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

[old_painless 182]

Well, I would fear that they would never get around to making the houses enterable. Too many issues with AI and buildings

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Well, I would fear that they would never get around to making the houses enter-able. Too many issues with AI and buildings

Didn't say that when they were developing the Ghost Hotel and Stadium after the fact. I mean, sure, they can forgot, if no one talks about it. But for a team like BIS, i don't think they would forget something that crucial to game play. This is their next best map, probably going to be the best in the series thus far with the amount of detail, so i think BIS knows that they need to work to get the best out of it, so that everyone can enjoy it.

[old_painless 182]

AFAIR the hotel and stadium were new buildings that came later on. You are assuming they would go back and change all existing buildings. Which they might, I am just saying that I see a risk for them not doing that undertaking

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

AFAIR the hotel and stadium were new buildings that came later on. You are assuming they would go back and change all existing buildings. Which they might, I am just saying that I see a risk for them not doing that undertaking

Not change the entire building, but for example take that same model that's just a box with building texture on it, and make sections that can be entered. It's the same concept as updating a vehicle, rather than adding a completely new one.

[x3kj 1247]

If it means larger, slightly more realistic cities with bigger buildings, i'm all for no furniture and only partially enterable buildings.

 

Beeing able to enter every single room in a soviet style block building for example, where there are hundreds of rooms is not all that interesting. It would be nice if the larger buildings had a stairway area that you could enter with access to the roof (if it's a flat roof) and a couple of rooms that you can enter. The majority of the rooms would be closed however. I think this would be a good compromise between performance, playability, and development time.

That way you can't neglect the house in case of city fighting, but you dont need to spend 45min sweeping the building to discover that there is no one hiding inside.

 

The downside is that it would be very tricky to diguise if a room is not enterable when looking into the windows from afar, because that is what makes fighting in a city so dangerous. If you know that there are only 5 windows in the street that can be fired from, it would be pretty easy...

[Chairborne 2594]

I always felt the character had huge problems moving inside buildings because of clipping and collisions, even more when they had furniture.

I would've preferred empty enterable buildings.

I just hope they at least open for good some of those big buildings like the hospital and the apartment building if they have to take interiors away from others.

[esfumato 75]

I have been disappointed with BI since Arma 3. Arma 3 have been a complete failure.

 

Worse campaing than arma 2.

No multiplayer game modes, or less MP gamemodes than arma 2.

Worst DLC's than arma 2.

Worst sound than arma 2.

Less assets, weapons, vehicles than arma 2. most of them redone from arma 2.

Worst response while driving tanks than arma 2.

 

Improved ballistics

Improved more enterable buildings.

Added Physics

Added underwater, but not used at all in the campaing and MP gamemodes.

Improved but not solved glitching in rocks walls etc...

 

So, all the improvements are logical engine upgrades, but the game have been worse than arma 2.

 

Now with the expansion they are going to imrpove visuals. And keep going even more backwards to arma 1. A terrain where you can roam around and go prone? with those new "Pay to win weapons and scopes" from the marksmen DLC... another failure in my opinion.

[zimms 22]

I guess that's your opinion. I don't agree at all.

[inlesco 233]

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

Excellent communication, Jay! I can't be thankful enough for BIS' open approach to video game development (except for releasing the actual open source code :P Just like Epic Games did for UE4.). You're one of the best examples that video game business continues to strive. Sure, there are other great devs that deliver top-quality video games / console exclusives too (namely, Naughty Dog; Rockstar, Techland, etc.).

But... there's two things that define BIS from the others: the focus of open gameplay & communication. Well done, guys!

 

P.S. I know blame myself for not buying Marksmen, Choppers and Karts DLCs... I'm such a bastard :P

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

I have been disappointed with BI since Arma 3. Arma 3 have been a complete failure.

 

Worse campaing than arma 2.

No multiplayer game modes, or less MP gamemodes than arma 2.

Worst DLC's than arma 2.

Worst sound than arma 2.

Less assets, weapons, vehicles than arma 2. most of them redone from arma 2.

Worst response while driving tanks than arma 2.

 

Improved ballistics

Improved more enterable buildings.

Added Physics

Added underwater, but not used at all in the campaing and MP gamemodes.

Improved but not solved glitching in rocks walls etc...

 

So, all the improvements are logical engine upgrades, but the game have been worse than arma 2.

 

Now with the expansion they are going to imrpove visuals. And keep going even more backwards to arma 1. A terrain where you can roam around and go prone? with those new "Pay to win weapons and scopes" from the marksmen DLC... another failure in my opinion.

This is not a blame BIS thread, keep that out of here. If you have a suggestion, put it in a proper request thread or if you'd prefer to report a problem to be fixed, use the feedback tracker.

[chompster 29]

While not having fully enterable buildings would be disappointing and definitely a step backwards imo, having buildings be not enterable at all would be abysmal. Not having furniture hasn't been a big deal since the game started so it would be a terrible excuse now to use for not making some buildings enterable.

 

And the excuse of "well go outside and see how many buildings you can get into" I don't live in the middle of a war-torn country, nor do i have a gun that would easily solve that issue. None-enterable buildings would be far more immersion(and gameplay) breaking than not having furniture. They should at least be partially enterable, even if it's only 1 or 2 rooms.

[bad benson 1733]

WHAT! A city of enter-able buildings devoid of interior furniture is way more useful than totally un-enter-able buildings. Huge difference. The former might take hours to clear out of enemies with intense firefights, CQC and house to house fighting,despite armoured, artillery or air support. The latter can be cleared in short order, mostly from afar, even more so with armored, arty or air support. Un-enter-able vs enter-able buildings is the difference between a nonfactor infantry platoon in a town, and entrenched pain in my ass infantry platoon making me pay dearly for every inch of ground. 

 

All the enter able buildings in Arma 3 thus far has changed alot about the gameplay. It would be a real shame if it was changed on Tonoa.    

 

this sums up my thoughts exactly. well said!

 

i wouldn't focus too much on the PR side of things though. not saying there's a huge discrepancy between real reasons and what is being said but as many have pointed out the whole "no furniture possible = less enterable buildings" - logic doesn't really work that well.

that statement might aswell be some passive agressive "this is what you get for whining about furniture" when the real reasons are probably mostly performance, exposure of bad indoor AI and clunky player character collision.

 

not saying it makes any sense to regress though. imho the way to go would be more generic cover objects (walls and stuff) and less but still detailed/enterable buildings. Kavala for example, to me personally, is just a giant useless thing. all it does is give you a big maze of the same buildings over and over while killing your performance.

 

i personally wouldn't even want sims like fully furnished houses. but some random painting on the wall, a pair of shoes at the door, a lone little dresser. some dirt and dust. like...something, instead of perfectly clean and empty houses. but i guess there is no inbetween solutions these days. cutting stuff for the fact you can't go full on seems to be the new way.

 

 

i just hope that inaccessibility will make some sense from the art side and it's not going to be just a giant amount of closed doors and windows.

 

and most important: BIS make sure to give us a lot of roof access. that can make a non enterable structure still more useful than just being a solid giant obstacle. also tunnels. like that one house in Cherno and the shop one on Takistan. those short tunnels that go through a house.

 

having the roof and maybe one floor of a larger building be enterable sounds good to me.

[froggyluv 2136]

 Interior and really all nodes also need a qualifier button or revamp  so we can pick any spot of the floor at any height of building floor to place AI ingame. Hopefully you guys also place a node both outside and inside every door and ground floor window so that both attackers and fortifiers can play the angle game.

[St. Jimmy 272]

One big thing about windows. DON'T SHUT THEM unless they're openable like doors. Also windows shouldn't deflect for a sake of a gameplay because only way to break windows in Arma is to shoot them.

Most of the time the shut down window would be the best observe and shoot point in the house but currently we can't use them.

[inlesco 233]

There's several partially-enterable buildings in Arma 3 and they're OK because you can hide in them well (open narrow corridors, etc.), they serve an important gameplay function.

• A non-enterable building with access to the rooftop (by external ladder [or internal?] ladder?)? Fine.
• A completely non-enterable building? Nope. Unless you can justify it - it looks gorgeous, is huge, stands out from the crowd in some way.
• Hopefully, the small buildings will all be enterable. They make the biggest tactical difference of all.

I expect BIS not to sacrifice tactical freedom for better performance in lush environments. If they do, it's their fault, their design mistake.

 

They considered a snowy terrain, and it could've been much less performance demanding than the jungle. Think 'bout it, guys. Design oversights happen all the time.

[heavygunner 179]

I hate non enterable buildings and wouldn't care if there is no furniture at all.

It would be a step back.:(

[dunedain 48]

'nuff said
 
https://youtu.be/B1rEMknimpE

[BadHabitz 235]

Should have a poll on this thread. "Empty and open/Empty and partially open" vs "Closed/Partially open and furnished".

[joostsidy 685]

I'm not sure if it's just about furnishing and open buildings. Maybe we end up with closed buildings AND missing furniture, for instance, as a sacrifice to larger buildings, more vegetation etc. For the record, I'm in favor of every building having some interactivity.

[DancZer 65]

Playing around Kavala I noticed that emptiness doesn't bother me, if the building is a damaged(via map editor and not during the game). Eg. there are buildings which don't have doors and destructed windows. It's logical that if the building is not locked sooner or later it will be empty. :D