Bohemia on the right way with Arma 3?

[cpl_hicks 2]

Just to add my quick 2 cents in I think they are doing a great job but my only general criticism is I wish they would really stop pussy footing and commit to making it a hardcore simulation.

If you want to make it more accessible imo the best way to address it is by having a game mode and a simulation mode. Lets face it most of us choose Arma for its realism if not we would play the tons of other fps out there.

Dedicate more to hardcore simulation and by that I don't mean fatique, eating food, defecating...etc I would say vehicle characteristics, ballistics, and physics etc..

[BL1P 35]

Just to add my quick 2 cents in I think they are doing a great job but my only general criticism is I wish they would really stop pussy footing and commit to making it a hardcore simulation.

If you want to make it more accessible imo the best way to address it is by having a game mode and a simulation mode. Lets face it most of us choose Arma for its realism if not we would play the tons of other fps out there.

Dedicate more to hardcore simulation and by that I don't mean fatique, eating food, defecating...etc I would say vehicle characteristics, ballistics, and physics etc..

+1 to that

[b00tsy 28]

And people bitched ENDLESSLY on how the ArmA AI was dumb and fixes were super urgently needed, this game was a joke because of AI, blablablaaaa, you name it... So BI implemented "AI with more complex pathing". But.... but.....

You have a point, but better AI with the consequence of having worse performance is a poor way of improving it. It is no doubt due to the limitations of the old engine (i'm no expert in the tech details), but the fact that the official campaign now contains spawning AI and as less as possible AI is a good hint that BI is aware of piss poor performance the AI is causing.

[zooloo75 834]

One of the misconceptions by non-programmers is that newer is faster.

[bad benson 1733]

And people bitched ENDLESSLY on how the ArmA AI was dumb and fixes were super urgently needed, this game was a joke because of AI, blablablaaaa, you name it... So BI implemented "AI with more complex pathing". But.... but.....

i'm glad they did. they are improved a lot, eventhough they look still robotic at many times, which is btw also due to animations, namely having the weapon up most of the time as if they are actually aiming. especially in close quarters are much better due to their new found reflexes as opposed to waiting prone in the middle of hte street for certain death.

i'd take that plus a caching script over a 200+ AI mission just for the fuck of it any day.

about the thread. i'm not quite sure which direction they are heading overall so i'm not quite sure but i like the improvements they made and i wish to see more of them.

AI using houses in a simple way (aka being able to search for players inside houses).

as mentioned above, physics are still a WIP sadly.

eventhough it sucks having proper shooting mechanics entirely moved to a DLC instead of a patch (or the "final" game for that matter :p) i'm happy to know that there will be stuff to look forward to that may make the game seem more polished/finished.

other things i'm too lazy to think of right now.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Bad Benson

[sancron 32]

After i was read the last six pages, i want to say something to my Topic.

At all, Arma 3 has nice features included. But what happen with the Content, we got "Future" Weapons and all play in 2035. We have an alternate "Reality" in Arma 3 which was used, to give the Developer some free Hand to create things. But what we got? All Factions have the same Drone only Repaints, some weapons are only Copy Paste. For me it don't feel like a Simulation. And it feel like, there is no love from some devs in the Game (My opinion).

When i look out, what Mods are created for A3, i see Weapons of Today not of the Future, also in the Wishes Thread i read most time, today Weapons and Vehicles. Personally i don't like the Semi-Futuristic setting. I don't say, the quality what BI Provides is bad, but when i look out, most Communitys i see use Weapon Mods, where they get Today Weapons back. Personally i want a island like Chernarus and Weapons/Vehicles i know by myself which are in service Today. And what i read, i am not alone with these. But BI Says, that this must be done, by the Community.

The new Features and Ideas, that BI include in the Game are not Bad at all. But for me it feels like, they focus some times on things, that can wait. Like the last Patch, with the new Weapon Sway. Ok as a few post before, some one write. It brings more Tactic in the game, since you need to think, before you act. But on the other Hand, we don't have real things, to compense the Effect (usable Bipods or Weaponrest). Also a good trained Soldier can run more then 50 Meters and aim better like the Soldiers ingame.

And now to the AI, most people wish better AI behavior. But that's not easy at all, since the AI must be computed. So it needs resource. We want good performance on the one Hand and on the other Hand, more complexity like real actiong KI.

[zooloo75 834]

I'm sure we'll all have a nice laugh when 2035 hits and BI actually just predicted the future xD

[phronk 898]

I love ArmA III. It's the best MilSim sandbox game out there and has dramatically improved itself since ArmA 1 and even ArmA 2. There are no other games like ArmA out there that can even compete with it in the same playground. Even with its extremely old editor, you can do so much with the game. Overall, I've had more than 1800 hours invested into ArmA III -- and counting!

With all that said, ArmA III's design choices have been wrong since day one:

• Setting the game in the future with prototype equipment and vehicles is among the first mistakes with the game.
  
• Not taking advantage of their improved sound engine properly and using poor sound effects for the game.
  
• Changing "the direction of the game" after selling thousands of copies of the game, after promising so much more!
  
• Prioritizing pointless free DLC content over improving the game's engine and fixing bugs that've been reported since the Alpha.
  
• Creating "free" content that not many of us expected or wanted in the first place, such as Zeus, Go-Karts, and Autism Camp.
  
• Half-way implementation, if that, of so many systems in the game (AI & CQB, Wind, medical system, clouds, physX, and countless more)
  
• Shifting development team's focus to DayZ, Take On Mars, ArmA Tactics, and probably other "secret" titles in the works without first finishing ArmA III
  
• I can go on, and on, and on...
  

The point is, ArmA is a great game, but it needs better management and to be taken a bit more seriously by whoever it is that thinks releasing Go-Karts as a DLC in a MilSim game is a good idea. Bohemia Interactive needs to put way more focus into optimizing ArmA III and making improvements to the engine and AI (which might be the same thing) where they can. Stop adding terrible content Bohemia. This game is fucking great. Now just work on polishing it so it can be even better!

/rant

[ProfTournesol 956]

The point is, ArmA is a great game, but it needs better management and to be taken a bit more seriously by whoever it is that thinks releasing Go-Karts as a DLC in a MilSim game is a good idea.

If you were interested in the game, you would know that the karts were an april fool then a one man project on his free time. But you can go on ranting.

[mamasan8 11]

If you were interested in the game, you would know that the karts were an april fool then a one man project on his free time. But you can go on ranting.

You left out the other 10+ complaints.

Whats the point with enterable buildings if AI don't use them (much). Taking over a town should be about building-clearing to a certain degree.

But I guess buildings are too buggy. AI could get stuck, walk through walls, probably die from going up/down stairs etc.

Wind? I haven't noticed that at all. I'm using AGM for wind, affecting bullets.

I could type til morning but I'll stop.

Updates used to be about performance (not much improvement) and bugfixes. Now they are about introducing new systems. Which I feel is best left to someone competent, like modders. BIS makes engine, quality content is made by modders(OFP campaign aside). Thats the way I've always seen it.

[whisper 0]

You left out the other 10+ complaints.

Whats the point with enterable buildings if AI don't use them (much). Taking over a town should be about building-clearing to a certain degree.

But I guess buildings are too buggy. AI could get stuck, walk through walls, probably die from going up/down stairs etc.

Wind? I haven't noticed that at all. I'm using AGM for wind, affecting bullets.

I could type til morning but I'll stop.

Updates used to be about performance (not much improvement) and bugfixes. Now they are about introducing new systems. Which I feel is best left to someone competent, like modders. BIS makes engine, quality content is made by modders(OFP campaign aside). Thats the way I've always seen it.

There will ALWAYS be 10+ complaints about ArmA. The scope and possiblities are so big that there is a HUGE variety of expectations that BI simply cannot cover.

You want content to be left for modders. I continuously read here complaints about how A3 is lacking any content and BI should have focused on that (+ use real content instead of fiction, etc, etc.....)

Honestly you cannot blame BI for not doing it all.

I also could go on and on about my wishes. 3D editor, mod download for servers, more integrated editing tools and less text editing, blablabla.... I check these forums, and I see tons of OTHER complaints. How is BI supposed to react to THAT, exactly?

[vegeta897 13]

Updates used to be about performance (not much improvement) and bugfixes.

Erm, nearly every daily devbranch update deals with bugfixes.

Look at how many things in this changelog are not directly related to the bootcamp campaign and assets. And this is just one update. Not every update to stable brings in this kind of new content and features. They have primarily been about performance and bugs. Bugfixing and performance improvement will never stop happening.

[miketim 20]

will never stop happening

You're joking right... :)

That is blatantly just not true, though they do release them frequently, don't act like they will never stop. That is just being ignorant of the game developers strategies, obviously they aren't going to keep supporting ArmA 3 nearly as much as they do now forever, and obviously it will stop at some point.

[soulis6 24]

I'll tackle some of the other complaints.

Setting the game in the future with prototype equipment and vehicles is among the first mistakes with the game.

Not something everyone feels the same as you do. I actually like the 'futuristic' setting (which isn't actually that futuristic. Given the current growth rate of technology, my guess is we will have some seriously magical seeming tech available in 20 years). But otherwise for people like me and my friends, who are mostly all players of the series since the arma 1/flashpoint days, it doesn't really matter at all if the weapons are things that exist in the real world, because they perform the same function. It makes no gameplay difference at all if i'm driving some prototype APC, instead of something that actually exists, or shooting an older gun vs a prototype, therefore it's a non-issue to me and I imagine a lot of other players. The only difference is visual, and the equipment and vehicles all look fine to me.

Not taking advantage of their improved sound engine properly and using poor sound effects for the game.

I definitely agree here that the sound could be much much better, it's one of the weak points of the game. I don't think it's worse than any of the rest of series, but it's definitely not better either, at least un-modded. Just one of those realities of them being a (relatively) small company making a game with a massive scope, limited time and money.

Changing "the direction of the game" after selling thousands of copies of the game, after promising so much more!

Not sure what you mean here, when did they change the direction of the game, and how so?

Prioritizing pointless free DLC content over improving the game's engine and fixing bugs that've been reported since the Alpha.

Not sure where you get the impression that they're 'prioritizing' free DLC, the only DLC that was or will be free was Zeus, and that as I understand it was mainly a one-man project. I wouldn't call the Bootcamp stuff DLC, seems more like an expanded tutorial that seems very helpful for getting new players into the game. The other DLC they're adding is very content and feature focused from what they've shown, including engine improvements (new flight model and controls, presumably wind/weapon resting/bipods) which is something that everyone has been asking for constantly.

Creating "free" content that not many of us expected or wanted in the first place, such as Zeus, Go-Karts, and Autism Camp.

Opinions will vary about Zeus, but my group of friends and I consider it one of the best additions to the Arma series ever . It's completely changed how we play and create missions, and allowed for some really amazing new things, like dynamic long-run campaigns of missions that are controlled and tweaked on the fly by the Zeus moderator. It's amazing in my opinion. My only wish is that they integrated it fully with the editor for building out missions with Zeus, which it seemed pretty clear from the Development Roadmap that they're going to be doing in the future with the first real expansion.

Go-karts, as already has been said, was a one person joke project that probably didn't actually take any time away from anything else, so i'm not sure why you'd begrudge them putting it into the game for people to use if they want.

Bootcamp (calling it Autism camp is pretty ridiculous and childish btw) is something that veterans of the series probably won't appreciate, but something BIS clearly felt they needed to help newer players get into the game, and more new players who get the game and understand it and stick with it is something that benefits the community as a whole and the continued development of the game/series.

Half-way implementation, if that, of so many systems in the game (AI & CQB, Wind, medical system, clouds, physX, and countless more)

Again, this is one of those 'limited time and money' things. They can't possibly focus on everything at once with a game of this scope, they have to do what they can with the resources and manpower they have. Nothing is going to be perfect, AI especially is one of those things that's basically impossible to do perfectly, and I can't think of any game with the scope of Arma that's ever pulled it off without any problems. The ones people usually point to are games that are wayyyyy more focused in scope or limited to very specific situations that the AI have to react to or deal with.

From the speculation on the marksman dlc, it will probably include some sort of wind simulation. A medical system would be nice, but it would need a lot of time spent on it, I wouldn't personally want something too complicated or cumbersome. Not sure what the problems with clouds or physX are.

Shifting development team's focus to DayZ, Take On Mars, ArmA Tactics, and probably other "secret" titles in the works without first finishing ArmA III

I'm not sure why you think they've shifted focus of the Arma 3 development team to any of the other projects, I've seen no indication that these aren't separate team. Also Arma 3 (and all the Arma games) are the sort of game that is never going to be 'finished.' If anything, based on the Roadmap and the dev branch they still have a very active team working on it, and haven't shown any indication of moving developers off the project.

In regards to performance, i'm not sure how much more they can do to increase performance for anyone still having problems. I had a lot of framerate problems in the alpha but they've pretty much all been fixed for me and everyone I play with, and I've not had any performance issues in a long time, in either SP or MP.

Overall i'm very satisfied with the way that Arma 3 has been developing, and BIS' general direction. I will always have a wishlist of what should be fixed/included/added right away (as will everyone else), but based on the roadmap and plans for the future of the game, i'm pretty optimistic about what's coming up.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Soulis6

[vegeta897 13]

You're joking right... :)

That is blatantly just not true, though they do release them frequently, don't act like they will never stop. That is just being ignorant of the game developers strategies, obviously they aren't going to keep supporting ArmA 3 nearly as much as they do now forever, and obviously it will stop at some point.

Way to take my message out of context. The quote was about what the game updates contained. The updates will never stop having bugfixes and misc improvements. I didn't say updates in general would never stop, but that's how it sounds if you completely ignore what I was responding to.

[chortles 263]

With all that said, ArmA III's design choices have been wrong since day one:

... I don't suppose you've ever heard the story that BI wasn't even trying to make Arma 3 at first and that it essentially happened by happenstance...

Shifting development team's focus to DayZ, Take On Mars, ArmA Tactics, and probably other "secret" titles in the works without first finishing ArmA III

Two things: First, the 'main' Arma 3 development team has never worked on DayZ -- that has had its own dedicated team from the beginning. (I have no idea how much Arma Tactics had, while Take On Mars has sounded like one guy in a corner. :p) Second, if your complaint is that all of BI's resources aren't committed to Arma 3 alone... yeah, that hasn't been the case for years.

[IndeedPete 1038]

Two things: First, the 'main' Arma 3 development team has never worked on DayZ -- that has had its own dedicated team from the beginning. (I have no idea how much Arma Tactics had, while Take On Mars has sounded like one guy in a corner. :p) Second, if your complaint is that all of BI's resources aren't committed to Arma 3 alone... yeah, that hasn't been the case for years.

Plus nobody said that dedicating more devs would actually increase either quality or speed of development. Software development has certain dynamics when it comes to adding manpower to a project and it's not proportional. On the contrary, adding personnel to existing projects usually makes them late®. (Keyword "Brook's Law").

[j4you 10]

1)Not something everyone feels the same as you do. I actually like the 'futuristic' setting (which isn't actually that futuristic. Given the current growth rate of technology, my guess is we will have some seriously magical seeming tech available in 20 years). But otherwise for people like me and my friends, who are mostly all players of the series since the arma 1/flashpoint days, it doesn't really matter at all if the weapons are things that exist in the real world, because they perform the same function. It makes no gameplay difference at all if i'm driving some prototype APC, instead of something that actually exists, or shooting an older gun vs a prototype, therefore it's a non-issue to me and I imagine a lot of other players. The only difference is visual, and the equipment and vehicles all look fine to me.

2)I definitely agree here that the sound could be much much better, it's one of the weak points of the game. I don't think it's worse than any of the rest of series, but it's definitely not better either, at least un-modded. Just one of those realities of them being a (relatively) small company making a game with a massive scope, limited time and money.

3)Again, this is one of those 'limited time and money' things. They can't possibly focus on everything at once with a game of this scope, they have to do what they can with the resources and manpower they have. Nothing is going to be perfect, AI especially is one of those things that's basically impossible to do perfectly, and I can't think of any game with the scope of Arma that's ever pulled it off without any problems. The ones people usually point to are games that are wayyyyy more focused in scope or limited to very specific situations that the AI have to react to or deal with.

1)Exactly!For you and your friends dosent matter the "futuristic" setting or you dont care,for me it's different because the immersion,or the feeling, about what i see it's completely far from a reality simulation,and i cant say.....i love it so much....but on the contrary!

And even for me they have done a big mistake whit it.

2) Dont think about that BI Company it's so poor and whitout enough staff,and even if it did, after thirteen years of work, they should invest in the future of the company and not on the customer's patience.

Sorry but it's not a valid justifications!

3) Again... Dont think about that BI Company it's so poor and whitout enough staff,and even if it did, after thirteen years of work, they should invest in the future of the company and not on the customer's patience.

Sorry but it's not a valid justifications!

Opinions...any are right or wrong, it just depends on how you see the title ... or what did you expect from it.

Edited July 17, 2014 by j4you

[b00tsy 28]

Again, this is one of those 'limited time and money' things. They can't possibly focus on everything at once with a game of this scope, they have to do what they can with the resources and manpower they have.

The 'money thing' was a valid excuse upto late ArmA 2, they (the money pile) have grown 10 times bigger since then. They even have enough money at hand to give it away in a contest. Maybe they are saving the money for a new engine and ArmA 4? :)

[whisper 0]

The 'money thing' was a valid excuse upto late ArmA 2, they (the money pile) have grown 10 times bigger since then. They even have enough money at hand to give it away in a contest. Maybe they are saving the money for a new engine and ArmA 4? :)

PC dev costs have also exploded since then, tbh.

Look at a team building smtg like BF4, the budget they have, and the content they produce, then compare to BI. BI don't pale at all in comparison, if you ask me.

Like I said above, they cannot cover every aspect of the game that are asked by the community. We are too many, with far too diverse wishes. If you keep the comparison with BF4, looks at BF4 engine and its capabilities, and what is asked from it. Modding? Mission making? Scripting? AI? View distance? There is NONE of that, which is only a little part of what we ask BI to do. Frostbite is better at destructing environment, and ... that's it? (I'm exagerating to make my point, obviously :) ). Then, again, compare budgets and team size.

I've taken kind of a fatalist PoV on ArmA. Tbh, I'm often pissed off at BI, but more often pissed off by the community around them. It's at the same time a great community and one a dev studio cannot wish to have :)

[marsell 1]

The 'money thing' was a valid excuse upto late ArmA 2, they (the money pile) have grown 10 times bigger since then. They even have enough money at hand to give it away in a contest. Maybe they are saving the money for a new engine and ArmA 4? :)

Most people who aren't in the software or game dev communities fail to realise just how much work it often takes to do seemingly simple things.

I doubt that BIS is rolling in dosh, because making a competitive FPS is damn expensive (and every generation gets worse). Even factoring in BIS's more limited manpower, and lower Czech costs, we're still talking a big wallop of money to make Arma 3.

[Jona33 51]

Plus nobody said that dedicating more devs would actually increase either quality or speed of development. Software development has certain dynamics when it comes to adding manpower to a project and it's not proportional. On the contrary, adding personnel to existing projects usually makes them late®. (Keyword "Brook's Law").

Or to steal a quote from the DCS forums, "Do you think getting nine women pregnant will get you a baby in one month".

[soulis6 24]

The 'money thing' was a valid excuse upto late ArmA 2, they (the money pile) have grown 10 times bigger since then. They even have enough money at hand to give it away in a contest. Maybe they are saving the money for a new engine and ArmA 4? :)

Do you actually have a source on this? They have gotten 10x more profit from Arma 3 compared to Arma 2, and that having more modern graphics didn't push up their costs? (i would imagine it did. a lot)

I don't know the exact costs of development of something like Arma 3, but I do know software development costs in general and what other modern games cost, and it was probably a very large number. Even if they did somehow come into 10x more money than they used to have, it also doesn't mean it's all immediately available to use on development for this game.

Time and money are always limited, you have to do what you can with what you have. The scope of the Arma series is so far past what any other developer is doing, there's not really any other games to compare it to or look at as a competitor. I think it's actually pretty awesome that Arma 3 even exists considering the current video game industry. If they wanted the big bucks they could have been chasing the Free to Play mobile game market, but instead they're doing something no one else is really doing right now.

As for J4you's comment, i can't actually figure out what he's trying to say. He disagrees with me I think? I have no idea what 'investing in the future of the company instead of the customer's patience' is supposed to mean. Sounds like he's just angry in general. :p

Edited July 17, 2014 by Soulis6

[j4you 10]

As for J4you's comment, i can't actually figure out what he's trying to say. He disagrees with me I think? I have no idea what 'investing in the future of the company instead of the customer's patience' is supposed to mean. Sounds like he's just angry in general. :p

oops:o

Sorry if i have shake your game.

If you tell me where i can make a donation to BI...i will be enjoy to help them.

Poor Bohemia staff..in that place so could...whitout food!

In my job, my clients do not care how much i spend ... they want the product for which they have paid.

If you dont understand what i have written i can spelling!

PS

Just in case..I am not angry.....I was enjoying reading some nonsense!:ok:

Edited July 17, 2014 by j4you

[chortles 263]

In my job, my clients do not care how much i spend ... they want the product for which they have paid.

Go ask BISim then. :lol: