A plea to BI: Please let us choose when to update. Automatic updates break the game.

[Echo38 1]

I support the suggestion in the O.P.

(Not that I think that my support matters ...)

[CaptainObvious 95]

It's not gonna happen, Steam was chosen as Arma's platform because of the convenience of the update process, as well as the strong tied-to-account DRM.

On a side note, have you disabled Automatic updates on both Steam's as well as Arma's settings?

I've never had Arma, nor any other game update if I didn't want them to.

[PuFu 4600]

Updates forced through on steam in a game that is so heavily reliant on mods is a disaster.

The last big update broke many things. So many things we don't even know how many yet. This wouldn't have been a problem in ArmA 2. In A2, when an update went through, players and units could simply choose to not update and wait a few weeks to see how the update was working and make sure all the mods they used were properly updated. In A3, what we have instead is fairly consistent updates being pushed through regardless of steam settings, and no way to roll back. The setting of "do not update this game" on steam absolutely does not work, and never has for any game. Updates force themselves through all the time regardless of settings.

This post is to beg for BI to look into something on steam that will prevent this from happening. Preferably both a way to stop updates from happening, and the ability to roll back updates if they do happen.

I cannot imagine that my unit is the only one that suffers from these issues. These constant updates being pushed through regardless of our desire is unhealthy in the long-term for units in ArmA that rely on mods(almost every unit in ArmA).

While i do agree with the fact that steam switches itself to automatic updates each few days, even if a particular game was flagged as "do not update" (which works on my end btw), just need to stop the update if needed, switch to do not updated and voila, the update did NOT mess the game. It messed some addons, sure, but not the game (otherwise it would have been a hotfix in place) - according to your title automatic updates breaks the game. - which is a blatant lie

If you really think that a game developer should not update and fix his game because it is gonna break X or Y addon, well, maybe you should have prepared for the update by keeping your steam in offline mode or just disable the steam updates completely (not for a particular game) - (the update has been announced to happen 1 month prior to release - the date was also set 4-5 days before it was released and it was also announced to change the way sounds work). I understand the frustration, but if i were BI, i would only allow people to choose if they want to update or not (in theory you have that freedom), and not roll back - in my eyes that would do more harm than good.

If you want it fixed just push a ticket with steam, since it is hardly BIS fault.

A2 update model was bad on so many levels, especially in relation to the way it was impossible to track a specific bug across multiple game versions and platforms that required individual and different updates procedures (retail, steam, bi store etc).

anyways: https://github.com/D1G1T4L3CH0/Steam-Auto-Update-Disabler

Edited July 21, 2014 by PuFu
typos

[tonygrunt 10]

Maybe it would be possible for BI to push the previous stable build to the beta selection menu with each new stable build (no need to keep all stable builds there just the previous one). Then if anything broke people could revert to the previous build until they could fix their addons and missions with the latest stable.

[spanishsurfer 58]

Automatic updates have been a great step forward, no more mixed versions of Arma all over the place. I vote NO on changing this, it's not a good idea and agree with Pufu's comments

[mrwhitby 1]

Consider me supported.

[nikiforos 450]

I also support this feature as I did from the very beginning. I disabled the automatic updates and I feel quite well informed considering the updates.

So you got my vote on this although I already know nothing will happen towards that direction.

[zimms 22]

Just one idea:

Right now we can choose between "Stable" and "DevBranch". Wouldn't it be possible to simply add a branch for every release e.g. "1.20", "1.22", etc.?

I don't know if there are any limitations on how many branches Steam lets you create (there most certainly are some, bad maybe it's still good enough?) and I don't know how much work this would be for BIS. Those release branches wouldn't ever change again.

What are your thoughts on this? Did I overlook any obvious obstacles or could this be a possibility?

[Phayes2 10]

So we have a choice of playing Vanilla Arma III or hoping they don't break the myriad of Mods it takes to play this game in current time and equipment.

I support the request. We need to be able to play on stable builds until we know all mods are updated to current build.

[ProfTournesol 956]

So we have a choice of playing Vanilla Arma III or hoping they don't break the myriad of Mods it takes to play this game in current time and equipment.

I support the request. We need to be able to play on stable builds until we know all mods are updated to current build.

Lol, I hope BIS will not wait for modmakers before releasing updates :rolleyes:

[mistyronin 1181]

Right now we can choose between "Stable" and "DevBranch". Wouldn't it be possible to simply add a branch for every release e.g. "1.20", "1.22", etc.?

To me that doesn't make any sense.

The stable branch is the one meant to be played, as it has all the last updates ( some of them prevent cheating and other problems ), and has been tested and almost flawless. As Pufu said, the problem with the last update was not that it broke the game, that it didn't, but that changed a feature and most of the modmakers needed a time to adapt.

Although that change was announced almost a month ago, when BI even give modmakers the instructions of how to correct it. Obviously as modmakers do that as a hobby, you can't ask them to update everything as frequently as BI, but it's just how all works.

[-=seany=- 5]

I don't like this idea, it would fragment the community. The dev version exists to (try) to make sure that big problems never make the main branch. It seems to work to me (mostly). To their credit, from what I have seen, they don't take long to fix serious problems.

[chortles 263]

I don't know if there are any limitations on how many branches Steam lets you create (there most certainly are some, bad maybe it's still good enough?) and I don't know how much work this would be for BIS. Those release branches wouldn't ever change again.

What are your thoughts on this? Did I overlook any obvious obstacles or could this be a possibility?

What you overlooked would be that at BI the mentality is "one (or two) version(s) at most", especially when that's not only part of why they went Steamworks for Arma 3 but also seemingly why they no longer offer non-Steam versions of Arma 2-onwards games on their store -- and presumably why they pulled Arma 2 from GOG -- and they specifically cited it as a reason for the current DLC model (that is, no more Lite method). As MistyRonin said, "the stable branch is the one meant to be played".

[Greenfist 1863]

I'm genuinely curious; exactly how many/what kind of things/mods have the last 13 major stable updates broken after the release? I can only think of 1.24 and the mods with custom weapon sounds, which of course is game-breaking but can't you just play a while without them? Or do you want to stick with a dead mod and old game version waiting for a fix that might not ever come?

[kklownboy 43]

Hmmm, let me see...., Development of the game, or serve the few who cant even stop a update.... Or splinter the versions, and tickets, so a "few" players wont be upset because they cant play when they want to. Heck Bis even posts days ahead of time they are going to update...

If Steam is broke... then your lame. I have never seen a "Do Not Update" update.... Or have it change under properties of the game. Been on Steam since the Beta, way back....hmmm this just seems more of the "Looter" mentality. So I vote no, and say; Roll on Bis, roll on with the Updates!!!

Game over mods. Game is bigger than mods.

BUT for all that is great and cute, UPDATE the tools and DOCs!!

[Guest]

I have many games set to do not update that somehow find a way around that setting..

The problem here is not faced by the whole Arma community granted, anyone who is not part of a realism unit for example probably doesn't give a fuck or even doesn't know there is a problem at all. But when EVERYTHING you use in game is 3rd party mods (due to Bohemia's choice of setting and choice regarding levels of realism mostly) and you have to organize 500-600 people into set operations each fortnight then Bohemia's updates, which add nothing of value to those communities really (i mean that VR map is the LAZIEST piece of content making i've ever seen), instead literally break the game.

I've always been of the opinion that Bohemia should focus on making engines and let the mod-makers deal with the content because that's always been where the best components of Arma originate... And obviously yes i still support this thread - The thing you guys who are complaining about splinters ect have to realise is that WE WOULD NOT BE RAISING TICKETS ON THE PREVIOUS VERSION. The whole point we are making here is that the previous version worked for our needs. Its the changes that fuck everything up for us because we really do not use anything from Bohemia's content list.

[da12thMonkey 1943]

then Bohemia's updates, which add nothing of value to those communities really

So reconfiguring suppressors so that they don't completely overwrite the sounds, available firemodes, recoil and muzzle velocity of the weapon they attach to, isn't a worthwhile change for the sake of realism then? Because that's exactly what the change that has apparently fucked over all our lovely mods, has fixed.

Prior to 1.24 when you attached a suppressor to a weapon, what the engine was doing was treating the suppressor like a weapon, and the rifle model behind it was pretty much just a visual prop. All weapons that shared the same suppressor had the exact same firing characteristics irrespective of what the original weapon's recoil, or ROF was set to be, and they would all sound exactly the same. Pretty much the only thing that the base weapon controlled so far as the characteristics of the weapon went, was which the magazine the suppressor was firing.

Now, all of the weapon's firing characteristics come from the weapon, like they should do, and BIS have added a lot more features that allow addon makers to do useful things with muzzle slot attachments (features we requested on the feedback tracker). The muzzle slot is now a proper attachment slot for the weapon, not some sort of abortion of a weapon slot. It's a BIG boost for realism so far as the engine's ability to simulate real-life small arms systems goes.

[kremator 1065]

Not supporting this thread at all. MANY different versions of Arma2 is what kept splitting the community. If you have problems with the latest patch perhaps you should help out with DEV version and post bugs you find. Stable branch tries to be as stable as possible (obviously) but occasionally bugs will get through. Worst case scenario is another patch 2-3 weeks away. Find me another developer that does that!

I fully support automatic updates, and as much as I don't 'love' Steam yet, it is one of the real strengths.

[Drumheller 19]

What I'm saying is that every time the game pushes an update through that we can't stop from happening, it's a huge roll of the dice to see if your mods will continue working. There have been several A3 updates since release that have broken a variety of mods at different times. Some more severe than others. Some have been caught and fixed in a timely manner, some not.

MANY different versions of Arma2 is what kept splitting the community.

How can you say this? A massive part of the ArmA community is the units in the community. These units rely on a game that doesn't break every time the game is updated. In ArmA 2, this wasn't a concern because the update wasn't automatically forced through regardless of user desire, and even if you accidentally updated, you could roll-back your game version. This is simply not an option in ArmA 3. There are a couple of different scenarios where this could be devastating to any given ArmA 3 player or unit:

1) Everyone in the unit has their game set to not update via steam(this is already nearly impossible because steam pushes updates through this setting already). Then someone new wants to join the unit, but they've updated. They have no option to roll back their game version, so they cannot join until the unit's modpack is greenlit for the update.

2) A current unit member somehow accidentally updates his game version. Since the rest of the unit doesn't have the game updated, he can no longer play with his own unit because there is no rollback option.

3) An automatic update breaks one or more mods that a unit is heavily reliant upon(this last update). The entire unit is no longer able to operate because nobody knows which mod is broken. the rpt file is showing nothing conclusive. There are literally dozens of people trying to identify the issue, but can't. The unit misses several missions/operations because an update that nobody was ready for was forced through with no option to stop it. The unit sits in a state of stagnation bleeding members until the problem(s) is/are identified and fix(es) is/are found. If there was an option either stop the update or to roll-back the update to the previous version, this wouldn't even be an issue.

You say that steam updates are a "real strength". I say that they are a devastating weakness and flaw to a large part of the ArmA community.

We simply need a way to control which version of the game we are currently running. The ability to 1) stop the game from updating automatically and; 2) roll-back the version of a game 1-2 versions would greatly alleviate the issue that could cause the potential crumbling of a unit.

A lot of you guys are acting like I'm saying that I never want to update the game and don't think anyone else should either, or that BI shouldn't update ArmA 3. A weak attempt at deconstructing my argument and putting words in my mouth that I didn't say.

If you really think that a game developer should not update and fix his game because it is gonna break X or Y addon, well, maybe you should have prepared for the update by keeping your steam in offline mode or just disable the steam updates completely (not for a particular game)

I never said that. I said that we should be able to stop our OWN version of the game from updating and have the ability to roll it back. Not that BI should stop updating ArmA. Where did you even infer that that's the point I was trying to make? I'm talking about a client-side solution to a problem that would have no effect on the ArmA playerbase that the issue didn't affect. I greatly look forward to every update that comes, but that doesn't mean that there aren't issues, as stated in this thread, that have a large effect on ArmA communities due to them being forced through with no options.

Keeping my game in offline mode? I'm talking about an issue that effects a multi-player unit. I stated that several times in the original post. Like I said, you're just pulling parts of what I said and applying your own bias to the argument.

I fail to see how giving people the option to control which version of the game they run is a bad thing for the game or for the community.

Right now we can choose between "Stable" and "DevBranch". Wouldn't it be possible to simply add a branch for every release e.g. "1.20", "1.22", etc.?

That is more or less what I am proposing, all wrapped up into one short statement. And it doesn't even need to be "every" release that's ever happened. Just the past 1 or 2.

[dreek 10]

3) An automatic update breaks one or more mods that a unit is heavily reliant upon(this last update). The entire unit is no longer able to operate because nobody knows which mod is broken. the rpt file is showing nothing conclusive. There are literally dozens of people trying to identify the issue, but can't. The unit misses several missions/operations because an update that nobody was ready for was forced through with no option to stop it. The unit sits in a state of stagnation bleeding members until the problem(s) is/are identified and fix(es) is/are found. If there was an option either stop the update or to roll-back the update to the previous version, this wouldn't even be an issue.

BINGO!

Give this man a new sea-gar.

[OPER8R 10]

Get em, Major!

I concur and support your statements.

LCpl C. Carlton

Titan 2-4 Gunner

Delta Company, 2nd Platoon

15th MEU (SOC) Realism Unit

[austin_medic 109]

Right now we can choose between "Stable" and "DevBranch". Wouldn't it be possible to simply add a branch for every release e.g. "1.20", "1.22", etc.?

I like that Idea, somebody who took their time when commenting.

Question is really, does BI keep backups of older versions of the game? I could see them not keeping backups, but overall it would make sense to have them.

[chortles 263]

Question is really, does BI keep backups of older versions of the game? I could see them not keeping backups, but overall it would make sense to have them.

Therein lies the problem -- with the mentality I previously described, I wouldn't be surprised if BI doesn't.

[hitman538 10]

Read and supported

[sweets438 10]

Hmmm, let me see...., Development of the game, or serve the few who cant even stop a update.... Or splinter the versions, and tickets, so a "few" players wont be upset because they cant play when they want to. Heck Bis even posts days ahead of time they are going to update...

If Steam is broke... then your lame. I have never seen a "Do Not Update" update.... Or have it change under properties of the game. Been on Steam since the Beta, way back....hmmm this just seems more of the "Looter" mentality. So I vote no, and say; Roll on Bis, roll on with the Updates!!!

Game over mods. Game is bigger than mods.

BUT for all that is great and cute, UPDATE the tools and DOCs!!

Wow that was a seriously funny joke, the mods MAKE this game, without the mods this game would be nothing, sorry to break that bubble for you. What are the most popular things that game has? DayZ? Mod, Wasteland? Mod, Altis Life? Mod. They depend on mods without mods they have nothing, I'm sorry but they need mods to survive. Also those "few players" are not "few" There a THOUSANDS of players that relay on these broken mods, most of them are realism units or something similar.