Arma 3 - Marksmen Community Challenge

[Jackal326 1158]

Up to this morning I wasn't only completely fired up for the new game mechanics, but also the new weapons. When I saw the MG5 and the M14 this morning, my little hype bubble kinda bursted. I really liked the NATO additions, since we only have the MX series right now, whose LMG and marksman variants are rather inferior to all other weapons of that kind currently in the game, but why the heck would CSAT need another LMG along with the Zafir and the AAF (guessing from the scheme on the picture) a downgraded version of their already existing ABR? And why does CTRG get anything at all while the FIA doesn't get a new toy? This faction is almost non-existent and completely insignificant, even for the 'new' campaign and SP in general. And justifying it with 'it's for NATO, not just CTRG' doesn't really make sense too, because they got the Mk-1 now. They could have implemented way better alternatives than those three guns, like the already mentioned bolt-action rifles (AAF and CSAT will both still use the Lynx after the DLC is released), a weapon appropriate for civilians or an replacement for the - bad pun intended - Marksman system on the CSAT AA platform. Adding the M14 seems as useless to me as adding the M79 to Arrowhead, and it's also just an optimized version of A2 content, which is meh now that they don't have to grind for content anymore like they had to when they released the AAF vehicles.

Guess I've satisfied my need for whining now... but still, kinda disappointing content-wise. At least weapon resting will be neat together with the new MGs.

(Don't take the following personally JED, I'm only quoting you as you're the latest reply that requires some cheese to go with the w(h)ine).

Just because BI assign a particular weapon to a particular side/faction, doesn't mean mission/campaign makers can't simply re-assign it to who-ever they see fit. To read some of the posts here it would seem that just because the AAF gets the M14, its the end of the World, and factions such as the FIA can never ever use it. Ever. On the contrary its as easy as a few init changes and any unit can carry any weapon.

This is of course assuming that the units depicted holding the weapons in the artwork are in fact representative of the 'side-assignments' of each weapon.

[jed89 10]

(Don't take the following personally JED, I'm only quoting you as you're the latest reply that requires some cheese to go with the w(h)ine).

Just because BI assign a particular weapon to a particular side/faction, doesn't mean mission/campaign makers can't simply re-assign it to who-ever they see fit. To read some of the posts here it would seem that just because the AAF gets the M14, its the end of the World, and factions such as the FIA can never ever use it. Ever. On the contrary its as easy as a few init changes and any unit can carry any weapon.

This is of course assuming that the units depicted holding the weapons in the artwork are in fact representative of the 'side-assignments' of each weapon.

In my opinion saying 'you can simply reassign a weapon' is the same kind of lazy excuse that 'just download a mod' is. Of course ArmA is a sandbox game that's highly mod friendly (and supposed to be exactly that), but have you ever thought about how mods divide the community? Multiplayer with mods is never ending pain in my opinion, since a lot of players don't join servers with mods and a lot of mission hosters don't use mods, because they know players will just pass it, since they don't wanna search for the mods first. Singleplayer is the same, just look at the download numbers of SP missions and campaigns at Armaholic. Work that requires additional addons gets downloaded way less than stuff that only requires vanilla content (except it's Namalsk Crisis or something of that caliber). What I just said might seem kinda off-topic, but 'you can simply script this or that' is the same. Sure, I could give some rebels a MAR-10 or SPMG, but it breaks the immersion (Why do rebels have top-notch gear? Why does CSAT have German arms? Why...). I'm not as much whining about the side-assignments as I am about the choice of what gets included as vanilla content. You could give CSAT all the weapons in the game, as long as I could rationally redistribute them, but if they don't fit for the other factions it would be as bad for the immersion as CSAT and NATO obviously having the same heavy arms supplier. And just because something is easy to script doens't mean people will do it. Have you ever heard about the complaints that the Skyfires on the Kajman are not controlled by the pilot, but the gunner? There are a lot, but did you ever see a MP server that used the four simple init commands it needs to give the rockets to the pilot? I haven't so far. So the point I'm trying to convey is: They should include content that's fitting for what the game tries to be (realistic) and distribute it logically or don't put out content at all and simply include an 'auto-download all required addons' function and let the community work on all the content.

I don't mind BIS' DLC policy and the gameplay enhancements for the upcoming one sound great, but the content is just... it could be way better in my opinion.

[Jackal326 1158]

So the point I'm trying to convey is: They should include content that's fitting for what the game tries to be (realistic) and distribute it logically

Its set 25 years in the future. Who's to say what could/has/will happen in those 25 years? What we deem 'realistic' by today's standards people 25 years ago would laugh at and burn you as a witch (probably). As for logic, in regard to this discussion that is apparently rather subjective.

or don't put out content at all

And then there would be open revolt that "BI doesn't support the community enough" and "BI don't care!", I can see it now...

[supercereal4 29]

and yeah the MG5 with original 7.62x51 would make a sense on AAF side tho

The caliber doesn't really matter TOO much to me, seeing how its a future variant, so anything can happen. However it would be nice for the AAF to get it. They are in need of an MMG.

[Jona33 51]

Just as a side note CSAT now use 762x54 (as opposed to 51), also the URL for the Mk-14 is the only (with the exception of the Kir) one that doesn't have a faction name listed on it. In addition it's pretty likely FIA will also use the Mk-14, in the same way their current marksmen use the Mk20 and they use the Mk200.

[theevancat 277]

Did CSAT really switch to the Russian 7.62? Is this dev branch or stable?

[Jona33 51]

Dev, today or yesterday I think (I assume this is purely a name change, and that ballistics will remain unchanged).

[Brisse 78]

Dev, today or yesterday I think (I assume this is purely a name change, and that ballistics will remain unchanged).

That would be yesterday, and as mentioned earlier, the ballistics did change. More specifically, airfriction and caliber values were changed.

[Jona33 51]

That would be yesterday, and as mentioned earlier, the ballistics did change. More specifically, airfriction and caliber values were changed.

I've missed that, internet's been down for a couple of days.

[jed89 10]

And then there would be open revolt that "BI doesn't support the community enough" and "BI don't care!", I can see it now...

Can't really argue with that, but I doubt it would be more of a hassle than it is/was with the copy & paste content as well as the 'straight port' content.

Its set 25 years in the future. Who's to say what could/has/will happen in those 25 years? What we deem 'realistic' by today's standards people 25 years ago would laugh at and burn you as a witch (probably). As for logic, in regard to this discussion that is apparently rather subjective.

It's only 20 years from now and to be honest, mankind in the future ArmA III depicts doesn't seem to be very advanced. They only use weapons that are 20 years and older (since all of them exist in some form today (which is almost only justifiable by trying to keep it realistic (and I know about the M16 being in service for 61 years now, but that parallel shows that people wouldn't burn me as a witch, since they still seem to think the way we do))). CSAT uses an Objekt 640 tank, whose development was abandoned by the Russian military in 2001 because of poor performance, instead of a T-90MS or something comparable. And if you apply what happens in ArmA III's ground branches to the currently non-existent naval branches, one could guess that NATO and/or CSAT still wouldn't supply them with toys like the American LaWS or ship-mounted railguns. But that's off-topic, so I'll probably stop posting now.

[gibonez 18]

Its set 25 years in the future. Who's to say what could/has/will happen in those 25 years? What we deem 'realistic' by today's standards people 25 years ago would laugh at and burn you as a witch (probably). As for logic, in regard to this discussion that is apparently rather subjective.

Well for one to predict what 25 years in the future looks like one only has to look 25 years in the past and see how much has changed.

so lets do that for the heck of it.

2015 - 25 = 1990

What did we have in 1990 ooo lets see, we had m16a2s, ak74s, Abrahms tanks, apache helos, Humvees, Laser guided bombs.

What do we have today ? Nearly identical , so in 25 years its safe to say we will have almost the same if not only a marginal leap when it comes to military technology.

[CaptainObvious 95]

What do we have today ? Nearly identical , so in 25 years its safe to say we will have almost the same if not only a marginal leap when it comes to military technology.

I'd say nowhere near identical, but maybe that's just me :o

[gibonez 18]

I'd say nowhere near identical, but maybe that's just me :o

Well its alot alot alot closer to what is depicted in Arma 3.

Even in 50 years from now War technology will not look all that much different than it does now and any of the areas where it does will be Aerial and Naval related.

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

This only really seems to make sense if BI does the "lockout" the same way did it for helicopters, by locking out the default "take" action from the action menu (a dev stated that moveInDriver working on the Huron and Taru in place of the default "get in" was intentional), but then I'm not sure how they'd deal with it for the inventory menu...

Chalk me up among those disappointed by the Mk14 when the Mk18 ABR is right there, though as has been said elsewhere the Mk14 could become a FIA weapon in a way where it could work with the lore (FIA includes former-government loyalists so FIA snipers use those while designated marksmen continue to use MRCO-equipped Mk20s, and the AAF got to have the Mk14's modern successor in the Mk18 ABR).

I'm not sure if you've fully understood my psuedo-code?

The way I inteded it is that for a mission where the vanilla marksman with his vanilla loadout is used and a player who does not have any DLC selects this slot then nothing new happens.

If a player who selects that slot who owns the DLC will be given a new DLC rifle while still actually being a vanilla marksman class.

The reason I did it that way is this prevents the massive in-game advertising that occured when players used DLC they did not own. Regardless of whether BIS lock-out the Take action or not is irrelevant in this case as the new DLC equipment would be loaded via the unit's Init field; not collected via an in-game action.

Otherwise you'd possibly have 2 scenarios:

No missions really use the new infantry DLC classes and their associated new guns because only DLC owners can use them without ads

or

Missions will utilise the new slots and vanilla players won't select those slots in fear of ads which leaves mission makers with different choices particularly around balancing a mission based on gear alotted to the players.

I'm probably explaining this terribly.

[twisted 127]

Personally really have like to see bolt action with the appropriate animations, cycling and ability to manage sight picture perhaps by not cycling the bolt until the left mouse button is released.

Would have been a new level of Fidelity for a weapon type in arma3. Something I feel is needed, an evolution in better representing how individual weapon systems work as many are very generic currently. We need more depth now.

The helicopter dlc gave us a better fidelity fight model. I'd hope that a marksman doc would provide similar depth for marksmen like weapons.

Edited March 8, 2015 by twisted

[Jackal326 1158]

Even in 50 years from now War technology will not look all that much different than it does now and any of the areas where it does will be Aerial and Naval related.

When you're done with your magical crystal ball that can apparently see the future, can I borrow it? I want to see the lottery numbers for this coming week...

[chortles 263]

I'm probably explaining this terribly.

I didn't understand it at the time but RiE announced on the stream that they'd go with the "can't pick up the guns if not bought" method for the DLC lockout.

Personally really have like to see bolt action with the appropriate animations, cycling and ability to manage sight picture perhaps by not cycling the bolt until the left mouse button is released.

RiE admitted that they ran into technical issues and, considering that the ETA for the DLC is April, the effort presumably ran out of time for it to be included in v1.42 (no word on if ever​ though).

[gibonez 18]

RiE admitted that they ran into technical issues and' date=' considering that the ETA for the DLC is April, the effort presumably ran out of time for it to be included in v1.42 (no word on if [i']ever[/i]​ though).[/font]

Then delay it , I'm sure the community would not mind waiting a few more months for a better rounded product instead of pushing it out the door just to meet a deadline.

I'm patient and I am sure most of the community is as well.

[chortles 263]

Then delay it , I'm sure the community would not mind waiting a few more months for a better rounded product instead of pushing it out the door just to meet a deadline.

From a team that outright launched without a SP campaign rather than miss the launch deadline? ;) Considering that the ETA is a month away (Matt Lightfoot having narrowed down the DLC release to early April), this was probably all locked in back in the winter when the Marksmen-accompanying features list was finalized.

Then again, considering that assets have already slipped "from Marksmen to Expansion", I wouldn't be surprised if that was the fate of bolt-action as opposed to outright cancellation.

[gibonez 18]

From a team that outright launched without a SP campaign rather than miss the launch deadline? ;) Considering that the ETA is a month away (Matt Lightfoot having narrowed down the DLC release to early April), this was probably all locked in back in the winter when the Marksmen-accompanying features list was finalized.

Then again, considering that assets have already slipped "from Marksmen to Expansion", I wouldn't be surprised if that was the fate of bolt-action as opposed to outright cancellation.

I suppose thats true.

Sometimes I feel that delaying things in order to release them when it is more complete is probably the better approach.

Take the stamina, weight and weight sway mechanics for example.

all of these gameplay mechanics are almost tied together and function amazingly with weapon resting and bipod deployment but instead of being released all together were pieced together one by one.

This in effect lead to people being overzealous with their negative feedback due to not having the whole package and in turn each of these features is probably not what the developer initially anticipated.

I believe the same thing can apply to the potential additional improvements to bolt actions, wind, mil turrets and any other long range shooting ballistic improvements that they might have down the pipeline.

Holding off on releasing the DLC in order to put forth a complete package that works better together might be the best form of attack.

[das attorney 857]

Then delay it , I'm sure the community would not mind waiting a few more months for a better rounded product instead of pushing it out the door just to meet a deadline.

I'm patient and I am sure most of the community is as well.

I'm sure investors and financial backers in Bohemia see it differently.

Don't forget the financial year starts on 1 April as well.

Point is, there's many reasons why stuff has to be shoved out of the door on time.

[gibonez 18]

I'm sure investors and financial backers in Bohemia see it differently.

Don't forget the financial year starts on 1 April as well.

Point is, there's many reasons why stuff has to be shoved out of the door on time.

That is very true .

However wouldn't it be the same regardless so long as it releases within the same financial year or quarter.

[das attorney 857]

Not sure, you'd have to google around for a better answer, but if you were an investor and lent them $100000 with the expectation of getting that back when they release Marksman in Apr and they decided to delay for some time and couldn't pay you, then you'd be pretty pissed.

[Rovka 14]

BIS' loyal fanbase gone investors as well, I'd say. Some even paid upfront for the DLC's, as a token of either appreciation, or thrust, alternatively if not otherwise specified..

[chortles 263]

Not the same thing, Thani '82. ;) If you meant the Supporter Edition by paying up front, the DLC bundle aspect of that was actually less guaranteed than "AAA game" season passes are, simply because BI didn't guarantee the existence of qualifying DLC to begin with.

Re: the speculation about financial pressures on BI towards shipping on time... unless BI gets licensing revenue from BISim (VBS3) or Deep Silver (Iron Front: Liberation 1944) and seeing as BI doesn't have a public investor the way BISim has with Riverside (which as snYpir noted in a presentation speech resulted in funding from Riverside allowing for internally-driven development instead of just contracts driving development), then I'm not sure what revenue resources BI has beyond the games and DLCs in its publishing umbrella.

@ gibonez: As for your examples re: fatigue/sway/weight mechanics, it's most likely that someone up top at BI believed that there was more long-run benefit (read: to BI) in adding those incrementally than in withholding them from public release until everything was done, because the latter would mean none of them being publicly available in the interim.

I believe the same thing can apply to the potential additional improvements to bolt actions, wind, mil turrets and any other long range shooting ballistic improvements that they might have down the pipeline.

Ironically, RiE implied-by-omission that "long range shooting ballistic improvements" were basically out of scope, claiming early in the stream that the intended scope of the Marksmen content/update was about group/squad gameplay, hence Marksmen DLC and not Snipers DLC, as sophistic as that sounds.

As for the "maybe slipped from Marksmen to Expansion" idea, I'm now reminded of vortex ring state -- BI had it in the pipeline, but at some point it was determined that it wouldn't be ready in time for the scheduled DLC release, and it was determined not to push back the release but rather simply not promote VRS as part of the DLC-accompanying update, focusing narrowly on what would be deemed ready by then (AFM, FFV, sling-loading, assets, and scenarios). Indeed, a bunch of the recent changes on dev branch have been already disclaimered by devs as maybe not being in time for Marksmen (but implicitly deemed not worthy of holding up Marksmen over), and BI's claimed that they "don't have the time or resources to make radical changes or add huge new features" to End Game either, only "some room for change - and even new ideas - subject to reasonable constraints of time and complexity"...

From the reveal that the Marksmen-accompanying feature decisions were finalized in December though... it's at least the second time that BI's gone ahead with a major part of the development and publishing schedule well after they'd decided that the decision was final and that customer feedback to the contrary would be disregarded. Indeed, part of the explanation of End Game being publicly playable was that "we usually release official content at a later stage of development, after certain decisions are already 'locked down'" and they wanted to experiment with "bringing in external voices at a relatively earlier stage of development."