Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Misconduct

Focus on gameplay not games, please.

Recommended Posts

Regarding the 2035 Sci Fi setting...I am a 100 % sure that if CSAT would have come just with a more modern day uniform and helmet like NATO and AAF do...nobody would ever had complained or even just used the term Sci Fi. 

Beside that I personally love the background lore of the Arm3 2035 setting which is not only very interesting but also directly tied  in some way to the events of Operation Black Gauntlet ....

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2017 at 3:24 AM, teabagginpeople said:

 So you want bis to focus on the vanilla base gameplay. understandable.

 

This is you. asking for a bis to make a dlc .wait what? what happen to focus on vanilla game?? yes you ask them to make a dlc in the very same breath as "encouraging" bis to focus on the base vanilla game. fml.

 

Hire you?    you have polar opposite conflicting opinions in the very same hour and  pitched both ideas hell even started with the same you encourage bis...bahahah  holy shitty delusions batman.  

 

 

 

 

I'm just saying that if I were to choose a DLC I would be willing to pay for the ability to move normally over a story about war, I dont think we should have to pay for it, but I totally would at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/9/2017 at 7:17 AM, stburr91 said:

 

 

Put simply, this is a for profit business venture for BI. There is no money in making some improvements to some of the gameplay, the money is in providing DLC.

 

If we want an Arma 4 someday, BI needs to generate revenue for the development. Of course they also need to generate enough profit to justify the effort, it's that simple.   

I think my post recognized the for-profit nature of BI's business model, I'm just saying that giving players the ability to move naturally would make a more profitable DLC than LoW, and even though I don't think I should have to pay for basic movement - I still would.

If BI wants to sell Arma 4 they should probably let the world know that Arma 3 is complete - which it isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ProfTournesol said:

'Complete' means nothing for a game like Arma. It's nature is to be a perpetual wip platform.

 

I always had a feeling that arma 3 was uncompleted in some way. But I can live with the idea that they provide the sandbox that we can fill and make our 'castles' with... They gave us some basic content and were sure that we fill the gaps of things the community thinks are missing. And that's the point, our community is about making a game we want by making it ourselves somehow. That's what it always was when it comes to OFP or Arma. 

 

For me it was the scenario that didn't fit all the ideas and dreams we tried to create. And loosing a lot of its original hardcore feelings, things became less interesting for people coming from ArmA2 that were liking ArmA2 for what it was... A hardcore simulation. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LordJarhead said:

 

I always had a feeling that arma 3 was uncompleted in some way. But I can live with the idea that they provide the sandbox that we can fill and make our 'castles' with... They gave us some basic content and were sure that we fill the gaps of things the community thinks are missing. And that's the point, our community is about making a game we want by making it ourselves somehow. That's what it always was when it comes to OFP or Arma. 

 

For me it was the scenario that didn't fit all the ideas and dreams we tried to create. And loosing a lot of its original hardcore feelings, things became less interesting for people coming from ArmA2 that were liking ArmA2 for what it was... A hardcore simulation. 

 

Me too, after a bit of brainstorming I came to the conclusion that the things that stick out most for me is the missing logistics in arma.

Missing civilians (females), a lack of a similar module like ALICE from A2 and no wound/battlefield clearance modules are missing as well, but logistics is where it's lacking most.

Ammo, fuel and repair should require logistics to be available, missions that runs for a long time would especially benefit from logistics.

Just driving a tank on a marker and magically have it repaired and rearmed within a minute just doesn't cut it.

 

Gave up on requesting logistic related features since BI changed all ammo, repair and fuel trucks to hold 1*10¹² units (yes, a trillion, that's 1000 billion),

because players complained that they couldn't rearm a sandstorm MLRS with one ammo truck.

Instead of doing a proper authentic fix BI just set all those values to 1*10¹² and called it a day...

 

Cheers

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few days ago, on the Internet I managed to find and download Arma3 1.42.
It was interesting to me to compare as a game has changed 2 years later.
Detailed difference big, all changes are directed to the best.
But all as at these guys ))),

Spoiler

1096093_2.JPG

you look and understand, a problem not in details, a problem as these details interact among themselves and are applied.
Example - weapon, bipod and geometry of soil, are executed perfectly, and their interaction - deployment of bipod limits viewing angles, fill up weapon up or down.... Details are executed perfectly, and interact badly.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ArmA III always felt like a step back to Armed Assault to me... a game that simpyl never was really finished.

Sure, technicylly ArmA II is betetr now, but it still lacks a lot of what made ArmA II so great as a game out of the box.

Grumpy already counted whats missing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, ProfTournesol said:

'Complete' means nothing for a game like Arma. It's nature is to be a perpetual wip platform.

If that is true then this post makes sense, give us more basic movements before a story that avoids using them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the point of this thread?

I mean BiS already has focused a lot on gameplay:

  • switching weapon on the move
  • FFV
  • Resting weapon + bipods
  • underwater
  • advanced flight model for choppers
  • less casual flight model for fixed wings
  • sling loading
  • sensor overhaul
  • data link between units
  • anti thermal gear
  • new tank firing system
  • sub munition / cluster bombs
  • new defusing system
  • vehicle in vehicle
  • and probably some more that I forget

all of that was not included in 1st release (except underwater), so yes! they focus on gameplay too.

 

a few things that I miss

  • new / previous medic system like we had in ArmA 2
  • possibility to refill a magazine
  • fastrope in vanilla
  • maybe more but can't think about them right now
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You will have problems in the network game, in conjunction with players who have landscape settings "low".

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T82258

The existing fatigue system forces the use of bipod. Using bipod should give an advantage, but often it works against you.

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T123368

There is no solution to this question. There is no solution to other issues that could affect the change of this problem.

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T82167

 

The use of bipod causes the use of both fraud in the game. Using bipod gives an advantage for trotting in the game. Players may not understand what and where they miss, why they can not find the source of the threat.

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T85691

Experienced and dishonest players, use well-known, and hidden, forbidden techniques than presented in this message.

These problems cause a negative attitude towards the game, because of the spoiled tactical advantage.Players who do not know how this happens, how they can be used by scammers - will get negative experience in the game, and lose interest in the project. Or vice versa, they begin to use fraud in their tactics.

Such questions should not remain in the game, and be resolved faster than the release of any DLS. This destroys the game from the inside.
These problems should not be present in the problem solving section for server administrators, to ban a scammer - as a way to fight scammers. Prohibition is a good way, but not always tracked or timely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/11/2017 at 2:27 PM, Wiki said:

What is the point of this thread?

I mean BiS already has focused a lot on gameplay:

  • switching weapon on the move
  • FFV
  • Resting weapon + bipods
  • underwater
  • advanced flight model for choppers
  • less casual flight model for fixed wings
  • sling loading
  • sensor overhaul
  • data link between units
  • anti thermal gear
  • new tank firing system
  • sub munition / cluster bombs
  • new defusing system
  • vehicle in vehicle
  • and probably some more that I forget

all of that was not included in 1st release (except underwater), so yes! they focus on gameplay too.

 

a few things that I miss

  • new / previous medic system like we had in ArmA 2
  • possibility to refill a magazine
  • fastrope in vanilla
  • maybe more but can't think about them right now

The point of this thread is to encourage BI to continue development of the basic gameplay & movements BEFORE developing stories for an incomplete game.

I think selling us enhanced movement would have been a better DLC than LoW, I get that BI needs money but - a complete game is a better sales pitch than a story that avoids the obvious glitches and missing gameplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is retarded. The outcry would have been extreme if BI would start selling "enhanced movement DLCs". And no, this would not have been a better idea than LoW, as you can't even sell such a thing with the current DLC model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every now & then a thread like this pops up, with posters saying something like "please concentrate on [insert my favourite bug-bear here] instead of [insert something I'm not interested in here]". But the situation will be the same as any other company - BIS will have different teams working on different aspects. There will be a gameplay team(s) and there will be a features team(s), the entire company doesn't work on a single aspect.

 

IMO BIS has worked equally on both aspects. They try to cater to the sandbox/mp gameplay & features while also trying to provide standard gameplay content.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/8/2017 at 8:03 PM, LordJarhead said:

I adapted tho and got used to it. I gotta tell you, I kinda like it now, honestly... But also I miss some hardcore military gameplay and I just couldn't get into it when I see alian helmets and weird weapons that didn't had real names and such...

Most of the weapons are just modern weapons with a new name or a slight change. I'll agree on the CSAT armor though, and to some extent the launchers.

The vehicles are where it gets iffy for me... like the wipeout in particular... its a... A-10 warthog that looks like they tried to make it stealthy but then forgot that it has no internal weapons?

On the other hand... the A-143 buzzard... its just a 1 seat version of a 2 seat Arma2 L159

 

On 12/8/2017 at 7:59 PM, lexx said:

Besides, as has been said about a million times already, the A3 setting is anything but Sci-Fi. Heck, in parts it isn't even "modern times" anymore.

Not modern times: GPS guided bombs would be great, one could call in airsupport by clicking on the map, and a pilot could lock on to those GPS coordinates, rather than requiring constant laser designation for instance.

But.... stuff like the A-164 looks like they wanted a sci-fi look... bad sci fi since it makes no sense, as mentioned (the stealthy looking UH-80 makes perfect sense though, since some secret stealth-ified blackhawks do exist, the stealth chinooks would be sci fi though AFAIK)

The Earthquake machine is just bad sci fi though, but that is plot fiction that is largely irrelevant to gameplay.

 

On 12/8/2017 at 9:50 PM, teabagginpeople said:

If they had of continued being Mil sim like arma 2 but added drones. Ti, and all the other stuff it would have tilted a different way.

Ummmm Arma 2 did have drones and TI. The major improvements that I see are the added stance options, body armor, overhauled loadout UI, slingloading of Helos, modular infantry weapons, and underwater stuff

 

On 12/9/2017 at 4:03 PM, 462cid said:

But I'm an OFP guy, and the fact that the player can swim instead of drown is still amazing to me

ditto, played OFP, didnt get resistance... came back much much later to an Arma2 sale when arma 3 was already old. Never got around to looking at ArmA

On 12/9/2017 at 5:57 PM, Private Evans said:

Regarding the 2035 Sci Fi setting...I am a 100 % sure that if CSAT would have come just with a more modern day uniform and helmet like NATO and AAF do...nobody would ever had complained or even just used the term Sci Fi. 

Yea... maybe, but there was probably a bad taste from the early railgun tanks, even if they removed them before release

On 12/11/2017 at 11:27 PM, Wiki said:

I mean BiS already has focused a lot on gameplay:

  • switching weapon on the move
  • FFV
  • Resting weapon + bipods
  • underwater
  • advanced flight model for choppers
  • less casual flight model for fixed wings
  • sling loading
  • sensor overhaul
  • data link between units
  • anti thermal gear
  • new tank firing system
  • sub munition / cluster bombs
  • new defusing system
  • vehicle in vehicle
  • and probably some more that I forget

^ This, although a lot feels like they didn't finish and just made the platform for mods to finish implementation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arma 2 had ACE2 mod, which has all the feachures necessary for armaplayers in 2012. This feachures was just ignored. In 2012 i thought that arma 3 will just contain all this features at the time of release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2017 at 3:24 AM, teabagginpeople said:

 So you want bis to focus on the vanilla base gameplay. understandable.

 

This is you. asking for a bis to make a dlc .wait what? what happen to focus on vanilla game?? yes you ask them to make a dlc in the very same breath as "encouraging" bis to focus on the base vanilla game. fml.

 

Hire you?    you have polar opposite conflicting opinions in the very same hour and  pitched both ideas hell even started with the same you encourage bis...bahahah  holy shitty delusions batman.  

 

 

 

 

hmmm, I probably shouldn't respond here because it seems you take a hostile approach in all your responses teabaggin, but fair enough about my terminology, I am not a savvy tech person (which is why I am seeking help here), ... so, I meant; fix the vanilla game before DLC content like LOW... that being said, I would still DownLoadContent (BI created) that allowed me to jump/climb a fence/repack a mag/pick up a satchel charge etc in the vanilla game.

Admittedly my joke about the 'open marketing job' was lost on those determined to misunderstand, so I will clarify. I simply think people will care more about a complete game (where climbing fences is possible and being devoured by rocks isn't possible) than they will about a story (reportedly a good one) which avoids the issues of an incomplete game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The income from DLCs makes it possible for BI to have people working on improvements in the core game. They asked the community a few years back what we thought about it and it made sense what they suggested. BI cant work for free improving/fixing A3 as it's quite a complexe game, so the people who buy DLCs support feature implementations and fixes for a relative old game. The features and fixes are free for us all. I think this approach is fair and was a good idea from BI.

 

So without DLCs like LOW there wouldnt be people fixing the vanilla game.

Share this post


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

The income from DLCs makes it possible for BI to have people working on improvements in the core game. They asked the community a few years back what we thought about it and it made sense what they suggested. BI cant work for free improving/fixing A3 as it's quite a complexe game, so the people who buy DLCs support feature implementations and fixes for a relative old game. The features and fixes are free for us all. I think this approach is fair and was a good idea from BI.

 

So without DLCs like LOW there wouldnt be people fixing the vanilla game.

right, so wheres the fix?

We cant climb a fence but we have a story that conveniently never crosses one. I understand the need for DLC content, but I would have bought a DLC that allowed jumping or not being eaten by rocks and it would have been better for the whole community to have more basic movements/logistics than a story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"That fix" is not done among many other fixes of higher importance. But there are many fixes done over the years with great benefit for the whole community. BI just dont share you personal priority, and neither do I. Sure it would be nice but it's far from the top on the list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, andersson said:

"That fix" is not done among many other fixes of higher importance. But there are many fixes done over the years with great benefit for the whole community. BI just dont share you personal priority, and neither do I. Sure it would be nice but it's far from the top on the list.

That is the point of this thread, even if the fix that I want isn't a priority for you and BI, the question remains; why should storytelling like Laws of War deserve any priority over fixes to game mechanics?

 

...it should be: "Buy Laws of War for Arma3, its a great story told through a complete game."

...not: "Buy Laws of War, we will eventually finish the base game in which it is based with the revenue from this DLC"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt it's the same guys working on 3d models and missions that bughunt and implement features, so LoW probably didn't take much if any time from that. And here is a list of fixes since 2013: Fixes to game mechanics

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today's Armytime headline is "These two Army BCTs will be the first to put robotic vehicles in their formations" , along with news about helmet display, injectable hemostatic, and assisted aiming rifles..

And there are plenty people still live in 1985 thinking ArmA3 is a sci-fi game

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/10/2018 at 4:03 AM, andersson said:

"That fix" is not done among many other fixes of higher importance. But there are many fixes done over the years with great benefit for the whole community. BI just dont share you personal priority, and neither do I. Sure it would be nice but it's far from the top on the list.

 

 Hmm, over 500,000 people currently subscribed to "that fix" at the moment..

 

 Its a very, very big deal to many to add that level of movement to the game as that opens up whole new avenues of attack, stealth, escape you name it - ultimately giving the players what they tend to cherish -freedom of movement in the gaming world. Pretty sure they'll have it higher on their todo list for whatever surfaces in the series future

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
Sign in to follow this  

×