It doesn't feel the same

[connorwarman 60]

So, I've been playing ArmA 3 with my group Core Tactical for a few months now. We were an ArmA 2 group originally, played it for nearly two years before moving over to ArmA 3.

While we have enjoy'd our time with ArmA 3 so far..one thing most of us have come to a conclusion on is the feeling of ArmA 3. It does not feel the same as the other ArmA games, the sounds, the objects, the combat, the AI, none of it feels....right. By right I mean ArmA 2's "right". None of us have really been able to put our finger on it..but we all agree that its a mixture of the games current setting/AI difficulty.

In ArmA 2 I felt a part of a war. In ArmA 3, I feel apart of a battle. There is no army of enemy's bearing down on me, there is no golden sounds, I felt like I had a chance. A chance to be a part of a greater conflict. In ArmA 3...not so much. I turn a corner and *BAM* I get smacked down by two AI 150 meters away..I drive my hunter into town and see an enemy APC? *BOOM* im dead in a second.

Im clearing a valley with my squad mates and bullets are landing all around us but there is no gun shot it originated from...(seriously why is this a thing?)

I don't know, it just doesn't feel the same. I suppose im looking for other opinions, so what do you guys think?

[silentghoust 132]

The AI for Arma 3 has improved greatly, still with some flaws, but still a jump. Vanilla AI will be more prone to using Grenade Launchers. Squads will use flanking tactics, and will maneuver to get a better position on you. The trick is you have to increase the distance of everything. Everything is more deadly so that "cation" range that most people are use to for Arma 2 needs to be expanded further.

It also helps, what kind of missions have you set up? Infantry? Even fighting? Combined Arms?

[Shagulon 1]

Adapt?

If you are getting killed too quickly try putting the AI down a bit?

It is missing the depth or Arma 2 as there are far fewer assets than there are for Arma 2, there used to be millions of varieties of tanks/APCs/choppers etc. I'm guessing you used to run a few mods such as ACE before? These things should follow...

[aimerleg 1]

I agree, Arma 2 just felt.... Good. Like a proper Bohemia Interactive game. Fantastic, the expansion was mind blowing and together they were waaaaaaaaay ahead of it's time. [Arma 2 is still one, if not the only game which allows you to fight with inf, vech and air over large terrain.]

I have a feeling it's because Arma 3 is copied and pasted like, seriously.

The HMG's are the same for each faction, everyone faction uses the SAME launcher. SAME.

The guns all feel rather the same, and the lack of modules is just horrific, in Arma 2 you can drag wounded soldiers away and give them first aid. You can get AI to surrender. You can talk to civillians/soldiers to get info.

Guns felt powerful, every faction felt different, even insurgents and the NAPA Terrorists. Guerillas and Takistani Rebels, though looked the same they felt good. Sure, I love the new graphics, lights and stance adjustments and many more of the things Arma 3 brings to the table but looking at it all, it's not an Arma game, not the one we know and love.

Buzzard, Wipeout and Neochron. Really, why not just use real names? And why only CAS versions? The lack of vechicles digusts me. I will correct myself, the lack of content disgusts me. We don't have police or women yet, we don't even have the planned weapons and were far into launch right now. Many things got axed, and the early showcases? They had weapons and assets we could probably use, there is no shotgun in arma 3 if you noticed.

All factions use pretty much the same equipment in terms of vechicle guns.

While in Arma 2 everything felt like it was different. Like it had a different use, and it was more accurate to real life stats of things a tank with a 6.5? Really?

We don't need a "balanced" game, we need an Arma game.

It would even make my money worth if they just remade Arma 2 with additions from Arma 3 and perhaps more expansive maps.

[Night 1]

If you had the lighting and stance from ARMA3 but in ARMA2??

I have to agree to some extent with the things expressed here already. It does feel like the game is still in Alpha...and its just loitering there pretending its not.

[mamasan8 11]

Something I don't miss from Arma 2 is the clunkiness. I fear it might return when they introduce inertia to Arma 3.

The sounds in Arma 3 are a bit wonky. Listen to a flying helicopter and try to decide which direction it is coming from. I can't do that. No matter which way I turn, the sound is the same. Which makes no sense. Theres no 3D-audio. I think it's the same with guns cause I can never tell where the enemy shoots from. Not by sound anyway.

Arma3's soldier movement (minus fatigue) and graphics in Arma 2 = WIN!

[Hi Wags here from ED 13]

I would have to agree, actually sadly and I never planned to... but I ended up re-installing ArmA 2.

Right now ArmA III feels like an Airsoft simulator with some of the gear people wear, don't get me wrong I was all for the concept and I love it but it's abused, even the most realistic servers don't feel right because of it and some other features, I guess I am one of those who would have settled for ALL the ArmA 2 assets (with slight improvements) in ArmA III just with new maps and features.

Where ArmA 2 felt like moving a brick, ArmA III feels like moving a paper mache.

My only guess for the futuristic setting is because their military contract for VBS was nearing it's end so some of the assets that were used for that possibly under that contract could not be used in ArmA without the VBS contract. But once again that is a guess because it's probably wrong but I do know that the VBS contract was up for renewal around the same time as ArmA III hit development.

None the less TLDR; I agree :/

[Jona33 51]

In fairness, BI get blasted for copying and pasting stuff in ARMA III, how much would they have got moaned at if they'd just copied and pasted the ARMA II assets?

That isn't to say I don't want more diversity (obviously)*, and the OP makes valid points (especially regarding first aid, that should be in the game) but it does seem people don't really seem to think about what they're saying, wanting diversity and a re-run of ARMA II doesn't seem to make sense to me.

*E.g. if CSAT used some kind of micro-helicopter as their UAV instead of the reskinned darter, less powerful camera and less range but much lighter, their UAV backpack could be an assault pack.

[katipo66 94]

I used to romance similar about arma 2 but not anymore, Arma 3 is an amazing achievement and is only getting better, I'm glad it doesn't feel the same :)

[haleks 8212]

My only guess for the futuristic setting is because their military contract for VBS was nearing it's end so some of the assets that were used for that possibly under that contract could not be used in ArmA without the VBS contract. But once again that is a guess because it's probably wrong but I do know that the VBS contract was up for renewal around the same time as ArmA III hit development.

VBS and Arma are totally different products, tottally independant from each other (except for the engine - to some extent).

[EDcase 87]

I think A3 is much better than A2 in general.

-Yes, things feel different and AI difficulty settings does need tweaking to find your personal taste. (There are also some very good AI improvement mods)

-The healing and dragging seems to work fine in servers I go to. Not sure if they're using mods but its certainly possible in A3.

-Graphics and movement/stances are much better than A2.

-Fatigue needs getting used to and may need tweaking but it adds to the gameplay so that people have to choose their loadout more carefully and not be Rambos.

-We now have recoil which is annoying at times and possibly needs tweaking but again adds to gameplay. (I think A2 was a bit too easy to hit targets)

-Yes, vehicle weapons are a bit copy/pasted but that's a visual thing which doesn't affect gameplay.

Soon we will have better helicopter flight model and shooting from vehicles...

Remember that A2 had a few years to develop so give A3 time to mature as well

[aimerleg 1]

Uhm, what did you say?

Oh right, "Yes, vechicle weapons are a bit copy/pasted but that's a visual thing which doesn't affect gameplay." :j:

It does, and more than you think. Let's say I am at a far distance and I see the top of a vechicle, a HMG. How am I suppose to tell if it's enemy or friendly?

HMG Static weapons, friendly or enemy fort? Is the person manning that on a coffee break?

Is that AA Static enemy or friendly?

Wow, someone died here and their uniform was taken. Only an AT launcher was left. Enemy or friendly?

>_>

[sosat 15]

Maybe we all miss the ACE mod in Arma III...

[Jona33 51]

It does, and more than you think. Let's say I am at a far distance and I see the top of a vechicle, a HMG. How am I suppose to tell if it's enemy or friendly?

I agree with the rest of your points, but if you're close enough to tell it's an HMG on top of that vehicle then you're close enough to look at the vehicle, bearing in mind vehicles (mostly) don't look the same.

[chortles 263]

Guns felt powerful, every faction felt different, even insurgents and the NAPA Terrorists. Guerillas and Takistani Rebels, though looked the same they felt good. Sure, I love the new graphics, lights and stance adjustments and many more of the things Arma 3 brings to the table but looking at it all, it's not an Arma game, not the one we know and love.

Guess you never heard that BI wasn't even trying to make "the one we know and love" in the first place and that Arma 3 essentially happened by accident...

Buzzard, Wipeout and Neochron. Really, why not just use real names? And why only CAS versions?

You are under a severe misconception with that last question: the Buzzard (AA) is actually the first and only AA oriented loadout from BI in all Arma history, while previously every jet loadout was ground attack (or in the F-35B's case, an even split of two SRAAMs and two LGBs), so if anything the Buzzard (CAS), Neophron, and Wipeout loadouts are all consistent with BI's prior trends. TL;DR: other than the Buzzard (AA) and F-35B, BI has always equipped the vanilla jets for the ground attack role.

In the case of the Wipeout, it has the excuse that BI set the story right about the time that the A-10's support had been extended out to (about 2028-2030), so if one allows for the idea that the USAF would have chosen an A-10 style successor (I personally find this more immersion-breaking than the names, especially when IRL their leadership would retire the A-10 over a decade early to keep the F-35 program going and/or lean more on UAVs) then it makes sense for BI to use a fictional name for a fictional airframe. As for the general lack of real-world names... speculation is that they decided not to eat a licensing cost, especially in a legal environment seemingly more hostile to unlicensed depictions, where even EA had to settle out of court with Textron (parent company of Bell Helicopters) over unlicensed depiction of the Osprey, the Venom, and the Viper.

My only guess for the futuristic setting is because their military contract for VBS was nearing it's end so some of the assets that were used for that possibly under that contract could not be used in ArmA without the VBS contract. But once again that is a guess because it's probably wrong but I do know that the VBS contract was up for renewal around the same time as ArmA III hit development.

Actually, Arma 3 is descended not so much from Arma 2 as from a post-apocalyptic alien invasion sci-fi RPG called Arma Futura... seriously.

[instagoat 133]

The Game's been out for a long, long while now, and we still get these threads. Really?

I'm going to sound mean, but compared to Arma 3, Arma 2 doesn't feel "right", it feels "broken". Weapons with gear baked into them, Uniforms you can't switch, over and over repeating death animations, nonexistent physics and all the bonkers things that go with that (like bouncing tanks, weird helo flight model), nonexistent materials penetration system, bad fatigue system that allows everybody to run around with a thousand magazines, ten rounds for the SMAW, launcher and sniper rifle with no penalty, mouse-lag and mouse smoothing that makes navigating the environment a chore, very basic animation system, etc, etc.

As far as the assets go, all of them were made band new for A3 apart from the Kamaz truck and the Greenfor aircraft and Vehicles (Apart from Kuma and Strider). -All- Arma 2 content was -recycled- from assets dating back as far as 2004. How come nobody complained about that then? But now it suddenly matters that the Guns atop some vehicles are the same?

Arma 2 was massive quantity, and quality only began creeping in way towards the end of its lifecycle. Arma 3 is striking a balance, and its working out better every day. A2 was never to get shooting from vehicles. Shooting from vics has -def- been announced for A3 now. What about slingloads? We're getting those too. The biggest problem I have with A3 is performance, and that's also one of the main issues that seems to hold some people back from it. Hopefully that can be addressed.

However, many of the reasons people put the game down for don't hold much water, if any at all.

Also "Guns felt powerful". What. The guns in A2 sound like plastic toys. Listen to the shooting sound of the SCAR again. The problem with A3 is that the sound system corrupts the sounds and that it's not delivering anything new over the previous system. No win, no loss. The sound assets themselves are generally better, even if some are not perfect.

[chortles 263]

You're not going to win over the people who outright admitted that they'd have been happy with BI recycling assets again... though the reveal of Arma Futura pretty much signals that BI wasn't going to recycle from A2, no matter what.

[Gunter Severloh 4064]

TBH I like Arma3 a bit more, for the reason of the controls, the players smoothness in movement,shooting, and many other things at least for me and my

WarMod *cough* did i say that out loud ;)

Anyways the sound is a tiny bit off or needs some tweaking or fixing overall, my suggestion to Connorwarman who is on my steam friends list btw is if the AI

are kicking your A** like that then I suggest either using a script, or code the mission so they aren't so hard or dominating.

Theres a code I use thanks to Rydygier's help that i put in my init.sqf for some of my missions:

[] spawn 
{
while {true} do
	{
	sleep 10;

		{
		_x setSkill ["aimingspeed", 0.1];
		_x setSkill ["spotdistance", 0.2];
		_x setSkill ["aimingaccuracy", 0.2];
		_x setSkill ["aimingshake", 0.1];
		_x setSkill ["spottime", 0.1];
		_x setSkill ["spotdistance", 0.5];
		_x setSkill ["commanding", 0.2];
		_x setSkill ["general", 0.5];
		} 
	forEach allUnits;
	}
};

Obviously its set low but you can change it, or use other means if you dont want aimbots then this code's settings will definitely prevent that.

The Arma2 feel can be brought to arma3 with some of the addons and mods out there, you can play with maps from arma2CO, you can fight against

enemies that are like in arma2CO like the aggressors, or Middle east irregulars, its not limited too just vanilla.

[connorwarman 60]

TBH I like Arma3 a bit more, for the reason of the controls, the players smoothness in movement,shooting, and many other things at least for me and my

WarMod *cough* did i say that out loud ;)

Anyways the sound is a tiny bit off or needs some tweaking or fixing overall, my suggestion to Connorwarman who is on my steam friends list btw is if the AI

are kicking your A** like that then I suggest either using a script, or code the mission so they aren't so hard or dominating.

Theres a code I use thanks to Rydygier's help that i put in my init.sqf for some of my missions:

[] spawn 
{
while {true} do
	{
	sleep 10;

		{
		_x setSkill ["aimingspeed", 0.1];
		_x setSkill ["spotdistance", 0.2];
		_x setSkill ["aimingaccuracy", 0.2];
		_x setSkill ["aimingshake", 0.1];
		_x setSkill ["spottime", 0.1];
		_x setSkill ["spotdistance", 0.5];
		_x setSkill ["commanding", 0.2];
		_x setSkill ["general", 0.5];
		} 
	forEach allUnits;
	}
};

Obviously its set low but you can change it, or use other means if you dont want aimbots then this code's settings will definitely prevent that.

The Arma2 feel can be brought to arma3 with some of the addons and mods out there, you can play with maps from arma2CO, you can fight against

enemies that are like in arma2CO like the aggressors, or Middle east irregulars, its not limited too just vanilla.

Thanks for the script Im definitely going to give this a try.

[Gunter Severloh 4064]

Theres also my AI Compilation list if you haven't seen it already:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?175400-AI-Compilation-List-of-Addons-Mods-Scripts-amp-Misc&p=2656299#post2656299

Dont let the vanilla AI kick your a** so much that you hate Arma3 because of it, these things can be changed, I felt the same a while back and tried many things.

Now the game rocks!

That code btw works for spawned and nonspawned AI so if you have enemy AI on the map already their skill will change based on the parameters, if they are spawned same thing,

the parameters i have there especially _x setSkill ["aimingaccuracy", 0.2]; might be to low or may make you feel the AI is extremely inaccurate, just play around with the

other parameters and see what fits your preference.

Lastly I'm always on steam or least til noon CST during weekdays so if you have questions or problems message me.

[almanzo 144]

The only thing I don't like about ARMA 3 is that it is a little bit to "easy" to use. In ARMA II, everybody could of course jump into a Hummer, man the turret and be able to kill enemies. But being efficient in it, you needed training. From a gameplay perspective, having one player spot and lead fire while the gunner had to adjust the sights related to the distance based on the report given from the assistant gunner was really, really cool.

In ARMA 3 on the other hand, all assets have you sitting inside a relatively safe vehicle with range finding and zoomable optics on the most basic armed vehicle available. If this is realistic or not is one thing, I guess it might be in 2035 or when ever the game is set... But it is not much fun. You are not at risk at getting shot by small arms fire, neither does it require much skill since you can both zoom AND read accurate distance measurements from the optic and aiming system alone.

Then of course, is the issue of the copy pasting. In ARMA II (and all of the other titles in the series) each faction had unique vehicles with unique features, benefits and drawbacks. Different calibers, rates of fire and different weapon systems made knowing both your own equipment and the enemy equipment important for survival. Also, it was much easier to differ between enemy and foe.

The lack of variety I can actually live with. As long as each faction is capable of deploying troop transportation for both small and large teams with weapon systems, LAVs, tanks, artillery and various other assets I am ok. The current amount of vehicles for the military factions is ok, but the generic nature of them is simply horrid. Add the fact that modding vehicles for ARMA III is more difficult, both due to the higher resolution of the models and the need to config Physx makes this matter worse. And another aspect, the amount of bullets needed to kill, even though ballistic vests might save you in real life, it shouldn't let you continue to fight like nothing happened. And of course, performance, even though they are really, really working on it.

However, there are alot of really, really cool improvements in ARMA III. Physx is a welcome addition, the movement is drastically improved, the stances are simply awesome. The new maps are freaking impressive (even though Chernarus is my all time favorite ARMA map), the improvements down the line with heli flight model, sling loading, fireing from vehicles and the improved marksmanship is very, very cool features. The AI have been drasticly improved, and the weather, lightning effects, graphical fidelity and so on are simply staggering. Oh, and the radio protocol. Smooth job! There are alot of great things in ARMA III that I miss when playing ARMA II, but it does indeed go both ways.

But what stands out most for me in ARMA III is the lack of focus. Some of the changes introduced gives the impression of a less realistic and more casual type of game, while some other new features makes it more hard core and unforgiving than it has ever been. It's a bit confusing, to be honest. I do welcome the new efforts done to ease new players into ARMA with the bootcamp, and I think the campaign is suprisingly good (Not CWR good, far from it... but good. Way better than ARMA II).

[the_demongod 31]

That is essentially my biggest gripe with Arma 3 (and the whole series as a whole). Everything feels too easy.

I'm not asking for total DCS level difficulty (because obviously that's impossible), but there are some easier tweaks that could happen to change the systems enough to make them feel more authentic.

I've written a couple of threads on the subject:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?178508-We-need-worse-weapon-systems

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?180867-Air-to-Air-missiles-and-why-they-need-to-change

[miketim 20]

I hope weapon inertia update will help it to quite literally "feel the same" so guns feel more heavy and powerful, but without removing the new smoothness of arma 3 controls.

[chortles 263]

But what stands out most for me in ARMA III is the lack of focus.

If certain rumors I've heard about Arma 3 development are true, then I'm really not surprised re: "lack of focus". Otherwise though, it could be that some of what you sense is the product of a mix of design decisions and development prioritizing (i.e. certain things may have been planned all along but end up released later and necessitating further changes, i.e. sway and fatigue will be tweaked some more when weapon inertia is added).

I do welcome the new efforts done to ease new players into ARMA with the bootcamp, and I think the campaign is suprisingly good (Not CWR good, far from it... but good. Way better than ARMA II).

It definitely seems that at some point a conscious effort was made to make Arma 3 the most "easy to get into" in the series in the sense of "least 'crash course or join a unit' required", not just via the Bootcamp campaign but also the VR Training courses.

Re: the campaign... to be fair, are you really going to be able to get CWR good without flat-out remaking it? I believe the devs may be happy enough with "way better than ARMA II". ;)

@ Darkhorse 1-6: Not coincidentally, I remember Resistance being brought up multiple times by dev leadership in 2012 re: the A3 campaign idea...

Edited August 21, 2014 by Chortles

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

Honestly, the A3 campaign reminded me an awful lot of Resistance, and I consider it to be the best campaign since OFP.