Jump to content
pettka

Arma 3 Third-Party DLC Pitch Discussion

Recommended Posts

On 2/19/2018 at 3:29 AM, armored_sheep said:

That is not true. The community creation DLCs will be optional. Only those who buy the content will download the data. Same as regular DLCs for other games on Steam.

 

I didn't claim I knew how it worked. I was merely saying it should work this way.

Being optional is pretty silly and goes against your original DLC release plans to ensure compatability between all players.

 

On 2/14/2018 at 11:42 AM, lexx said:

"Everybody gets it" is a bad approach here, because I - for example - do not want to download gigabytes of WW2 themed stuff that I will never use, and which would clutter up my 3den editor.

 

How many unofficial DLC do you think we're going to be getting?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter how many I think there will be. One package of stuff that I don't feel to be fitting with the original A3 theme is already too much for my taste. 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somebody pls explain what's the problem having two version of the same DLC. Paid without restriction and free with restriction.

 

When can we expect some info about the community DLCs? Any approved?

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, eriktrak said:

Somebody pls explain what's the problem having two version of the same DLC. Paid without restriction and free with restriction.

 

When can we expect some info about the community DLCs? Any approved?

1. why would any of these DLCs have 2 versions?

2. pretty sure there will be no info on these DLCs all the way until they get pass the QA and they are ready to be released...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, PuFu said:

1. why would any of these DLCs have 2 versions?

 

People complain they are forced to download DLCs which they are not interested therefore cannot release the new features on the main-branch because those are automatically get downloaded.

 

In case you want to connect to a server which requires a certain DLC you can decide to download the free version or purchase the paid one. Community is not get divided and everybody is happy.

 

  • Like 3
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

18 hours ago, eriktrak said:

In case you want to connect to a server which requires a certain DLC you can decide to download the free version or purchase the paid one. Community is not get divided and everybody is happy.

Why would someone pay for premium 3rd party DLC if he can get all content for free? I assume the developer who spent his time to make the data will be not happy...

  • Like 4
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, eriktrak said:

People complain they are forced to download DLCs which they are not interested therefore cannot release the new features on the main-branch because those are automatically get downloaded.

no one will be forced to do anything. Consider these community DLCs as a paid Addon

 

Quote

In case you want to connect to a server which requires a certain DLC you can decide to download the free version or purchase the paid one. Community is not get divided and everybody is happy.

what armored sheep said ^^. 

what would the free version contain? a A2 lite version with shitty textures and low res models? No thank you...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is a misunderstanding happening here.

 

Some people here want Bohemia to continue there DLC policy, where everyone can play on a server with a dlc used. Players without the dlc get commercials and are prohibited to do certain things. (like picking up dlc weapon, entering vehicle as driver etc.)

 

The argument countering that is that this way everyone that owns arma has to download all data, even if they don't want to.

 

Solution suggested: Let people decided if they want to download the "free" version with the commercials and restrictions or not.

 

So I was just hoping that BI continues their dlc strategy and expands it so that people have a choice to download.

20 minutes ago, armored_sheep said:

 

Why would someone pay for premium 3rd party DLC if he can get all content for free? I assume the developer who spent his time to make the data will be not happy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/13/2017 at 7:01 PM, Valken said:

I think the easiest way to get consideration would be to propose a multi-part package because it be done in stages with escalating content and payout, and if time or resource bound, it can be scaled back or can be split up among multiple groups yet still motivate the design group(s) to achieve something.

 

Example = A FEMALE asset and content DLC pack! 

 

Good DLC - Same price as Tac-Ops or Laws of War DLC

  • Female units including correctly sized head, body, uniforms, HANDS, hairstyles, etc...
  • All BIS 2035 factions uniforms including NATO, CSAT, AAF, FIA, Syndikat, Orange and CIVILIANS... with correct ethnicity.
  • All BIS 2035 Gear pack including vests and helmets adjusted to fit. I think backpacks, eye wear and weapons should work already seeing the community made content. Its just the assets that actualy adhere to the body that needs reworking.
  • Full audio work with correct spoken language for each faction and ethnicity
  • Reworked configs to add, replace females into all default squads so it can be transparent to current and user made missions where need. EG: Fighter pilots, infantry, paramedic to orange DLC, and etc...
  • Short campaign to introduce female assets into each group.
  • Templates for users to create and update user made mods with females so the community can make female zombies for example without having to remake the models.

 

Better DLC - Same Price as Marksman, Jets or Helicopter DLC

  • Same as the above plus new weapons to bring up the value including near future tech such as portable railgun, gauss (coil) gun, EMP - portable or missile driven, dirty bombs, or other cool stuff besides the nth generation of AK or M4 derivatives...
  • New vehicle including SCRAMJETs, high altitude sub orbital transports, super squirrel inspired stealth recon craft:
  • Retrofitted ARMORED UP LAVs and Military type vehicles for URBAN combat use.

 

Best DLC - Same price as Apex

  • All of the above plus a large scale multi-city fictional map (not ISLAND) with high density modern detailed proper mixed elements urban cities inspired by London, Paris, Moscow, Berlin, Tokyo, Hong Kong, New York, etc...
  • Near future building assets for us to play with.
  •  

VBS3 has their own East Coast playground.  I am personally sick of non-detail islands or another big desert map with very few buildings inspired from A2. We have a lot user content already to fill that base but I would pay good money for a Tanoa quality map based on a near future urban metropolis.

 

It can be Gotham City for all I care with suburbs near by so please no more islands or deserts or nature maps with next to no civilization unless it is Amazonia with 7 cities of gold and the cure for cancer to be found! 

 

Should really include a new faction such as local governmental forces including civilians, police and potential militia or enemies.

  • A short set of missions to setup the background story for the main city would be great. I mean, lets face it - Tanoa's campaign / missions were pretty sparse but it was good enough.
  • Bonus = New MP game mode  inspired by The Purge movie ... Social anarchists are sick of establishment in ARMA-Tropolis and plans to subvert the newly elected government due to perceived status quo politics. Pro government ultra nationalists see the citizens revolting as a challenge to their power. Creates militant division to stop the Anarchists. The world cries foul on democracy and liberty. NATO and CSAT see it as an opportunity to establish further influence in the region and supplies both sides with resources while blaming the other side for creating disorder.

Somebody steals some high tech assets from a black ops project and plans to equalize the situation. Basically a 3 team elimination.

  • You are part of a small joint task force to investigate all groups and shut them down in SP or COOP (4th team vs all 3 teams).

 

Separately these can be achievable and worth paying for polished up even if community assets exists or not and would allow one or more team to gain financial feasibility to see it through. Ideally it would be all coordinated to fit, enhance, integrate and work together to achieve maximum playabilty and stay lore friend to the basic game and 2035 universe. 

 

These are all great ideas, especially the "Best DLC" with a near future city, the office buildings on Tanoa although not enterable it was a step into the right direction. Something like Zargabad map with a modern city and suburbs with near hills/mountains covered by forests to have the best mix.

Imo in general the whole 2035 theme wasn't explored at all in A3. A good addition would also have been a component of cyberwarfare depending how friendly A3 engine is with this.

Fake intel, local communications shutdown and so on with an effect in the battlefield like deploying forces into wrong positions, no sync between units, take over enemy drones(this would have been simple if Bluefor could use Opfor drone terminal and vice versa).

Of course a combo between your Best+Good dlc would have been even better.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bloodwyn1756 said:

I think there is a misunderstanding happening here.

 

Some people here want Bohemia to continue there DLC policy, where everyone can play on a server with a dlc used. Players without the dlc get commercials and are prohibited to do certain things. (like picking up dlc weapon, entering vehicle as driver etc.)

 

That is possible only for addons - like the ones BiS released.

 

Concerning full mods for examples or total conversion this is not possible. Same for SP missions pack or campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bloodwyn1756 said:

Some people here want Bohemia to continue there DLC policy, where everyone can play on a server with a dlc used. Players without the dlc get commercials and are prohibited to do certain things. (like picking up dlc weapon, entering vehicle as driver etc.)

 

The argument countering that is that this way everyone that owns arma has to download all data, even if they don't want to.

 

Solution suggested: Let people decided if they want to download the "free" version with the commercials and restrictions or not.

 

So I was just hoping that BI continues their dlc strategy and expands it so that people have a choice to download.

but what you fail to understand, is that:
1. since BI isn't developing anything, there is nothing to continue in regards to the DLC policy, because it ISN'T a product made by BI

2. BI will provide a seal of approval (or not) at some point closer to gold, and one will get approved based on a demo, pitch and roadmap provided. they will do some QA and make sure things are up to spec. they'll also figure out the % that are to be split after Steam takes its share. that's it. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, PuFu said:

but what you fail to understand, is that:
1. since BI isn't developing anything, there is nothing to continue in regards to the DLC policy, because it ISN'T a product made by BI

2. BI will provide a seal of approval (or not) at some point closer to gold, and one will get approved based on a demo, pitch and roadmap provided. they will do some QA and make sure things are up to spec. they'll also figure out the % that are to be split after Steam takes its share. that's it. 

 

 

Jets DLC was made by Bravo Zero One (or in cooperation with them), but it still gets treated just as normal BIS DLCs. Imo, the fact that BIS didn't make a DLC/Mod should be no reason to not allow the creators to distribute their product to everyone.

If the creators decide they want to have their assets treated like normal BIS DLCs (and there are no other good reasons, especially technical ones), then why not.

 

If i were a content creator that plans on making an Arma3 premium DLC/Mod, i would want to have as many players as possible buying my product (common sense i guess).

I think that a good way to archive this, would be a big playerbase, even if only a smaller fraction of them buys the DLC at first.

With more players, there would be a more reasons to use the assets in missions. And if the assets are used more often, players get more reasons to but the DLC/mod.

 

I have heard a couple of times things like:

"Oh sorry, we can't come to the event mission, we don't own Apex" (map was Tanoa). Things like those have led to a rarer use of Tanoa in those events.

Now imagine the same with vehicle expansion packs. Would you use those assets in a mission, if you knew you'd have only 30% of the usual players? I wouldn't.

And why would anyone buy a DLC/Mod, when it's rarely used at all?

 

On the other hand there can be good reasons to limit access to owners only, especially if changes go deeper into the engine, than just adding some new assets.

 

But in my opinion those cases should not be the reason to forbid it in the cases where it would be possible.

 

 

Nevertheless, it seems like BIS has made their decisions already, and even if we (I) don't like it, there is no point in complaining anymore. I can just wait and see how things will turn out.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, HaseDesTodes said:

Jets DLC was made by Bravo Zero One (or in cooperation with them), but it still gets treated just as normal BIS DLCs.

the content in Jets DLC was made by cooperating with BZ0. Emphasis is on "cooperation". The engine changes and improvements to the jets mechanics were made internally. BI either payed directly for the work done and/or had a % of sales that went directly to BZ0, but that matters less.

It is the first time this thing was more visible to the average user, but this sort of business model is not new to the game industry in general or BI in particular (a lot of other content for A3 was made by external 3d artists (on individual basis) or external studios - you can check the credits if you want to

 

Jets DLC was part of their internal extended support roadmap for ArmA3. 3rd party DLC isn't, not sure why you compare the 2

 

Quote

Imo, the fact that BIS didn't make a DLC/Mod should be no reason to not allow the creators to distribute their product to everyone.

I am not pervy to what such a contract will contain, and what these permissions are going to be. I am pretty sure that will NOT force the developers to provide a free version though.

 

Quote

If the creators decide they want to have their assets treated like normal BIS DLCs (and there are no other good reasons, especially technical ones), then why not.

i will give you a technical one: it will not be part of the main branch - it will surely be released separately on steam. 

 

Quote

If i were a content creator that plans on making an Arma3 premium DLC/Mod, i would want to have as many players as possible buying my product (common sense i guess).

I think that a good way to archive this, would be a big playerbase, even if only a smaller fraction of them buys the DLC at first.

while i agree that the current DLC model in A3 is better than any DLC system in any other game, and MUCH MUCH better than the lite A2 model, you have to understand that such 3rd party DLC will have no engine improvements (which is the main reason behind the current DLC system for A3).

 

Quote

I have heard a couple of times things like:

"Oh sorry, we can't come to the event mission, we don't own Apex" (map was Tanoa). Things like those have led to a rarer use of Tanoa in those events.

what if i my 3rd part DLC is or includes a terrain? how would i go about that one then?

 

Quote

Now imagine the same with vehicle expansion packs. Would you use those assets in a mission, if you knew you'd have only 30% of the usual players? I wouldn't.

And why would anyone buy a DLC/Mod, when it's rarely used at all?

Arma3 is a lot more than its MP part...

 

Quote

On the other hand there can be good reasons to limit access to owners only, especially if changes go deeper into the engine, than just adding some new assets.

again, engine changes like the ones available along the A3 life due to DLC improvements are surely not gonna happen.

 

Quote

But in my opinion those cases should not be the reason to forbid it in the cases where it would be possible.

how would you handle it then, considering these 3rd party DLCs (i am pretty sure there will be more than a couple) will be released separately on Steam? Sure, the author is free to create a demo for these, but as soon as these files are not part of the game data files, and are separate, you cannot have the "but content should be available free for everyone, just not usable by everyone..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My whole point, is that i think there are might be a better way for the premium 3rd party content, than is is announced.

I try to give reasons on why distribution to everyone could be a wise thing to do in some cases. Although i think it should be an option, but not mandatory because that would cause trouble in some cases.

 

5 minutes ago, PuFu said:

It is the first time this thing was more visible to the average user, but this sort of business model is not new to the game industry in general or BI in particular (a lot of other content for A3 was made by external 3d artists (on individual basis) or external studios - you can check the credits if you want to

 

Now what does this say about my concerns? BIS can't distribute 3rd party assets to everyone, because they did it in the past? Or is your point, that those artists had a different type of contract/payment?

 

16 minutes ago, PuFu said:

Jets DLC was part of their internal extended support roadmap for ArmA3. 3rd party DLC isn't, not sure why you compare the 2

 

Because it had a great deal of work done by a 3rd party studio, and it was brought up in this context by BIS in the past already.

 

Quote

As most of you probably already know, Arma 3 Jets DLC was the first opportunity for us to become familiar with third-party development partnerships. This DLC was developed together with BRAVO ZERO ONE STUDIOS (B01) - an external team led by Make Arma Not War winner Joshua "Saul" Carpenter. To put it simply, B01 developed the premium assets like the new jets and carrier, while our own development team took care of the related free platform features such as the sensor overhaul. It was a very challenging, but also satisfying and successful project. And even though we don't have the resources to directly support the development of any future third-party DLC (unlike the more cross-collaborative approach to Jets DLC), the overall experience has made us confident about extending this opportunity to other external developers.

 

 

 

20 minutes ago, PuFu said:

I am not pervy to what such a contract will contain, and what these permissions are going to be. I am pretty sure that will NOT force the developers to provide a free version though.

 

i never said i demanded a free version of anything. All i said, was that the content creators should be given the OPTION to do so, and why i think that it can be a wise decision in SOME cases.

 

27 minutes ago, PuFu said:

i will give you a technical one: it will not be part of the main branch - it will surely be released separately on steam. 

 

Only if they decide to do so. If they decided to go a different way, it wouldn't. Taking the fact that it is planned differently as a sole reason not to change the plan, is -imo- foolish.

 

23 minutes ago, PuFu said:

while i agree that the current DLC model in A3 is better than any DLC system in any other game, and MUCH MUCH better than the lite A2 model, you have to understand that such 3rd party DLC will have no engine improvements (which is the main reason behind the current DLC system for A3).

 

As far as i understood it, the MAIN reason they went this way, was not to split up the playerbase.

The feature updates were just the cherry-on-top.

 

30 minutes ago, PuFu said:

what if i my 3rd part DLC is or includes a terrain? how would i go about that one then?

 

You would still have the option to limit the access to owner only. I personally can't think of how they could have made it better. Terrains are one of the reasons why it can't be mandatory.

Btw: The Tanoa example was an introduction to my point in the next line, based on personal experience.

 

32 minutes ago, PuFu said:

Arma3 is a lot more than its MP part...

 

Yes, and there are brilliant SP missions available (e.g. in the steam workshop). But i think most players have spent more of their time in the MP environment than in SP.

So if you go for sales, you should ensure MP compatibility at least.

 

36 minutes ago, PuFu said:

again, engine changes like the ones available along the A3 life due to DLC improvements are surely not gonna happen.

 

So whats your point? Mine was, that there are reasons for which modified data can't be distributed to everyone. And that it shouldn't be in those cases.

 

38 minutes ago, PuFu said:

how would you handle it then, considering these 3rd party DLCs (i am pretty sure there will be more than a couple) will be released separately on Steam? Sure, the author is free to create a demo for these, but as soon as these files are not part of the game data files, and are separate, you cannot have the "but content should be available free for everyone, just not usable by everyone..."

 

What leads you to the assumption that having the 3rd party DLCs/Mods on the one hand and the BIS ones on the other HAS to be the way it goes? If they are flexible in the way how things are released, both ways should work at the same time.

 

Full WW2 conversion: Publish as a mod, as it would break vanilla Arma3.

Arma3 2035 Vehicle pack: Add as normal BIS-stlye DLC

 

I would simply allow content creators on how they want their content to be handled. But at the same time, make sure, that this doesn't change the base functionalities of the game.

I could even imagine the old Arma2 approach to be possible, and the premium Mod replaces the poor-quality assets. But that's not the best option imo.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, HaseDesTodes said:

My whole point, is that i think there are might be a better way for the premium 3rd party content, than is is announced.I try to give reasons on why distribution to everyone could be a wise thing to do in some cases. Although i think it should be an option, but not mandatory because that would cause trouble in some cases.

so, while one of the reasons for this entire process is to:

a. keep A3 alive while there is work done on A4 (which might take a while until release) - 

b. both test out paid mods/dlc (including Steamd distribution method) and support some modding groups while having little to no direct involvement or downside if the said DLC turns out shit and/or makes no sale (well, lose some sales, but since the development was not done in house or paid for, the lost is minimal)

c. relieve the remaining team members currently supporting A3 and re-allocate said resources to other projects

 

you want them to develop their own distribution method for these 3rd party, different from Steam, just so everyone has that content distributed to them?

 

Quote

Now what does this say about my concerns? BIS can't distribute 3rd party assets to everyone, because they did it in the past? Or is your point, that those artists had a different type of contract/payment?

Because it had a great deal of work done by a 3rd party studio, and it was brought up in this context by BIS in the past already.

they have been distributing stuff that was made by 3rd party for quite some time. But they were buying that content, so that made it their own.
My own contract with BI for Apex was completely different than what they are proposing now with the 3rd party DLC (which would be a direct investment 100% supported by myself) with little knowledge if and what the return is gonna be. 

 

Quote

i never said i demanded a free version of anything. All i said, was that the content creators should be given the OPTION to do so, and why i think that it can be a wise decision in SOME cases.

Only if they decide to do so. If they decided to go a different way, it wouldn't. Taking the fact that it is planned differently as a sole reason not to change the plan, is -imo- foolish.

how would that option work if you don't mind me asking? in pragmatic way not the theory....

 

As far as i understood it, the MAIN reason they went this way, was not to split up the playerbase.

The feature updates were just the cherry-on-top.

i was actually comparing it to A2 DLC system (that wasn't splitting the playerbase either)

i actually consider it completely the other way - the feature updates are the main DLC, the content is the cheery on top

 

Quote

You would still have the option to limit the access to owner only. I personally can't think of how they could have made it better. Terrains are one of the reasons why it can't be mandatory.

more theory. how would that work from a practical pov?

 

Quote

So if you go for sales, you should ensure MP compatibility at least.

define MP compatibility...?

 

Quote

So whats your point? Mine was, that there are reasons for which modified data can't be distributed to everyone. And that it shouldn't be in those cases.

Quote

especially if changes go deeper into the engine

my point is that deeper changes into the engine are not gonna be possible via 3rd party DLC.

 

Quote

What leads you to the assumption that having the 3rd party DLCs/Mods on the one hand and the BIS ones on the other HAS to be the way it goes? If they are flexible in the way how things are released, both ways should work at the same time.

 

Full WW2 conversion: Publish as a mod, as it would break vanilla Arma3.

Arma3 2035 Vehicle pack: Add as normal BIS-stlye DLC

because:

a. as a company, i would want to keep a certain distance from 3rd party product that i have little to no control over (no internal art direction, no control over copyright and possible IP infringements etc etc etc)

b. again, as per this very thread, all marketing and PR will be handled by the 3rd party developer.

 

would you, in their current situation, from a business perspective, when they most likely need all hands on the new deck(s) (when they will most likely keep just a few lads as secondary priority on their daily task list to deal with A3), actually take the risk on distributing such 3rd party DLC alongside your own files?

 

Quote

I would simply allow content creators on how they want their content to be handled. But at the same time, make sure, that this doesn't change the base functionalities of the game.

i doubt they will prohibit the 3rd party developer(s) to release it the way you want it, as long is completely separate from the base game. That said, for the Nth time, what would that distribution system used be?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/27/2018 at 11:10 AM, armored_sheep said:

 

Why would someone pay for premium 3rd party DLC if he can get all content for free? I assume the developer who spent his time to make the data will be not happy...

 

Free DLC has some form of limitation. Exactly the same way like in the current DLCs released by Bohemia (cannot get inside a vehicle if not paid for).

 

For DLC where it's not easy to achive (@Wiki : Concerning full mods for examples or total conversion this is not possible. Same for SP missions pack or campaign) some other limitation is needed.

 

This has to be decided case by case. For example a Civilian DLC you cannot interact with the civilians. For a new island: cannot open/close doors on the buildings. Its really depending on the developer what to limit.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, eriktrak said:

Free DLC has some form of limitation. Exactly the same way like in the current DLCs released by Bohemia (cannot get inside a vehicle if not paid for).

for now that is not possible to achieve mod side...

 

Quote

For DLC where it's not easy to achive (@Wiki : Concerning full mods for examples or total conversion this is not possible. Same for SP missions pack or campaign) some other limitation is needed.
For example a Civilian DLC you cannot interact with the civilians.

not possible
 

Quote

For a new island: cannot open/close doors on the buildings. Its really depending on the developer what to limit.

not possible - tanoa is a good example where if you do not buy it, you don't have the files at all.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like this thread is running in a loop for the past 3 or so pages. Also lots of this stuff is just pure speculation on 3rd party DLC that doesn't even exist at this point. IMO following up on this conversation only makes sense once there is any actual 3rd party DLC about to be released.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the "late" answer, but i didn't have the time to read the forums yesterday.

 

On 27.2.2018 at 6:36 PM, PuFu said:

you want them to develop their own distribution method for these 3rd party, different from Steam, just so everyone has that content distributed to them?

[...]

how would that option work if you don't mind me asking? in pragmatic way not the theory....

[...]

more theory. how would that work from a practical pov?

 

Simple:

A mod/DLC that has only BIS approved content (matches certain criteria, which are defined by BIS, and is part of the contract) could (if the creators wish so) be eligible to be added to the main data of Arma3 , that everyone has, but -just as the BIS DLC content- be protected by encryption and have limited access. It can then be bought, just as all the BIS-made DLCs on the Steam Store page.

A mod/DLC that does not meet the defined criteria, or if the creator wishes otherwise, can be handled as a mod, that needs to be downloaded and activated separately. I don't know how they are planing to distribute the mods, but this would use the same way.

 

Now we see, we already have one way that works for sure (normal DLC way) and the other one is planned anyways.

Now you please explain to me, why you think using two different existing ways would cause to much trouble.

 

 

 

 

On 27.2.2018 at 6:36 PM, PuFu said:

b. again, as per this very thread, all marketing and PR will be handled by the 3rd party developer.

 

 

i'll just answer with this quote from this thread:

Quote

However, we will provide guidelines on technical and quality requirements, assist with the Quality Assurance process, help with promotion and deliver the tools for mastering.

 

 

On 27.2.2018 at 6:36 PM, PuFu said:

a. as a company, i would want to keep a certain distance from 3rd party product that i have little to no control over (no internal art direction, no control over copyright and possible IP infringements etc etc etc)

 

https://forums.bohemia.net/forums/topic/211491-arma-3-third-party-dlc-pitch-discussion/?do=findComment&comment=3246008

Quote

2) Many items in modifications for the armaverse are actually copyright protected (but everybody looks away). What's with new content that might, or might not be copyright protected (oshkosh, colt, vehicle and firearms trademarks in general...)?

3rd party should be able to acqure licence to all DLC content (sign contracts with contributors and copyright owners). 
3) Who will handle legal questions if 3rd party rights beeing violated, either by the creator or the creators rights by others?

BI legal department. 3rd party has to sign contract with BI.

 

 

 

On 27.2.2018 at 6:36 PM, PuFu said:

i actually consider it completely the other way - the feature updates are the main DLC, the content is the cheery on top

 

I guess that depends on the the POV.

since the feature updates have been distributed to all Arma3 owners, the actual DLC contents have to be the main feature if you buy the DLC, imo. But i guess that's a matter of definition.

For the whole Arma community the feature updates probably have made the bigger difference. But as i said, you got them even without buying the DLCs, so for me that was a bonus.

In case you didn't buy the DLCs, things might have looked differently.

 

 

On 27.2.2018 at 6:36 PM, PuFu said:

my point is that deeper changes into the engine are not gonna be possible via 3rd party DLC.

 

I think we might agree on this.

But just to make sure:

I wan't that Mods like ACE³ have to remain outside the core files of Arma3 (so a mod), because as soon as you added those to the main game EVERYTING would change, and i guess it would cause lots of incompatibilities for existing mods.

That should not be the desired outcome. So it has to be made sure, that, if it was possible to add 3rd party DLC content into the main game (as described),  content like this remains optional.

 

 

If i missed any essential question you had asked me, please point me on it, i lost track writing this, and i'm already a bit tired.

 

 

PS:

Yes i know (and i think i already wrote it), this discussion won't probably lead anywhere.

But we were asked to give feedback, and i think the concept BIS has presented is not optimal, so i pointed it out.

I have tired to make clear, why i think giving certain additional options could turn out positive for all parties.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(just realized the official thread for 3rd Pty is here)

 

I would spend money on what most brings to the game what has been missing, namely Logistics. Right now we have so much stuff like assets that are only accessible via. scripting from the editor selection, otherwise none of that stuff is capable of being in the game by design. If someone were to make an addon that brings the ability to expans existing features, i would drop a decent amount of money on that. Up to 35-45$

 

Example:

-Expands the use of Ammunition, Fuel, and Repair vehicles to incorporate actual features of the game.

=This includes things like Jets and Helicopter munitions, Tank Armor/Protection being accessible in game from assets such as Vehicle Ammo Boxes and Ammunition Trucks without scripts.

-Expands the use of physical objects such as H-Barriers and other Fortifications, as well as the ability to move these assets around.

=This includes a more fleshed out feature such as "VIV" that was supposed to have the ability to load crates in vehicles, but was left out in the end. The use of this feature benefits greatly the former.

-Making use of fluent features berried in scripts, that are under-represented and barely used. Such case would be possible solutions to interactions mechanics that greatly boosts both usability, and immersion without compromising gameplay, or functionality. This serves to benefit the former two.

 

Best example would be akin to this demo showed off quite some time ago.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/27/2018 at 12:06 PM, krycek said:

 

These are all great ideas, especially the "Best DLC" with a near future city, the office buildings on Tanoa although not enterable it was a step into the right direction. Something like Zargabad map with a modern city and suburbs with near hills/mountains covered by forests to have the best mix.

Imo in general the whole 2035 theme wasn't explored at all in A3. A good addition would also have been a component of cyberwarfare depending how friendly A3 engine is with this.

Fake intel, local communications shutdown and so on with an effect in the battlefield like deploying forces into wrong positions, no sync between units, take over enemy drones(this would have been simple if Bluefor could use Opfor drone terminal and vice versa).

Of course a combo between your Best+Good dlc would have been even better.

Well, I have to disagree with a lot of that. In fact, I think a lot of it sounds terrible.

What I'd be OK with: a Women DLC, and a Zargabad style urban map

Cyberwarfare would not be present at the tactical level. It would be strategic level stuff, not h4x0r 501di3r5 on the battlefield. Any security vulnerability would not be exploited except before a major operation where the most good could be made of it before the enemy fixes the vulnerability. This is the sort of stuff that you can incorporate into the backstory and scripting of a scenario, not basic gameplay.

Scramjets and suborbital insertion craft? ummm on a 270 km^2 island? even on a 2,700 km^2 island, that is ridiculous. At best there could be a static object for a landed suborbital insertion craft, that you could use for "flavor" in a mission scenario.

 

Dirty bombs? no no NO NO!!! Why do you want a weapon that is going to kill the enemy (and civilians, especially after the LoW DLC), in months to years?

 

Portable railguns instead of the nth derivative of AKs and ARs? No. Maybe stationary (ship mounted in particular) railguns, maybe a railgun tank as they originally envisioned. No way is there going to be a combat effective man portable railgun by 2035 (if ever).

 

EMP shielding isn't so hard, so I'd also have to object to EMP missiles

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Ex3B said:

Well, I have to disagree with a lot of that. In fact, I think a lot of it sounds terrible.

What I'd be OK with: a Women DLC, and a Zargabad style urban map

Cyberwarfare would not be present at the tactical level. It would be strategic level stuff, not h4x0r 501di3r5 on the battlefield. Any security vulnerability would not be exploited except before a major operation where the most good could be made of it before the enemy fixes the vulnerability. This is the sort of stuff that you can incorporate into the backstory and scripting of a scenario, not basic gameplay.

Scramjets and suborbital insertion craft? ummm on a 270 km^2 island? even on a 2,700 km^2 island, that is ridiculous. At best there could be a static object for a landed suborbital insertion craft, that you could use for "flavor" in a mission scenario.

 

Dirty bombs? no no NO NO!!! Why do you want a weapon that is going to kill the enemy (and civilians, especially after the LoW DLC), in months to years?

 

Portable railguns instead of the nth derivative of AKs and ARs? No. Maybe stationary (ship mounted in particular) railguns, maybe a railgun tank as they originally envisioned. No way is there going to be a combat effective man portable railgun by 2035 (if ever).

 

EMP shielding isn't so hard, so I'd also have to object to EMP missiles

 

 

Cyberwarfare could be added via modules.

Funny, you have a problem with scramjets yet we have a jets dlc. Going by your reason we should also cut the current jets, artillery it's also useless on such small islands. Tanks? Neah it's ridiculous using those with the tiny WW2 engagement distances. Yet we have these for gameplay.

 

Dirty bombs and portable railguns I agree somehow. Regarding the dirty bombs I wouldn't find much use in gameplay, but not because of your reason with civs. I'm way past the "we're the good guys" type of boring missions not to mention we're still talking about a bunch of pixels. I appreciate a well made story like in LoW, but I'm not gonna start transforming all my missions now. If I'm gonna blast the crap out of a city with artillery I don't care too much that I made a virtual genocide with the shorts&sandals pop.

 

Regarding EMP,  from a realistic pow I doubt there could be high damage from such a weapon especially for military. Even though China,US and Russia are developing EMP weapons those are most likely for a country infrastructure.

Still we don't know what type of these weapons could be developed by 2035 to include even military as targets, but for gameplay diversity I would like such a weapon and be actually useable (still a much better option than the quake generator weapon prop we had in the story).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, krycek said:

 

Cyberwarfare could be added via modules.Funny, you have a problem with scramjets yet we have a jets dlc. Going by your reason we should also cut the current jets,

 

No,The current jets are all slower than Mach 2. Scramjets are for operation above about mach 5. In between are conventional ramjets or turboramjets, and conventional jets with cryogenic precoolers.

Scramjets that have actually flown have had flight speeds of mach 4.5 to mach 10. They don't work at all until a booster accelerates them to an already high mach (in one of the X-51 tests, the rocket booster reached mach 4.5 before the scramjet fired, in another case, its booster accelerated it to mach 4.8 before the scramjet fired)

 

Going from CAS aircraft that operate in the high subsonic regime, to multirole jets operating in the subsonic regime, but capable of going supersonic, is a speed increase by a factor of ~2. In fact, in game its only a factor of about 1.5, because the added jets don't actually go anywhere near mach 2 - which is realistic for a 5th gen fighter like the F-35, or an F-18 derivative [mach 1.8 for the f-18], but the F-22 goes over mach 2, and I presume a shikra would as well. Indeed the real world F-22 and the Rusky 5th gen fighter go about 2,400 km/h, what we get in the jets DLC is about half that... over mach 1, but not by much.

Now you want to increase jet speeds by a factor of 5 or more? and my objection to that is somehow inconsistent with being OK with the jets DLC which increased speeds by about 1.5?

 

Spoiler

artillery it's also useless on such small islands. Tanks? Neah it's ridiculous using those with the tiny WW2 engagement distances. Yet we have these for gameplay.

Considering that there are points over 15km apart on Altis, and the real world M109 Paladin's convention effective firing range was 18km... the artillery ranges are just fine.

 

Looked up WW2 tank vs tank engagement ranges: http://ww2f.com/threads/average-tank-battle-distances.53674/

750 to 900 yards.  Engagement ranges easily exceed this in arma. Ranges are often limited by line of sight, not weapon range and accuracy- particularly with the fire computer aiming aids. Point is invalid.

 

Spoiler

 I'm way past the "we're the good guys" type of boring missions not to mention we're still talking about a bunch of pixels. I appreciate a well made story like in LoW, but I'm not gonna start transforming all my missions now. If I'm gonna blast the crap out of a city with artillery I don't care too much that I made a virtual genocide with the shorts&sandals pop.

I don't have a problem with missions that would violate "the laws of war"... after all, they gave us cluster bombs and portray their use on a village in "the laws of war" DLC.

My problem is that a dirty bomb is a dumb gameplay mechanic. Its effects take way too long to manifest for gameplay. It becomes a prop, a decoration.

 

You can already do that with artillery and smoke shells... in your mission, say its a radioactive cloud, say its a biological weapon, whatever. Its a prop that makes no gameplay difference. We don't need a DLC for that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, if they somehow implemented scramjets I wasn't expecting at all to be even close to real life speeds due to the terrain limitations in A3. What I was expecting is "gimped speed new toys" in case scramjets would be planned by any mod team. Like I said before urban map+women would be something a lot more interesting for me, but seeing a mod team trying to implement scramjets would be equally interesting for me.

 

Regarding artillery if we keep it real even with your example of min 18km for M109 it's still not usable unless you want to park them near coast all the time to simulate the real distances and your targets should always be the opposite of the map. From the most southeastern point on Altis to the top northwestern position there are about 25km.

So to target something more inside the map let's say Kore town which would be in your 18km value you would still need your arty on the coast all the time. And this is only for the Scorcher/Sochor, if we go with MLRS you need 32km. Yeah playable assuming you park them on the coast and if you want to target something more inside the map you can say bye bye to realism.

 

On the point of tanks, for a modern MBT like M1A2 with all the optics&sensors the engagement should be between  3000-3500m (max 4000m) assuming no terrain obstacles, if we go again with the 2035 theme of A3 all in-game sides are using advanced MBT's even with the "obsolete" AAF MBT. 

 

On Altis( I don't consider Tanoa adequate for tank engagements) putting a Slammer and a Varsuk on the flat salt lake facing each other at 1.6km with full AI they're still blind as bats and these are perfect conditions. Only lower than this they start engaging each other.  So ok, not exactly WW2 but if we want full realism it's still far away than what a modern MBT could achieve, let alone tech in 2035.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any news? When can we get some official info about this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×