Lack of content in vanilla Arma 3

[chortles 263]

Yeah, you guys are right. Let's just hope that since Tanoa is actually planned, and their team has grown since then, that at least in the Expansion, we will see far more diversity, and functions upon release. They have a full year, so it's definitely doable. =D

Especially since a lot of the core engine elements are down and the basic assets are finished, it frees up a lot of time and resources to develop assets when you're not focusing on making the game from the ground up.

This, to some degree; I'm not aware of public confirmation that a bunch of planned engine changes and devs'-wishlist items that got thrown out (i.e. Java support, or RotorLib being in from the get-go) were part of the "trashing of 2012", but at this point some of the the engine is presumably set in stone for the foreseeable future... including, presumably, 32-bit binaries and single-threaded simulation. :( (Here's oukej admitting that the team intends to "make sure the new terrain is more optimized for the dynamic cover creation", but due to the sheer amount of changes required no such improvement will be made for the "massive amount of objects on our already released maps", presumably meaning Altis and Stratis because it's not like I'd expected them to mean any of the ArmA and Arma 2 terrains...)

If intended content drives engine development (see the Helicopters and Marksmen DLCs) then the Expansion is the only official content on the horizon (no pun intended) so it stands to reason that engine fixes/new features will be prioritized by what's needed by debuting-in-the-Expansion content... while any benefit to Altis/Stratis and community terrains would just be a bonus. :confused_o:

[Milkman O Human Kindness 10]

honestly guys look at the vehicles AH-11 Wildcat, KA-60 Kasatka, Merlin HC3, and little bird are all from arma 2 or take on helos, some of the FIA uniforms are pieced toghether parts from arma 2 uniform selections. How much content did they really make? and that is only what ive noticed from experience.

 

Don't get me wrong I like bohemia and what there doing and they have improved arma 3 by leaps and bounds, there is still a lot more they could have done.

[chortles 263]

Don't get me wrong I like bohemia and what there doing and they have improved arma 3 by leaps and bounds, there is still a lot more they could have done.

Priorities shifted over time, evidently, in a way reminiscent (not in a good way) of Bohemia's own admissions about ArmA (Arma 1)... wouldn't be surprised if your three examples were due to that.

[chompster 29]

Well aware. How long has it been since release though? This is a key sign that BIS is ok with their mistake of copy and pasting, which can no longer be acceptable. Granted they've been fixing and adding a lot, but they could have, at least, come up with aa couple turret designs to offset the issue, since then, and now. But, then there's the expansion, so you never know.

They don't even have to come up with something. Literally just use the Tunguska or ZSU turrets from A2(with improvements of course like they did with the OA BAF warrior for the AAF) and done. Far less effort but something completely different. They could have recycled so much stuff from A2.

[Beagle 684]

After just 250 hours of "ArmA III" I can now finally say that "ArmA II:OA" is simply the better game. "ArmA III" might have some neat new features but it's lacking all that made "ArmA II2 great and immersive.

"ArmA III" feels like a step back into "Armed Assault" from 2006, which BIS themselves admitted, was not put together well.

 

Mainly it's missing interactive civilian modules including a believable population including women and men of all ages going for their business.

All Houses are just empty hulks like in a military training facility.

It has no integrated vanilla Warfare module and system and such a lack of models and units that even mods can't get it right. (field bases for example)

The AI is in no way improved and the "radar" "T" and "fire" problem is still there.

Control setup for vehicles is now eben worse than "ArmA II", you can either have it set up right for cars, or tracked vehicles or helos or planes but not for all.

 

All in all its back to "ArmA II" after just 200 hours "ArmA III" for me if I wan't a serious MP session using the warfare modules.

 

Currently there are double the number of populated ArmA II servers running the classic warfare CTI that came with Armed Assault back in 2007 compared to the warfare CTI servers in ArmA III

 

From "OFP" to "ArmA II" the series was always about CTI for me....what is now happening in "ArmA III" is just turning me away from the series after 14 Years.

 

My last hope for this hobby is that the Addon fpr "ArmA III" brings back some life into the game like the Update for "Queen's Gambit" did back then for "Armed Assault" when it introduced the new units and functions for "Warfare" 1.1 and 1.2

[soulis6 24]

So you're upset because a mod (CTI) isn't as popular on arma 3 than 2? 

 

If you don't like it as much as a2, that's cool, that's your call, but I'd like to point out that I think it's silly to judge a game solely based on one niche mod. The large majority of people I know who play Arma basically never play on any public server, only private coop or pvp missions/campaigns.

 

Also, i'd just like to say I think weird that you say that the houses are empty husks, when compared to arma 2, you can actually go inside all of them, and not just admire them from the outside. And to say the AI hasn't improved is IMO just flat out untrue. 

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

They don't even have to come up with something. Literally just use the Tunguska or ZSU turrets from A2(with improvements of course like they did with the OA BAF warrior for the AAF) and done. Far less effort but something completely different. They could have recycled so much stuff from A2.

They don't need to reinvent the wheel. Since it's  2035 setting we already know they're looking for "high teh", and modern gear, it's already around, everywhere. Example for Chassis...