The Struggle - Enter-able Buildings Vs. Non/Partly-Enter-able Buildings

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Quote:

 

 

 In the broadest terms, fewer buildings will be fully enter-able. You'll find more buildings that are partly enter able, and also some that cannot be entered at all.

 

In short, for Tanoa, BIS plans on making less buildings enter-able. The design prospective means no harm, but it will have a broader effect on the feel of the Terrain through short term, and through long term.

 

So my question is to you guys, would you prefer less buildings that are enter able to make up for buildings not having furniture? Or would you rather have more, empty buildings, but they will  still be enter able?

 

Me personally, i would rather have more buildings being enter-able, despite the lack of furniture.

[St. Jimmy 272]

Beds, wardropes, bookshelves, benches and other stuff that are against the wall I could be OK with. Loose chairs and other stuff that are there just to jam you aren't needed.

 

I'm OK with no furniture, never bothered me. The furniture would likely bother me more because of the glitching and stuff. Especially true with Arma 3... Arma 2 or DayZ doesn't have much of that problem.

[dscha 147]

I'm OK with no furniture, never bothered me.

Same here.

I prefer to take cover inside or run from House to House, then forced to be standing outside.

[en3x 209]

I don't mind houses without furniture.I will go out on the limb and say that majority of people don't

mind lack of interiors when they are covering roads through the windows from inside but criticizm

will always exist.

 

All that said I'm willing to accept Bi strategy if it will improve at least somewhat performance.

 

Seem like a compromise - bit more performance but bit less freedom in regards to interiors.

[-Coulum- 35]

Enter-able buildings are important. They are a huge sources of concealment on altis. I suppose the jungles of tanoa could help make up for that lack... will the level of entrance planned be on par with chernarus or takistan though?

 

I hope the reasoning isn't solely because they can't fill interiors with furniture. I'd be very disappointed. Know there was some fuss about it when altis was released. I equated the serious complaints to thankless whining. I predict that more than 90% of players would rather fully enter-able but empty houses rather than locked houses. Probably more. All the freedom on altis has really changed the game. Maybe I am mistaken though... 

 

I do sincerely hope BI reconsider. I understand if its just not within their capabilities. 

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Enter-able buildings are important. They are a huge sources of concealment on altis. I suppose the jungles of tanoa could help make up for that lack... will the level of entrance planned be on par with chernarus or takistan though?

 

I hope the reasoning isn't solely because they can't fill interiors with furniture. I'd be very disappointed. Know there was some fuss about it when altis was released. I equated the serious complaints to thankless whining. I predict that more than 90% of players would rather fully enter-able but empty houses rather than locked houses. Probably more. All the freedom on altis has really changed the game. Maybe I am mistaken though... 

 

I do sincerely hope BI reconsider. I understand if its just not within there capabilities. 

Honestly, that's one reason i hate Chernarus, lack of enter able houses. Thing is, it feels more important in Arma 3, because when running Chernarus in Arma 3, it feels worse than in Arma 2, just because the level of enter able buildings i got used to with Altis. That's just me, but i know that there are some buildings on Altis that are not enter able that, to be honest, even now, i wish were enter able. So for them to be taking a route where now even less buildings, on a smaller map i may add (yes, i'm aware of the jungle), slightly worries me that the feeling of the gameplay won't be as open, diverse with more closed doors like we have on Chernarus. IT just does't feel right for gameplay. I would pick enter able buildings with zero furniture over any other method, hands down.

[froggyluv 2136]

Sounds like a regression if you ask me. Rathered have all building enterable even if cookie cutter as long as the doors and windows are functional for player AND AI.

 

 Recently also threw a few low tables in the african Isle of Nziwasago and the AI had no problem navigating by hopping right over them when in combat. I also like the low drops from some of those buildings as more then oncenot Ill spot AI actually jumping down from a short second story and enter combat -not that Im looking for CoD style combat but it's sometimes a nice changeup in the more rigid environment of Arma.

[alsanjuro 20]

I like to be able to enter buildings reason they are good source of cover one and concealment from passing vehicles or enemy troops because that is what you use in real situation but i guess we are going backwards its a shame.

[pettka 694]

It may be possibly better to read the whole SITREP with reasoning behind the decision than just the out of context excerpt of OP. We are still evaluating the possibilities, it is definitely not just because of furniture.

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

I support the idea.

 

I'd rather have 4-5-6 story buildings with only 1-2 floors + roof enterable, or even only roof-use, just to have some taller structures. If the alternative is fully enterable everything, which limits the scope and variety of buildings, then I'd rather have a mix. A small office building/hotel structure with some access + roof use is useful for scenario design and provides an extra vertical dimension to infantry combat.

 

Really its compromise.

 

What I would like is more believable furniture objects. Leave it to the scripters to create "furnish house" functions, as long as we have the assets to work with. Furnishing every building seems like an unnecessary drag on performance, given engine and hardware constraints.

[chrisb 196]

Furniture has never bothered me. I think A2OA struck a very good balance where furniture was concerned, there was enough to feel that there was life on the terrain but not too much to interfere with AI. I have always used mods that use buildings and use them fairly well. So I would be very disappointed to have too many closed buildings, as in A2 Chernarus and so on.

 

I find it hard to believe the resources aren't available to do a better job with buildings or indeed furniture. I think this could be an excuse and more down to the inability for the devs to have vanilla AI use the buildings and use them well. Whereas mods have had them using buildings for many years now.

Using cover street to street (outside) with vanilla AI is not too bad now. That started to improve towards the end of A2OA and they do it quite well. Indeed some mods simply enhance that ability to improve that side for the AI.

But regards interior building use, that is really left more to the mod community. Who lets face it, have managed, depending on which mod or setup you use, to have AI use buildings reasonably well. But of course there is a reluctance to use scripts more and have it all in the engine, so that may be the issue.

 

My personal thing when playing is the AI. It has to be very good and believable, also coop is pointless against it, unless you use AI mods. We have always used mods that are very capable at making the game far more realistic. Irrespective of your view on scripts, its the gameplay and realistic nature of that gameplay, that the player see's in the final situation when gaming. Many players associate scripts with repetitive AI performance and style. For me, this isn't the case though and I see it as a narrow view to take.

If BI took the time to.. and this is not going to be a popular comment.. but to employ devs that understand AI more and are willing to use crossover technics, whereby scripts can play their part and work alongside engine capabilities for AI to perform and work well. Then the problem will never get sorted out for vanilla AI. This is the brunt of the AI problem as I and many I know, see it.

 

This new terrain will be a backward step for the mil side, they're enclosing the terrain more and now the buildings too. Vanilla AI can't handle jungle well, nevermind buildings. The game doesn't take the AI that seriously and indeed I have believed for some time that BI views the future as MP or the game in other forms i.e. Zombies, Life, Dino's or other styles of gaming that the series is turning more and more too (via mods really).

BI will use a mod to its advantage, there is nothing wrong with that, the game can lend itself to many play styles and types (its a sandbox after all). But the initial bottom line 'was' military sim style. That went with A3, very much so, in my view.

 

Just the way its going, but I think this has always been intended since A3 changed direction a little. Financially its very worth while to do this to the game, but that leaves many gamers, not here on this forum perhaps, but out there, very disappointed. But we're perhaps the smaller minority and therefore I do understand to some degree, that this type of player is getting more and more ignored. Why bother with them, when the money takes you elsewhere, that's business I've done it myself in the past, you always leave people behind that prefer the initial product, far more than the current. Just life in general.

 

Sorry OP it went into a rant a little, well not a rant, you have to get a little angry and animated to rant, which I'm not. Its just a calm view I have. But it seems to me that it all means the same thing, what that is, I'll leave for others to decide, for me its pretty clear.

[royaltyinexile 175]

This new terrain will be a backward step for the mil side, they're enclosing the terrain more and now the buildings too. Vanilla AI can't handle jungle well, nevermind buildings. The game doesn't take the AI that seriously and indeed I have believed for some time that BI views the future as MP or the game in other forms i.e. Zombies, Life, Dino's or other styles of gaming that the series is turning more and more too (via mods really).

BI will use a mod to its advantage, there is nothing wrong with that, the game can lend itself to many play styles and types (its a sandbox after all). But the initial bottom line 'was' military sim style. That went with A3, very much so, in my view.

 

Just the way its going, but I think this has always been intended since A3 changed direction a little. Financially its very worth while to do this to the game, but that leaves many gamers, not here on this forum perhaps, but out there, very disappointed.

 

While it's true that Arma 3 changed direction mid-production, it was rather a return to its sandbox military roots / strengths - a path we're still walking. Of course, though, it would be madness to not consider the platform and its broader applications when making decisions about content and features. Arma 3's played in a rich variety of ways; it's up to us to make decisions about where to invest, and what provides the biggest gameplay return for the most people. It's also to work on what we're interested in, and what our individual preferences are.

 

If you survey the key features and content delivered for everyone, for free, since launch, it's objectively a better military platform. I'm afraid I can't see much merit in any viewpoint that would suggest otherwise. I must also take issue with your notes on AI development. While it's true that, on our road to the expansion, we're looking to improve multiplayer and offer MP-focused content, that's not to the detriment of AI or SP gameplay more broadly. Our official scenarios and modes are and will be built around AI and PvE; improving behaviour here is key to creating splendid content. Furthermore, it's plain to see that our (investment in improving AI) is something that accelerated after the change in direction.

 

We now have a skilled and experienced fireteam of programmers and designers capable of (and motivated to) fixing existing issues and bringing new improvements. If you take an objective look at the progress made by our team over the last 2 years, I'd struggle to find credence in your viewpoint. Indeed, I'd argue that the AI has made more (admittedly, long awaited!) progress in the last year of development than 3-4 years of Arma 2 support. Naturally that work will continue on and past the expansion. We're not complacent about the issues, and we're keen to make progress on issues like detection, lethality, and support for existing and new features (e.g., FFV).

 

I look forward to setting out the high-level goals in a roadmap blog in the next few weeks, where I hope it will be clear what it is we're building towards. However, I think it's disingenuous to position our development as doing a disservice to the veteran communities. It's too easy to discount the hard work / dedication the team puts in - or, as AI might have it - to miss the forest for the trees!  ;)

 

 

Best,

RiE

[hardsiesta 1]

Never cared about furniture. But to me, enterable buildings was the selling point in A3, and the thing I've loved the most. Nothing quite like moving through a town in A3, with potential contacts in any window or door you pass.

Usable doors and windows essentially are the urban combat. Unusable buildings are just going to be in the way if there's no urban gameplay, and a waste of resources, just like furniture. Unusable "cubes" feel awkward and distracting, particularly if they have more faked peepholes.

I was actually impressed with how shamelessly practical no-nonsense, no bs approach A3 had, and how much it gained with it.

Quite disappointed to see something like furniture even plays a part in this step back. Not to mention it's expressed as the first and foremost reason, even before "also performance". Really made me quite worried, over all of my huge respect for the series.

"We all know that Altis had a great many enterable buildings, but they were void of furniture and felt suspiciously empty. We don't have the resources to solve this by producing top-notch varied interiors for all buildings." leading to "more solid buildings" just sounds damn terrible.

That's the most crucial gameplay aspect being weighed against aestethics there. Jesus.

I'd rather have no buildings over useless ones. Just shift the focus on non-urban combat, but keep it as no-nonsense as you did in A3 so far, please.

[chrisb 196]

While it's true that Arma 3 changed direction mid-production, it was rather a return to its sandbox military roots / strengths - a path we're still walking. Of course, though, it would be madness to not consider the platform and its broader applications when making decisions about content and features. Arma 3's played in a rich variety of ways; it's up to us to make decisions about where to invest, and what provides the biggest gameplay return for the most people. It's also to work on what we're interested in, and what our individual preferences are.

 

If you survey the key features and content delivered for everyone, for free, since launch, it's objectively a better military platform. I'm afraid I can't see much merit in any viewpoint that would suggest otherwise. I must also take issue with your notes on AI development. While it's true that, on our road to the expansion, we're looking to improve multiplayer and offer MP-focused content, that's not to the detriment of AI or SP gameplay more broadly. Our official scenarios and modes are and will be built around AI and PvE; improving behaviour here is key to creating splendid content. Furthermore, it's plain to see that our (investment in improving AI) is something that accelerated after the change in direction.

 

We now have a skilled and experienced fireteam of programmers and designers capable of (and motivated to) fixing existing issues and bringing new improvements. If you take an objective look at the progress made by our team over the last 2 years, I'd struggle to find credence in your viewpoint. Indeed, I'd argue that the AI has made more (admittedly, long awaited!) progress in the last year of development than 3-4 years of Arma 2 support. Naturally that work will continue on and past the expansion. We're not complacent about the issues, and we're keen to make progress on issues like detection, lethality, and support for existing and new features (e.g., FFV).

 

I look forward to setting out the high-level goals in a roadmap blog in the next few weeks, where I hope it will be clear what it is we're building towards. However, I think it's disingenuous to position our development as doing a disservice to the veteran communities. It's too easy to discount the hard work / dedication the team puts in - or, as AI might have it - to miss the forest for the trees!  ;)

 

 

Best,

RiE

 

I chuckled at the 'its a return to its roots' comment, if you believe that, then that's o.k. with me. I don't for one minute, certainly not from our gameplay point of view, but still, your very entitled to your view and from your gameplay style it might be the case, we all play differently.

There again, you alluded to something with your other comments, regards broader applications. That sort of said something to me as a player. Now as I said, from a business point of view, why not. From a players point of view, especially for our gameplay style, its not a good thing.

 

Regards the improvements in AI, I did say that in the post. But they're not vast improvements, they are however better and much appreciated. But getting AI into, and using, buildings would be a big (vast) step forward. Also having them use heavily wooded areas really well, would be good too. Lets face it, with this new terrain, the AI are going to need to know how to move around in a confined wooded area, whilst doing it really well. Should be fun watching it. On the other hand buildings have been sorted...

 

I don't play A3 much, I really only sightsee & tinker in the editor from time to time, in here. Also don't get me wrong, many players don't even notice the AI, they're quite happy to just run around and kill as many as possible, perhaps that's their game, which is also fine, more do it now than ever in the series. But there are many players and groups out there, that don't play that way, many never have in this series, They/we would much rather kill few and have realistic gameplay, whereas the AI are a real challenge. But at the moment, that's not in the Vanilla game, unfortunately it never really has been. Closing buildings won't get us any nearer either, just a plaster fix.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

I can understand the trade off of enter able buildings, but only for an area in which composes of tall buildings. In fact, in a case like that it wouldake the gameplay interesting if a few levels were enter able, different areas on each building in that city side. I think this would be best for performance, while still keeping a good degree of the gameplay open to Urban combat, but still provides that balance that would be lost from less enter able buildings. I can also understand if say some locations need to have a ton of different structures, but most of them should still be enter able at least to some extent.

[Wildgoose 1]

Tanoa doesnt appear to be a very urban map at all anyway....Whats the selling point afterall?  'south pacific jungle'

Takistan was, and still is my favourite bis map....most if not all buildings enterable and including furniture!

 

If its more a matter of manpower/time, then make some or all the unenterable buildings replaceable in the editor maybe?

[joostsidy 685]

Am disappointed by this news. I'm a OFP-directly-to-Arma III player. Never played the games in between. The other day I loaded up the terrains from the previous games in Arma III. As soon as I noticed the closed buildings (especially Chernabus?) I thought 'jaiks!', it felt very fake and old-fashioned (tech-wise) to me because you could not enter them, reminding me of OFP which is a long time ago. So... never played these maps, remained with Altis and Stratis. So this is the reason why I am dissapointed, going back to 'movie-prop' buildings feels like a regression.

 

Besides playing missions I love just flying helo's across Altis. Realizing that you can land at any tiny building in the distance and walk inside gives a certain reality to the game, even though it's surrealistic with you being the only one on Altis (in simple editor preview), and the missing furniture. It feels like you're part of a true sandbox, the (sometimes quirky) Arma universe :-)

 

I get the feeling that this is going to be eye-candy ruling over substance. I can imagine already beautiful trailers showing beautiful buildings, including the inside. But when you actually play the map you discover that inside of buildings is actually only a feature of SOME of the buildings, breaking down the true sandbox. In a compromise I prefer fewer building types and no furniture. I hope there can be a solution where all the buildings remain at least partially enterable.

[chortles 263]

Note: DnA said on Reddit that they intend to make unenterable buildings more obviously such than they had been in Arma 2, which I'll add was an early design goal of DayZ.

[rübe 127]

[...] it is definitely not just because of furniture.

While it says that "there are various reasons for this approach", the only additional reason given is performance. And that's a bit worrying, honestly.

Is Tanoa - with its jungle and what not - this demanding that the few (from what I can tell) buildings there better are made static, non-enterable cubes in order to gain a bunch more FPS? ...what will happen once mission makers are putting down a bunch of units and objects?

 

What other conclusion are we supposed to make with the given information?

 

If it's about the furniture, then screw that, we all can live with empty buildings, and virtually no gameplay opportunity is lost. People can always spawn a table and a chair by themself if needed.

But non-enterable buildings? In 2016? That would just be sad. :huh:

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

and indeed I have believed for some time that BI views the future as MP or the game in other forms i.e. Zombies, Life, Dino's or other styles of gaming that the series is turning more and more too (via mods really).

 

Just want to lay a couple thoughts out there:

 

1. Yes, we all know the 'social casuals' market is larger than the tactical mil-sim / realism market.

 

2. Why shouldn't BIS cater to this 'social casuals' market if it doesn't cost them much to do so? 

 

3. If catering to this market brings in revenue so they can hire/compensate staff who will design military 'ArmA' content, then I see it as win-win. 

 

 

And a personal note.

 

I personally have no issue with the 'social casuals' as long as they keep bringing $$$ into the community and BIS. :)

 

One thing I would hope though, is that BI management is still primarily hiring people who want to work on content to expand the military simulation side of ArmA. If I see Devs being hired who are more interested in The Sims and social 'ark survival' type games, then I will be concerned. Haven't seen that happen just yet though.

 

And having spent awhile on the COOP side of scenario design and development, I can say with some experience that many of the updates since 1.00 have brought more to the COOP / mil-sim community than the 'social casual' community. Probably most evident is Karel Moricky's work with Zeus, Arsenal, Garage, (and unfinished 3D editor), and more recently Nelson Duarte's work with Group Management and Revive. Oukej's also done some good stuff with AI, which deserves recognition. Bipods and weapon resting, sling loading, marksman rifles, etc. Not exactly the stuff the 'social casual' community of A3 was clamoring for.

 

And a final thought re Furniture, a message to BI staff.

 

Build the furniture assets, but don't put them in houses. It's 300 lines of code to furnish a town, and I'd rather the performance budget be invested elsewhere (or saved), than pre-furnished Tanoan residences.

[old_painless 182]

 

Me personally, i would rather have more buildings being enter-able, despite the lack of furniture.

 

Absolutely ! Not being able to go through buildings in town CQB, can't live with that. And walking up to a pictoresque jungle hut on Tanoa only to realize that its a movie-prop - that would be so Arma2.

[froggyluv 2136]

 joostSidy pretty much nailed my sentiment as well.Also understand that they probably want to make some really beautiful non-functional buildings because they are more artistically rewarding than worrying about AI functionality etc...

 

 Speaking of which, if they "up" the functionality of the AI's use of the buildings that are enterable ie.. ALL windows and doors have nodes, AI face out from center of building by default, Garrison commands and ability to place them easier in real time like some of the new tactical mods -I'd be happy.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

A slight observation. Now, i played alot of Epoch awhile ago, on Altis. 80% of buildings are enterable, hell, 95% actually. In epoch, once your near towns, (i'm not sure the distance) it sapwned in furniture in which you can search for items. This plus AI scripts, and people buildings structures themselves. Now, given they kept Furniture out of buildings in Altis, i presume was a performance move, i'm curious as to if maybe things got better, because on Epoch, with around 85 people running around various towns all over the map, spawning in all this furniture, which doesn't de-spawn for awhile, I get a decent 45-50 FPS. So, my question is, if they did make Tanoa with all buildings enter able, the map is smaller, but granted, the jungle is going to have a massive effect in this regard, along with water reflection. Though, you can toggle reflection settings, i assume disabling that will also be an option. But, how much of a performance hit do you think would happen if all buildings were enter able. exclude furniture for the time being, we haven't had that since Takistan. I think that the performance wouldn't be too bad if BIS tried to make as many buildings enter able as possible.

 

On another note, someone mentioend that Tanoa presents no Urban value? Well... there are a hanful of Urban locations, a few of which i believe are going to have a few multi story buildings. Why i came to this conclusion is a mix of seeing various photo's and WIP structures BIS are putting together, and the fact that Tanoa is described as a rich nation. Name one rich nation that doesn't have multi story buildings, or one major city. None.

 

Also...-

 

 

Just for perspective

 

 

You may not be able to tell, but some of those buildings are place holder, but do represent multi story buildings, given how tall they are.

 

 

Check out those sky scrapers. This particular location looks to be one of the more "Modern City" locations on the map. For a rich country like Tanoa, there is indeed going to be Urban location with the Jungle geography, which makes for some great gameplay. But back to the struggle... Perhaps BIS know the restraints, given they're developing the map. In my opinion though, i would like to see as many buildings enter able as possible, putting it on the edge of performance. (on the edge, i do mean taking in account that missions still need to be built on the map... Given that it's a possibility a large scale conflict on this map, performance is key, but so is gameplay opportunities)

[Richie 330]

 

We don't have the resources to solve this by producing top-notch varied interiors for all buildings.

 

Why not hire people ? we're paying for the expansion, you'll sell a lot more and make more income if the terrain is top notch, less enterable buildings will put a lot off and therefore affect sales.

[chortles 263]

Why not hire people ? we're paying for the expansion, you'll sell a lot more and make more income if the terrain is top notch, less enterable buildings will put a lot off and therefore affect sales.

I don't really care about furnitures in Arma, but I bet there would be 50 new types of buildings and 100 new furnishings within two weeks and without a dollar to pay, if BI would just ask the community for their help with this issue.

They did "ask the community for their help with this issue" -- I would know, Dwarden was soliciting on Skype channels -- so this SITREP announcement was DESPITE the additional people that they already mentioned that they had working on buildings and other structures.

Then again, they presumably decided "would we rather catch hell for less enterable buildings or for continuing to lack furniture and detailed interiors... because detailed interiors with furniture ain't happening."