you'd actually spend 500k on the tools, the content will come naturally.

2. Performance:

- Netcode has been completely screwed up in 1.20. Bring back the old netcode

- Server performance is really, really baaaaaad. Fix this.

Edited June 18, 2014 by Onno

[hoobie7 11]

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

BIS didn't make you do anything.

Vote with your money.

Edit: I see the heavy coating of sarcasm now, took me a minute.

Edited June 18, 2014 by Hoobie7

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Kind of a weird response to this thread in today's SITREP.

It's great to see that BIS acknowledge this thread. But they say it's "Interesting" to see what "we think their priorities" should be. Like they are surprised by what people have chosen. I always knew that Performance would be number one (imo that should not have been added to the Poll). Lots of people will always want more performance. BIS then posted a link to their Road map, which really doesn't say what bugs they intend to prioritise or even acknowledge problem areas they need to work on, just what features they intend to add.

The fact that sound is second highest should be a serious wake up call to BIS. Unless sound had serious problems (which it does), it would normally be pretty much bottom in a poll like this. It's like they don't recognise the problems with sound.

Its not so much the samples, they all sound great imo. It's the engine, the positioning, occlusion, Volume balancing, etc, etc. Basically all the things that make you feel like your in an environment (combat or not) and let you react to sounds around you. Arma 2 had this working fine....and BIS spent a large part of post Arma1 release development getting this right....so why do we have to go backwards in Arma 3? And how come BIS don't seem to understand how broken it is?

Why do I have to turn my volume down and then back up every time I use the Titan AT launcher? Why can't I tell where I'm being shot from? Why can't I hear a chopper or any other vehicle until it is on top of me? why can't I hear the nature and environment sounds when I have my volume set so that Gun shots from my own weapon don't deafen me? Why can't I hear battles and attenuated explosions etc in the distance? All of this was fine in Arma 2....it's the regression that annoys me most...

To be honest, i think Content is preferably the main thing for me and a good handful of people. Yeah FPS can always be improved, as well as AI, and Sound, as the community has already shown us, isn't hard to modify to bring them to even Battlefield 3-like quality. How ever, i feel as if there could be more. Civilians is one part everyone knows needs things. Not just content that's ported or something, i personally like fresh and high quality content, because it's Arma 3. It's great to have things that are more modern and that we havn't seen in previous games, or heck, in real life. Content brings life to a sandbox, especially on a scale Arma provides.

[babylonjoke 22]

Damage model for community it's more important then sound engine... AAAAAAAAAALLRIGHT

After all these years I expect to see a working Sound engine.... would be a good move.