Lack of content in vanilla Arma 3

[theevancat 277]

I've been musing about some sort of competition where, if the someone wishes to build something like new faction turrets and donate it to the game, BIS and the community can vote on it and evaluate it and add it to the game. If you look at something like CSGO with skins and TF2 with hats, that's almost exactly what Valve does. However, CSGO skins are kind of optional when it comes to the grand scheme of things...

On the other hand, it could controversial because it could be interpreted as BIS having other people make the game for them. Especially if there's payment for it (look at MANW's fallout, for example.)

Just a concept and a couple of viewpoints that can be seen. I feel like that's a refreshing change from the usual subject. :P

[dr death jm 117]

hmm sense ofp days BIS has not relied on but gave us an open engine to create what ever we wanted.

I think issues are more of a changed community, (some people want to get paid for there work) and I cant say I really agree.

the server I was on in ofp days had a gig or 2 of addons , we used ofp watch (free) certa never ask for anything .. but put that into perspective of todays thoughts it wouldn't exist.

Im not saying everone is greedy , there are a lot of peeps still giving and sharing. but there is somewhat of our community that went to the shits...

[rübe 127]

hmmmm, is it just me, or are there really no static searchlights around in A3?

Kind of a bummer, if you ask me... :(

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

Yes I was particularly disappointed in the missing spot lights given how lovely the new lighting looks compared to A2. I imagine the lack of shadows from light sources probably had something to do with this.

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

(some people want to get paid for there work) and I cant say I really agree.

This is always a funny discussion :)

Here is reality at the moment:

- Create a big mod / gamemode with thousands hours of work, and you might receive $100 in donation over a year.

- Host that persons mod / gamemode on your community server with just 4-5 hours work to get it running, and many servers bring in $2500-5000 in donations.

So there are elements in the community receiving considerable $$$ in donations.

It certainly is NOT the modders/content creators ;)

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

The lack of content in A3 always stems from the fact that there's too many copy and pasted assets that aren't unique to one faction like the static guns, Titans, optics, grenades, calibre, etc...even the same minigun being mounted on BLUFOR/OPFOR choppers. As long as they don't do this again in the expansion then we're golden*.

* At least I hope so. The fact that we still have the same RCWS turret being used all 3 factions despite A3 being 2 years old from the Alpha makes me sceptical as well...

At least you hope so? No. Lets mke one thing clear, that copy and pasting can NO LONGER be a solution. It's been done once, and we've seen how bad it looks on the game. That'd be like if they gave every faction the same jet with just different but similar paint schemes... Oh wait..

http://pixelenemy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/arma3jets.jpg (483 kB)

Never mind that either that it' possible they considered something like that. But didn't do it, or was deciding for a paint scheme, which, by the way, should be re looked at. Air forces don't paint infantry camo on jets!

Ok, but on more serious note, your right. having literally the SAME EXACT weapon system on a different chassis, is absurd. I could think of every excuse in the universe, and it would still look off. "China reverse manufactured the NATO and BAE Systems developed AA system, and sold it to Iran", erm, ok maybe... Or maybe not. Look, it's not ok. No more copy and paste, most of the community is still surprised that the existing copied units haven't been replaced with something more faction based and realistic for Christ sake. And the only thing i can consider acceptable by any means, in terms of copy, would be certain faction vehicles with a certain repaint, or hidden texture for a future faction.

Case and point, the To-199 (Yak-131P)

http://arma3.com/assets/img/post/images/art_jet.jpg (300 kB)

and the Black Utility chopper used in Opfor,

that cannot be accessed aside from scripting initialization. Those, i wouldn't mind seeing on another Opfor faction, ONLY, if it wasn't to act as the only assets, as those should still be free to all, as the P-30 Orca (Black and White), or... Actual Orca paint scheme in other words... ehem, is.

Now, i'm not necessarily beside the idea that the game lacks content... It has plenty, as Pettka as so kindly pointed out, far more than originally put forward. But for what it's worth, some things, are still un-explained in terms of depth, at least pertaining to the story line. This makes some of the content feel meaningless, either there without and explanation, or lack there of, in the same, without meaning. I mean, at least try to keep the story, and everything, in depth. Assets, all factions, everything, needs a meaning. A Background, a story. it Needs, LIFE!

No, and if you thought i meant Life, as in Arma Life, i'll choke you... Through the computer screen. Take a look at my Signature, does HE look like he's playing? Didn't think so.

Edited June 25, 2015 by DarkSideSixOfficial

[ajsarge 10]

Looking back at Arma 2 (and OA), you can see the massive difference in variations of single assets. Just with the HMMWV, you had a hard-sided version, soft-sided, M2, M2 CROWS, Mk19, Mk19 CROWS, Up-armored w/ M240, armored w/ M2, TOW, ambulance, UAV station, Avenger, and SOV. I may still be missing one or two. In Arma 3, you have the Hunter (based off the Oshkosh M-ATV) in unarmed, HMG CROWS, and GMG CROWS. That's it. No more. Most people got used to the massive variety in Arma 2 and transitioned to Arma 3 where all three factions use the same remote turret on their vehicles, and the same vehicle chassis are used in different weapons systems. NATO uses the same chassis on their two tanks, artillery, and MRLS. CSAT and NATO share their APC chassis with their AA vehicles.

To me, the simplest way to fix things would be to change the remote turrets, speedboat, UGV, and UAV to be faction-specific. Unfortunately, this is an asset update that would net no noticeable return in sales and will probably never happen.

For the expansion, I expect at least two new factions with completely new equipment. Preferably an existing government force a-la the AAF for BLUFOR, and a rogue faction like the FIA for OPFOR. Maybe an independent faction that hates both sides to round it off. Both cases would hopefully get new rifles (battle rifle as standard instead of assault rifle?), pistols, SMGs (future P90?), launchers, and vehicles. I could see NATO being re-used with a re-coloration of the MX to match the "Khaki" MK-1 EMR, and their uniforms being modified into a "lush" version for jungle use. CSAT would only require a camo re-color and some face and voice updates to reflect the probable Chinese force involved. Kydoimos made an excellent green CSAT officer and ifrit for his gun store showcase that would work perfectly if spread to the remaining CSAT assets.

[drebin052 324]

At least you hope so? No. Lets mke one thing clear, that copy and pasting can NO LONGER be a solution. It's been done once, and we've seen how bad it looks on the game.

Marksmen (and if the latest SITREP was anything to go by) was a pretty promising sign that they won't go down the C&P path again but that's only for a little bit of infantry gear. We have yet to see that happen for vehicles, especially since Helicopters didn't really count because well...they're helicopters and not ground vehicles or boats.

Now, i'm not necessarily beside the idea that the game lacks content... It has plenty, as Pettka as so kindly pointed out, far more than originally put forward. But for what it's worth, some things, are still un-explained in terms of depth, at least pertaining to the story line. This makes some of the content feel meaningless, either there without and explanation, or lack there of, in the same, without meaning. I mean, at least try to keep the story, and everything, in depth. Assets, all factions, everything, needs a meaning.

No problem there. I did say that the lack of assets was caused solely by the copy and paste syndrome.

Going just by numbers alone, if every single duplicated asset was to be replaced by a faction-unique one then A3 vanilla would probably have almost the same amount of content that A2+OA had, although obviously not as much as all the DLCs combined. This also applies to stuff that got removed from the Alpha/pre-Alpha too like clothing (believe it or not Altians didn't just wear poloshirts and shorts) and attachments, even the Tactical Glasses had two more variants available; one with an orange tint and another with a standard black tint but woodland camo frame:

...and probably more that I missed since I never got a chance to dig into the the Alpha/Beta pbos. :p

So much content hidden, and yet so much copy and paste. I really don't understand why the devs chose to scrap all of them when most of them can be made functional with just a little bit of config tweaking.

But we'll be able to judge them on this issue once they reveal the hardware that we'll be getting for the expansion. I just hope that they'll revisit the vanilla assets one day. Preferably before the the expansion gets released.

Looking back at Arma 2 (and OA), you can see the massive difference in variations of single assets. Just with the HMMWV, you had a hard-sided version, soft-sided, M2, M2 CROWS, Mk19, Mk19 CROWS, Up-armored w/ M240, armored w/ M2, TOW, ambulance, UAV station, Avenger, and SOV. I may still be missing one or two. In Arma 3, you have the Hunter (based off the Oshkosh M-ATV) in unarmed, HMG CROWS, and GMG CROWS. That's it. No more. Most people got used to the massive variety in Arma 2 and transitioned to Arma 3 where all three factions use the same remote turret on their vehicles, and the same vehicle chassis are used in different weapons systems.

This especially. One thing I found very curious when it came to BI's design choices is why they bothered to port only certain things from A2 like the L-159 and the Pandur from ACR, but reuse the same 30mm Samson turret for the Kamysh and the same PROTECTOR HMG/GMG turret for every other vehicle. The Tigris and Kamysh would look pretty badass if they got slightly higher poly versions (with better textures of course) of the A2 Tunguska and BPPU turrets for example.

NATO uses the same chassis on their two tanks, artillery, and MRLS. CSAT and NATO share their APC chassis with their AA vehicles.

To be fair real world armies are transitioning to the "all-in-one" chassis design to save costs and to reduce logistical complexity. Whether its the AMPV for the U.S., or the Armata for the Russians, it's actually becoming a fairly common sight so it isn't as far fetched as most would think it to be.

[AveryTheKitty 2626]

This especially. One thing I found very curious when it came to BI's design choices is why they bothered to port only certain things from A2 like the L-159 and the Pandur from ACR, but reuse the same 30mm Samson turret for the Kamysh and the same PROTECTOR HMG/GMG turret for every other vehicle. The Tigris and Kamysh would look pretty badass if they got slightly higher poly versions (with better textures of course) of the A2 Tunguska and BPPU turrets for example.

Tbh, after doing some quick internet searches I wouldn't mind seeing some more RCWS-30 variants for APCs. Probably not the same turret, but you can find Israeli Namer-looking vehicles, Bradleys, BMPs, M113s, and AMV Patrias, all mounted with said turret.

But (hopefully) like everyone else, I hope for as little copy-paste as possible. And I hope for railguns. :3

EDIT: Another thing I'd like to see more of, is creativity. IMO the same contemporary stuff in common conflicts like Afghan War, bore me. I'd love to see more gameplay oriented stuff but still keep it at least somewhat realistic. I also love when gear is very tactical or bulked up, like Act of Aggression's M1A2s.

I'd also like to see more detail put into content, for instance, animations of antennas, actually getting cannon's recoil animations correct (cough warrior cough) backpacks and spare wheels, etc on vehicles. That kind of stuff.

Edited June 25, 2015 by Nightmare515

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

For crime out loud, Railguns again? Do you even understand how a Railgun works?

[John Kozak 14]

For crime out loud, Railguns again? Do you even understand how a Railgun works?

It's 2015 now, and there are

, tests of railguns,

And no, it's not a "show of force" mockups - these are pretty real systems, and some of them have seen real combat.

So, imagining some railgun usage in 2035/later might be not as far-fetched as you think.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

It's 2015 now, and there are

, tests of railguns,

And no, it's not a "show of force" mockups - these are pretty real systems, and some of them have seen real combat.

So, imagining some railgun usage in 2035/later might be not as far-fetched as you think.

No no no, i'm aware of all of this technology, in fact i already knew how a Railgun worked before the US and UK actually started working on one... don't ask. Anyway though, what i mean, is that a Railgun's range is a key factor of it's effectiveness. You can't shove a Railgun in a map the size of Altis. It's too small. Well, actually, i guess it depends on the deployment, but in terms of realism... it's too small of a map. And Tanoa is even smaller. The only logical way you could incorporate a Railgun would be Via. a Naval vessel, because you would literally be forced to Circle the island until you have a perfect line of sight at the target from a certain break in terrain, having a certain angle of view at the designated target. Don't forget, a Railgun is a Kenetic weapon. It goes so damned fast, it can't curve over terrain at a certain distance. This is why you can't have a railgun in Arma. It's completely out of scope.

[ajsarge 10]

Rail/coil guns as artillery is out of scope in Arma 3. However, as currently implemented, tanks are still line-of-sight only. A railgun would remove a majority of the arc you get from firing, sending the projectile downrange at higher velocities, making it much more effective than the gunpowder-launched APFSDS rounds currently in use; thus the only reason we don't already see them on tanks IRL today is because we can't build a strong enough generator small enough to fit on a tank. Lasers are in the same realm, with sufficiently high power systems to knock out large targets quickly requiring generators that are immobile or only possible on ships/large aircraft.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Rail/coil guns as artillery is out of scope in Arma 3. However, as currently implemented, tanks are still line-of-sight only. A railgun would remove a majority of the arc you get from firing, sending the projectile downrange at higher velocities, making it much more effective than the gunpowder-launched APFSDS rounds currently in use; thus the only reason we don't already see them on tanks IRL today is because we can't build a strong enough generator small enough to fit on a tank. Lasers are in the same realm, with sufficiently high power systems to knock out large targets quickly requiring generators that are immobile or only possible on ships/large aircraft.

That, and a cannon large enough to electromagnetically project that kinetic round down range. Size, matters in this case, and to realistically fit one on a mobile platform won't be possible, even after 2035, at least on Tanks. The Naval side of things is another story.

Oh and about that turret for the Kamysh instead of a copy and past version taken from the recycled assets from ACR DLC from Arma 2 that the AAF already use, i mean, literally, it's not that hard to find different, faction specific designs. Case and point, they could replace the current Kamysh Turret with a sill, modern turret, not some out dated BPPU/BTR Turret.

Here's one

http://immortaltoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/183721113.jpg

Let's make sure there's no more copy and pasting.

Edited June 25, 2015 by DarkSideSixOfficial

[theevancat 277]

However, we have to take into account Arma's troubled development... They trashed everything in 2012.

As far as we know, the expansion isn't as rocky as the vanilla game. Perhaps we'll see more assets just because there isn't a series of unfortunate events unfolding.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

However, we have to take into account Arma's troubled development... They trashed everything in 2012.

As far as we know, the expansion isn't as rocky as the vanilla game. Perhaps we'll see more assets just because there isn't a series of unfortunate events unfolding.

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.

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

The funny thing is that the RWS on top of each factions MBT could be used on their MRAP's (at least for the .50cal variants) and you would end up with unique RWS MRAPs instead of the copy/pasta we have now.

[altis 12]

...But, then there's the expansion, so you never know.

Correct, i imagine they probably already had a road map in place, i.e. the dlcs and expansion etc, its not like they released the game and twiddle thumbs with nothing to do... seems like i see updates nearly every other day on dev branch, always a slow burn with Arma :)

[Greenfist 1863]

seems like i see updates nearly every other day on dev branch, always a slow burn with Arma

Yeah; there was about 230 updates in the past year. Now how many other developers do that? :)

[drebin052 324]

Oh and about that turret for the Kamysh instead of a copy and past version taken from the recycled assets from ACR DLC from Arma 2 that the AAF already use, i mean, literally, it's not that hard to find different, faction specific designs. Case and point, they could replace the current Kamysh Turret with a sill, modern turret, not some out dated BPPU/BTR Turret.

Well it's the "easiest" (I say easy in the sense that it wouldn't require as much work as creating a turret model from scratch) method for the devs to solve the C&P turrets. Anything that isn't the current turret is better than nothing.

[Alwarren 2767]

They trashed everything in 2012.

That's a point I don't quite get. Apparently, the island was changed to get away from the real location names. That one I get. What I don't get is the rest. Let's say the campaign was finished, and they had to scrap that (why would they, they can just change the references from "Greece" to "Republic of Altis" etc).

That leaves the factions. Suppose there was a Greek faction that needed to be scrapped. Why? There is hardly any stuff in the Hellenic army that is specific; their MBT's are (surprise) Leopard-2, their rifles are mostly G3A3, M4, FN FAL and M14's. Maybe there are some specific APC's (Leonidas II which IIRC is based off an Austrian chassis), but most of the stuff could have been generically re-used for the AAF.

And this all would affect only this potential Hellenic Army.

So I really don't get the "trashed everything" when (as far as I can see it) most of the stuff could have been easily recycled, and in fact, the Leopard-2 might actually HAVE been recycled.

When you look at early screenshots/presentational material, you'll see that a lot of the now NATO equipment was CSAT. That would suggest to me that the NATO faction was either not completed or scrapped. Why? I have no idea. Maybe coontent was juggled around to fill the hole - the Fennek was apparently NATO since there is still a NATO skin for it. Which would indicate that all sides had to give something up to fill the independents holes. But again, I do not get what equipment was so specific that it was needed to scrap it all instead of re-use it into fictional equipment (as we have now anyway).

Note I am not saying that it isn't true, or that there is something sinister going on. I just don't get why.

---------- Post added at 12:07 ---------- Previous post was at 12:01 ----------

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 might not be okay with it, but there is not enough reason to change it after the facts. The game is sold, work continues on other aspects like DLC and the expansion. There would be virtually nothing to be gained from this for BIS other than appeasing people.

Make no mistake, I am as upset about this as anyone. I really dislike the fact that the different factions use so many common parts, and I was very much annoyed about the kit-bashing. But the commercial reality of it is, there is not enough gain to be made from investing a substantial amount of work in such an endeavor. And even if they did, the first comments would be something like "The should fix the framerates", as is obvious in EVERY EFFING YouTube video or press release that BIS publishes.

Seriously, in all discussion around the net, every decent discussion always gets drowned out by one of two groups of people: The blind followers that excuse everything and call anyone hater for criticizing even a tiny part of the game, and the actual haters that go post "fix the framerates", "fix this bug" or similar bollocks. Frankly, at one point, I as a producer of a game would have stopped listening.

[theevancat 277]

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.

I mean, release time is always busy fixing bugs and whatever. It has been a while since then, true.

I'm not sure if they had the time but prioritized something else of if they just didn't have time period... I dunno.

---------- Post added at 13:27 ---------- Previous post was at 13:19 ----------

That's a point I don't quite get. Apparently, the island was changed to get away from the real location names. That one I get. What I don't get is the rest. Let's say the campaign was finished, and they had to scrap that (why would they, they can just change the references from "Greece" to "Republic of Altis" etc).

That leaves the factions. Suppose there was a Greek faction that needed to be scrapped. Why? There is hardly any stuff in the Hellenic army that is specific; their MBT's are (surprise) Leopard-2, their rifles are mostly G3A3, M4, FN FAL and M14's. Maybe there are some specific APC's (Leonidas II which IIRC is based off an Austrian chassis), but most of the stuff could have been generically re-used for the AAF.

And this all would affect only this potential Hellenic Army.

So I really don't get the "trashed everything" when (as far as I can see it) most of the stuff could have been easily recycled, and in fact, the Leopard-2 might actually HAVE been recycled.

When you look at early screenshots/presentational material, you'll see that a lot of the now NATO equipment was CSAT. That would suggest to me that the NATO faction was either not completed or scrapped. Why? I have no idea. Maybe coontent was juggled around to fill the hole - the Fennek was apparently NATO since there is still a NATO skin for it. Which would indicate that all sides had to give something up to fill the independents holes. But again, I do not get what equipment was so specific that it was needed to scrap it all instead of re-use it into fictional equipment (as we have now anyway).

Note I am not saying that it isn't true, or that there is something sinister going on. I just don't get why.

I guess with a storyline changearound they reused some assets but a complete change might have prevented more diversity. I guess they didn't really trash everything but I'm sure they had to sit around for a little bit and think about what needed to be done. So they took what they had and made the best of it. Stuff that was planned to be in the game (like our turretless Marshall and our KSG shotgun) but wasn't fully completed needed to be shifted aside to deal with the urgent priorities. Existing assets needed to fill holes, yeah. I'm sure we'd be seeing a lot more diversity if the development wasn't as troubled.

Although why these weren't completed afterwards could be a case of like I said in the preceding post.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Yeah; there was about 230 updates in the past year. Now how many other developers do that? :)

Believe it or not, ARK survival. XD

---------- Post added at 14:19 ---------- Previous post was at 14:08 ----------

I mean, release time is always busy fixing bugs and whatever. It has been a while since then, true.

I'm not sure if they had the time but prioritized something else of if they just didn't have time period... I dunno.

---------- Post added at 13:27 ---------- Previous post was at 13:19 ----------

I guess with a storyline changearound they reused some assets but a complete change might have prevented more diversity. I guess they didn't really trash everything but I'm sure they had to sit around for a little bit and think about what needed to be done. So they took what they had and made the best of it. Stuff that was planned to be in the game (like our turretless Marshall and our KSG shotgun) but wasn't fully completed needed to be shifted aside to deal with the urgent priorities. Existing assets needed to fill holes, yeah. I'm sure we'd be seeing a lot more diversity if the development wasn't as troubled.

Although why these weren't completed afterwards could be a case of like I said in the preceding post.

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

[theevancat 277]

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.

[dr death jm 117]

This is always a funny discussion :)

Here is reality at the moment:

- Create a big mod / gamemode with thousands hours of work, and you might receive $100 in donation over a year.

- Host that persons mod / gamemode on your community server with just 4-5 hours work to get it running, and many servers bring in $2500-5000 in donations.

So there are elements in the community receiving considerable $$$ in donations.

It certainly is NOT the modders/content creators ;)

well hosting people's mods and making $$$ is wrong. unless the mod maker has worked something out,

im working with a moder right now re doing RTS, I might add a few addons or other mods. I think id be an ass if I took donations for server operations or what not, unless all the moders were part of my server including all the addons of 3rd partys ..

or even thru who ever were included there share of donations, because with out the mods/addons the mission would be shit.(not that that's my case yet) I have no addonds included .. but I am using Zenophon's Framework , (with lots of help form Zen) ..

the rts mission was KaRRiLLioNs , So Id Have to pay him to .. AND SO now as I was Getting to a point no 1 should be getting paid ... it you wanna make $$$ sell your stuff to BIS ...