Lack of content in vanilla Arma 3

[UkropyPrivyet 32]

Well then maybe you shouldn't have bought it in the Alpha stage. I made the same mistake with ArmA1. I loved OFP, I must have put thousands of hours in playing MP, making missions and helping develop addons. ArmA1 rolled around (and I pre-ordered it) and it took quite a while for most of my squad at the time to transition over and because it took a long time for mods to come out for the first year or so I found myself hating the game - not through any fault of the game in particular, but because I had such high expectations for it and it fell so short. I was very disappointed. After a time though, as more of my friends made the leap to "next gen" as it were and as more mods came out, the game gradually became sculpted into an experience I enjoy. Some people (I imagine you may be one such person) would make the argument that the game should have been perfect upon release and my (and the community's) transition should have been a flawless and smooth one.

A similar thing happened with ArmA2, only the initial "lag time" between launch and mods was much shorter due to have a more experienced community and BI on board with updating their toolset and overall being a bit more clued in as to what the community needed (it wasn't necessarily what they got, but they tried. The game itself seemed more appealing as well.

I wont argue that ArmA3 was in many respects a step backward. The futuristic setting was a turn-off for many people (not a big fan of it myself, but I knew there would be mods to address that - eventually). Other people were put off by the apparent jump in the system requirements (not going to go into that here, I don't understand most of it myself, all I know is I haven't updated a part of my PC in 3 years and I can run it fine).

A game is what you make of it. If you play it with the mindset that "this game is going to suck", then it will regardless of whether its any good or not. No single game is perfect, but played with the right combination of mods, you can polish any turd.

At the end of the day, we can all type on the forums until our fingers fall off. Will BI listen to us? Maybe. Will they do anything about it in the immediate future? Probably not. Will there be an ArmA4 and in what direction will it go? Who knows. Do threads like this help? I'll leave that one open...

There's one major problem with your post: You any blame that the developer had and placing it on the user. Sure, I'm stupid for jumping headfirst into a game that looked like it might be promising, especially when I had played 2 to death and enjoyed a bit of 1 as well, but it's also the developers fault putting it on early-access to entice buyers when it's now clear that they had no real intentions of making half as much content as the standard ArmA II and it's also Steam's for allowing early-access titles to exist. There are a multitude of places that deserve a share of the blame, not just the user who was led on to believe they were going to get so much more than what they received.

EDIT:

I don't get this...

Actually 9 weapons + various attachments as 15 $ DLC would be a damn good price, because deal with it, they ain't gonna add any new free asset to the game <<< (at least not 9 weaps)

But I'm afraid we will get much less

Nine weapons and a bunch of attachments would be okay for ten bucks, buck fifteen is more than I'm willing to spend because it feels like a slippery slope of "well if they'd pay 10, I'm sure they'd pay 15" and so on and so forth.

[elpresidente 1]

ArmA III shamelessly tries to claim that it is incredibly realistic while taking five bullets to the chest without even breaking a sweat from what is essentially a gray shape-shifting blob of a rifle that detects the color of the uniform that the holder has and shapes itself into the rifle of his faction.

1. ArmA 3 does not claim realism. Go on and check the store page (or the homepage).I challenge you to find anything on the Homepage/store page claiming that ArmA 3 is realistic.

2. It takes 1 hit with 6.5mm to the chest to kill unarmored targets. 3 hits in total to kill a Nato solider with a plate carrier and 4 hits to kill with 5.56mm. Considering they are wearing plate carrier, this is realistic. In real life it would probably even stop a full mag.

[UkropyPrivyet 32]

1. ArmA 3 does not claim realism. Go on and check the store page (or the homepage).I challenge you to find anything on the Homepage/store page claiming that ArmA 3 is realistic.

2. It takes 1 hit with 6.5mm to the chest to kill unarmored targets. 3 hits in total to kill a Nato solider with a plate carrier and 4 hits to kill with 5.56mm. Considering they are wearing plate carrier, this is realistic. In real life it would probably even stop a full mag.

Alright, I see you have absolutely no experience in handling firearms or plate carriers. Let me clue you in. The US Army uses ESAPI ceramic plates, which can withstand about three hits from a 7.62x51mm round. HOWEVER the fact that it can survive these hits does not mean you can. Look up a video of someone wearing a plate carrier where they get shot. The Novorossiyans rebels in Ukraine put out a video where one of them was wearing a Russian military plate carrier with plates and one shot from 9x18mm put the dude on the ground almost immediately, where he was then driven to the hospital where he had a cracked rib and severe internal hemorrhaging. Now, that's a pistol round. If you were to be hit one with a 5.56 round while wearing an ESAPI plate you would be, at the very least, writhing on the ground in pain, and at the very most you would die from internal bleeding. On top of this, these plates have been known to crack from much less than three bullets because the plates, being ceramic, aren't exactly robust when it comes to being picked up and dropped and shot. Make no mistake that when you are wearing a plate one hit will knock you on your ass, but two will put you out of the fight for sure. It should not take four hits to kill someone to the chest under any circumstances, because while it MIGHT take four to kill you, you won't be fighting much longer after one or two. Of course IFAKs and other items could extend your fighting time and be used to stop internal bleeding (let's be real, ArmA never has and never will have a built-in realistic medical aid system, but it sure would be nice to see it take into account some more things than being either dead or alive.)

As for claims or realism, you might want to go to the storefront because the game's first line is "Experience true combat gameplay in a massive military sandbox." Sure, if you want to play like you don't know what they mean by that then you're welcome to and I can't stop you, but you know exactly what Bohemia is trying to convey.

[elpresidente 1]

I never said that getting hit in the chest while wearing plates will leave you completely unharmed, only that it might not kill you trough bullet penetration. I do know know something about firearms/plate carriers, but please you armchair warrior - educate me

ArmA 3 does indeed has an problem with the bullets that are being absorbed from the plate carrier not having an effect on the player. There is flinching, but e.g. getting knocked down would be better.

The word you're looking for is authentic. You can exprience true combat gameplay which is authentic but not necessarily realistic.

[Stielhandgranate 10]

1. ArmA 3 does not claim realism. Go on and check the store page (or the homepage).I challenge you to find anything on the Homepage/store page claiming that ArmA 3 is realistic.

2. It takes 1 hit with 6.5mm to the chest to kill unarmored targets. 3 hits in total to kill a Nato solider with a plate carrier and 4 hits to kill with 5.56mm. Considering they are wearing plate carrier, this is realistic. In real life it would probably even stop a full mag.

Yeah, as someone that wears a plate carrier in the military I can say your belief that plate carriers would stop a full mag of 5.56 is not true at all. also the first result for "arma 3" on a google search is "This Is War. Experience true combat gameplay in a massive military sandbox. Authentic, diverse, open".

[St. Jimmy 272]

Yeah, as someone that wears a plate carrier in the military I can say your belief that plate carriers would stop a full mag of 5.56 is not true at all. also the first result for "arma 3" on a google search is "This Is War. Experience true combat gameplay in a massive military sandbox. Authentic, diverse, open".

Key word: 'Authentic' =/= realistic

[Defunkt 431]

Look up a video of someone wearing a plate carrier where they get shot.

It's a game. I mean you do want to see the difference between being shot with and without a plate carrier represented don't you? Because unless you expect the game to somehow model the distinction between you dying and you convalescing in a hospital somewhere for a week (nevermind respawn, that would be out of the question) you need to accept that the difference is going to be approximated in a fashion that can play out entirely within a typical gaming session. A slavish adherence to realism would render a plate carrier pointless in game, there'd be no reason to ever wear one as with or without you'd be out of the fight after taking one round.

[calin_banc 19]

Key word: 'Authentic' =/= realistic

So funny! :bounce3:

MoH and BF are authentic as well.

[dmarkwick 261]

There's one major problem with your post: You any blame that the developer had and placing it on the user. Sure, I'm stupid for jumping headfirst into a game that looked like it might be promising, especially when I had played 2 to death and enjoyed a bit of 1 as well, but it's also the developers fault putting it on early-access to entice buyers when it's now clear that they had no real intentions of making half as much content as the standard ArmA II and it's also Steam's for allowing early-access titles to exist. There are a multitude of places that deserve a share of the blame, not just the user who was led on to believe they were going to get so much more than what they received.

You might as well blame the concept of "early access" if you wish to find something else to "blame". I find the entire concept of blaming some other entity because of something you gladly (at the time) did nonsensical which is why I quotation-mark the word blame. Early access exists, and you took advantage of it, and ended up disappointed, end of. No crime, just an unfortunate outcome for you, plenty of other people have not been disappointed so you have to accept the notion that it's just your opinion.

As for the amount of content ArmA 2 vs ArmA 3, the devs have said that ArmA 2 contained a highly unusual amount of content, really far too much for any one development cycle to replicate, but that it was the result of ArmA 2 using the assets of a previously failed game development.

Edited January 22, 2015 by DMarkwick

[Sub-Human 10]

A slavish adherence to realism would render a plate carrier pointless in game, there'd be no reason to ever wear one as with or without you'd be out of the fight after taking one round.

That's why an ArmA2 medic revive system is needed.

[Defunkt 431]

That's why an ArmA2 medic revive system is needed.

That's another way of achieving the same thing but I don't know that it's any more realistic (make voodoo hands for 10 seconds and he's straight back into the fight).

[Sub-Human 10]

That's another way of achieving the same thing but I don't know that it's any more realistic (make voodoo hands for 10 seconds and he's straight back into the fight).

I'd rather have that than 3-4 shots to the body to take someone out... Remember OFP, nothing complex, one shot to the body - you're dead. Encouraged actual flanking and manuevers...

[Jackal326 1181]

There's one major problem with your post: You any blame that the developer had and placing it on the user. Sure, I'm stupid for jumping headfirst into a game that looked like it might be promising, especially when I had played 2 to death and enjoyed a bit of 1 as well, but it's also the developers fault putting it on early-access to entice buyers when it's now clear that they had no real intentions of making half as much content as the standard ArmA II and it's also Steam's for allowing early-access titles to exist. There are a multitude of places that deserve a share of the blame, not just the user who was led on to believe they were going to get so much more than what they received.

I did not at any point absolve BI of any "blame", nor did I categorically condemn them as you seem to have done enough of that. Just because you're suffering from buyers remorse doesn't mean BI "cheated" you. The fact that you "believed you were getting more than what you received" is, at the end of it all, down to you. From day one BI stated what they planned to include, the only deviation from that was the SP campaign which, due to the whole "two of our devs got arrested in Greece" issue, wasn't part of the initial release but was released at a later date in an episodic fashion for free. Just because you EXPECTED more, doesn't mean BI were ever planning to DELIVER more. That expectation and their apparent "failure" is on you, not them.

Edited January 22, 2015 by Jackal326

[chortles 263]

That's another way of achieving the same thing but I don't know that it's any more realistic (make voodoo hands for 10 seconds and he's straight back into the fight).

Nevertheless, BI has stated that they're experimenting (hedging their bets as ever I see) with scripted solutions for this, though it was described as "common multiplayer needs".

[alsanjuro 20]

Nevertheless, BI has stated that they're experimenting (hedging their bets as ever I see) with scripted solutions for this, though it was described as "common multiplayer needs".

There are mods and scripts for revive out there and i find that AGM mod (i use most of the time) and CSE mod give us a great medical systems.

And i know there is a lot of people that think that there is a lack of content for ARMA 3 they obviously haven't checked out Armaholic.com its been there for years and there is content made everyday. It might not be coming directly from BIS but from the community. I dont see any other military shooter to have this much content and its free.

[the_demongod 31]

That's another way of achieving the same thing but I don't know that it's any more realistic (make voodoo hands for 10 seconds and he's straight back into the fight).

It's good middle ground though.

I can understand why people might not want the OFP model of one-shot kills, because it would be very frustrating to be going through a big complex op only to be out for the game because some AI landed a lucky shot.

But we also don't want battlefield-style 5 shot kills.

So if it only takes 1-2 shots to put somebody into the incapacitated state but it's possible to revive them, you don't get frustrated when you get downed and you don't get frustrated by the number of shots it takes to down somebody. It's a win-win compared to what we've got now.

[Defunkt 431]

It's a win-win compared to what we've got now.

Unless you have to rely on the AI to revive you.

I know medical systems are a staple of tacti-cool games but I've never much cared for them when the reality is you're going to be straight on a stretcher and evac'd. Personally I find it easier to believe that I've received a glancing blow to the plate carrier than the whole "we'll have you back in the fight in a jiffy son" medical system, there's less suspension of disbelief involved. I'm the same way about things like base building and anything else that impinges on the real-time experience.

It would work better though if there was a knock-down and stun.

[UkropyPrivyet 32]

It's a game. I mean you do want to see the difference between being shot with and without a plate carrier represented don't you? Because unless you expect the game to somehow model the distinction between you dying and you convalescing in a hospital somewhere for a week (nevermind respawn, that would be out of the question) you need to accept that the difference is going to be approximated in a fashion that can play out entirely within a typical gaming session. A slavish adherence to realism would render a plate carrier pointless in game, there'd be no reason to ever wear one as with or without you'd be out of the fight after taking one round.

Yes, but I don't want to see it done cartoonishly like it is in game. A one to two bullet difference is one thing, but four or five is not alright.

[chrisb 196]

I appreciate your random rant about lack of content, but have you thought about playing A2CO, there is enough content to fill a battleship over there. Ooops 'battleship' bad comparison.. Still..;)

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

I appreciate your random rant about lack of content, but have you thought about playing A2CO, there is enough content to fill a battleship over there. Ooops 'battleship' bad comparison.. Still..;)

The funny thing about A2CO is that there is a fair amount of content in there that wasn't new or is just variants of one line of vehicles. Even Arrowhead didn't add that much new content instead porting over old models from Arma 1.

Personally I'm damn happy with the amount of content in the game. My only real gripe is the sharing of static weapons and vehicle turrets on some of the vehicles.

And as for people saying copy+pasta of APC's, tanks etc: has anyone actually cracked open the configs to see if these vehicles are literally the same or are they just shooting from the hip with wild emotionally filled guesses?

The BMP-2 vs M2A2 arguement: clutching at straws much?

The only real difference between the two is the calibre of the main cannon (30mm vs 25mm)

Both are tracked apcs

Both carry 6-8 infantry

Both have ATGM

Explain to me more what the grand differences between the two are?

One of my favourite parts of some of the new content is the customisation factor; no longer am I hammed into preset appearances of infantry using weapons with attachment configurations determined by BIS. Someone should calculate the total number of possible gear configurations and add that to the list of new content.

[calin_banc 19]

It's good middle ground though.

I can understand why people might not want the OFP model of one-shot kills, because it would be very frustrating to be going through a big complex op only to be out for the game because some AI landed a lucky shot.

But we also don't want battlefield-style 5 shot kills.

So if it only takes 1-2 shots to put somebody into the incapacitated state but it's possible to revive them, you don't get frustrated when you get downed and you don't get frustrated by the number of shots it takes to down somebody. It's a win-win compared to what we've got now.

The problem with "easier to die" gameplay rises from the incomplete immersion into the game (less info gather by the body from the surroundings). Plus, even your own movement in the game world is so much limited, it will get frustrating - not being able to properly jump, climb, give rapid and precise orders or use your weapons/inventory, etc. The perfect example was the introduction of the fatigue system with nothing to balance it out, like weapon resting or deploying bipods, not even at a basic level that some mods already do.

[Tonci87 163]

You know guys, the blatant copy paste on vehicles would be much less blatant if they simply developed a different looking RCW turret for the Opfor vehicles. Boom problem gone.

[drebin052 324]

the blatant copy paste on vehicles would be much less blatant if they simply developed a different looking RCW turret for the Opfor vehicles

Honestly they don't even have to make new turret designs. Just slap the T-100's KORD RWS onto CSAT vehicles and the Kuma's FLW 200 onto AAF vehicles or hell, even port a BPPU from A2 and chuck that onto the Kamysh with some super glue...

[chrisb 196]

The funny thing about A2CO is that there is a fair amount of content in there that wasn't new or is just variants of one line of vehicles. Even Arrowhead didn't add that much new content instead porting over old models from Arma 1..

Yeah, that's reasonable to say.

But I was thinking more about the player added content, I should have mentioned what I meant really.;)

[nodunit 397]

And OFP has even more content then that, player content isn't the crux of the matter.