Arma 3 DLC - CONTACT

[EO 11275]

5 hours ago, stburr91 said:

Two, that they chose to put out an "expansion" that is extremely light on content, and that has little actual new content.

 

Any DLC that adds a new terrain is not light on content, it brings with it a large set of upgraded A2 and DayZ buildings that will be freely available for other terrain makers to build upon.

 

[arg_foxtrop1 54]

I all respect to BIS, I belive that the aliens are proper to the entire feeling of arma3, arma3 campaign and settings have been alienating, why nato uses israeli tank? why iran csat is so advance? what was that about the quake machine? where are our m16, aks, and other loved basic rifles that were in every game? ok, ARMA3 lifespan is reaching his ending and the aliens seems proper, if new players likes it, good, but lets hope ARMA4 goes back in time 

[Greenfist 1863]

The near future setting is kinda genius premise. I mean if BI had redone that same old cold war era USA/USSR again, we wouldn't have a solid official basis in the game for modern advanced technology. It's much easier for the community to create content backwards from 2035-ish than to go forwards from the ever-popular gunpowder era of M16s and T72s.

[stburr91 1002]

5 hours ago, EO said:

 

Any DLC that adds a new terrain is not light on content, it brings with it a large set of upgraded A2 and DayZ buildings that will be freely available for other terrain makers to build upon.

 

 

Yes, but as I said, it's light on content compared to the Apex expansion, with minimal new content,  however, it's the same price as Apex. 

 

If Contact has less than half the content of the last expansion, shouldn't it be half the price?

 

If you guys want to pay a premium for a minimal content, be my guest, but I won't, I will not reward bad behavior.  

 

4 hours ago, Greenfist said:

The near future setting is kinda genius premise. I mean if BI had redone that same old cold war era USA/USSR again, we wouldn't have a solid official basis in the game for modern advanced technology. It's much easier for the community to create content backwards from 2035-ish than to go forwards from the ever-popular gunpowder era of M16s and T72s.

 

I agree.

 

It took me years to warm up to the future setting of A3, but now I like it. With all the ports of more contemporary assets, and the more futuristic stuff from A3, we have a great palette to choose from. 

[x3kj 1247]

7 hours ago, Greenfist said:

The near future setting is kinda genius premise. I mean if BI had redone that same old cold war era USA/USSR again, we wouldn't have a solid official basis in the game for modern advanced technology. It's much easier for the community to create content backwards from 2035-ish than to go forwards from the ever-popular gunpowder era of M16s and T72s.

I dont agree with that... all the features we have in A3 are so "un-advanced", that they have been introduced around 1970-1990 or even earlier.

Sensors and sensor sharing (Radar etc) , Render to texture (mirrors, CCTV), FCS for vehicles, plane pylons, plane huds, heat penetrators /submunition/cluster weapons, guided ammo, top attack missiles, firing from vehicles, vehicle-in-vehicle transport. Remote controlled vehicles are not new either although not extensively used militarily in that period. All things considered, pretty old things.

I'm not complaining btw, but with an older setting you'd have needed the exact same features to get "on the right level". 

 

3 hours ago, stburr91 said:

Yes, but as I said, it's light on content compared to the Apex expansion, with minimal new content,  however, it's the same price as Apex.

If Contact has less than half the content of the last expansion, shouldn't it be half the price?

If you guys want to pay a premium for a minimal content, be my guest, but I won't, I will not reward bad behavior. 

I give you that, the price i think is a bit high in comparison. If i had to choose where i spend money on games it wouldnt be my first pick. But as i'm only interested in very few games, there is not much choice anyway.

The Dayz models are noticeably modified for their 3rd person camera (higher doorframes, higher rooms, so camera wont clip through ceiling) - means it looks less fitting with A3.

[haleks 8212]

8 hours ago, Greenfist said:

The near future setting is kinda genius premise. I mean if BI had redone that same old cold war era USA/USSR again, we wouldn't have a solid official basis in the game for modern advanced technology.

 

In my opinion Arma3 never really went beyond "official basis" for advanced tech : except for drones, there is nothing new...

But even with the drones, BIS didn't go far and failed to implement actually new features. Drones are just fancy locked vehicles with an invisible crew and remote control, and they missed a lot of opportunities I think. I mean, just imagine if the tactical glasses had a built-in link to UAV target data or visual feed, à la Ghost Recon... It would add something new, but instead we have a clumsy interface limited to the drone operator. Recon UAVs have limited use in their current implementation, and I'd expect by 2035 they would be much more common than depicted in Arma3, and more usefull too.

[lexx 1363]

Yup, being able to stream the UAV feed to - at least - all team members is really missing.

[haleks 8212]

4 minutes ago, lexx said:

Yup, being able to stream the UAV feed to - at least - all team members is really missing.

 

I would be happy with just dynamic icons and GUI features to be honest - I'm not a fan of the current PiP tech (it's not necessarily the most readable or informative way to go either).

[krzychuzokecia 717]

9 hours ago, EO said:

Any DLC that adds a new terrain is not light on content, it brings with it a large set of upgraded A2 and DayZ buildings that will be freely available for other terrain makers to build upon.

Thing is that:

1. DayZ content (as seen in Livonia feedback thread) is not adapted to Arma use.
2. It's still DayZ content, while Apex used original art.
3. Aside from island Apex brought quite a lot of more to the game (4 vehicles, several weapons, countless objects) - Contact new assets are objects, Promet rifles, shotgun and UGV. The main course (aliens) is unusable outside of campaign (out of the box), and even placed in additional modfolder (making life harder for modders who would like to give them some life).

Thus it seems to me that Contact development cost was way lower than in case of Apex. So what justifies it's price? Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that Contact should be as cheap as focused DLCs were. But IMHO it's overpriced for what it brings.

On 5/26/2019 at 12:49 AM, lexx said:

Eh, I'm certainly not a master of discussion, but what kind of "actual discussion" do you want? People agree and disagree and providing points pro and contra (spanning multiple threads at this point). For me that pretty much looks like a discussion.

 

21 hours ago, x3kj said:

Anyone liking or not liking the DLC wont change what's in the DLC. That was already decided several moons ago and is a done deal. So whats there to discuss? 

We know what people like, and what other people doesn't like when it comes to this DLC. However this is based on emotions, personal preference etc. I would rather prefer to focus on objective things - such as quantifiable ratio of content/price.

 

My very first post in this thread was essentially about this - summing up what content is new, what is reused etc. I came to conclusion that ratio of content/price is not in favor of this DLC (my opinion). But others, who like this DLC, completely skipped this issue, claiming (through some sort of crystal ball) that I'm against sci-fi theme in Arma in general (which is bullcrap). That's why I've said there's no real discussion (and to get things straight - just saying I don't like sci-fi so sod off! is also not real discussion, once again, sci-fi is not a problem for me with Contact, IMO problem is the execution).

 

Well, up until the last page, with price and DayZ assets issues being noticed by more people. I understand what you're saying in other post @x3kj (I'm not interested in other games, so I'll buy it anyway), but I'm personally not interested in games at all. Or rather - I'm not a serious gamer who brows through Kotaku/PC Gamer/Twitch every day, and subscribes for hundreds of streamers.

 

For me to buy a game this pricy, I have to be really amazed by content. Contact is underwhelming from both a hardcore mil-sim gamer, and sci-fi fan points of view. Mil-sim/sandbox content is reused old assets (and few of them at that), and aliens are some scripted objects (that's what the store page says, don't blame me) - thus my jokes about McGuffins, ayy lmaos and mini East Wind. I'd love to be amazed by Contact, but I don't see how I could be. Maybe campaign is great, but I don't have crystal ball, and previous BI campaigns were not inspiring. So, no pre-order for me, and honestly, no Contact at all, until it goes out on the sale (unless post release reviews will say that campaign alone is worth the price of admission).

1 hour ago, x3kj said:

I dont agree with that... all the features we have in A3 are so "un-advanced", that they have been introduced around 1970-1990 or even earlier.

(...)

I'm not complaining btw, but with an older setting you'd have needed the exact same features to get "on the right level". 

Agreed, but it also shows the previously mentioned issue of communication. The futuristic backlash (that I never agreed with) was so enormous, that you'd expect BI to at least try to explain that everything in game have strong roots in existing military technology (even though it's a military game, not everyone in community is aware of latest army gizmos). Dyslexci's TTP becoming official guide was a move in this direction. But it apparently wasn't enough, and now when BI introduces really futuristic/fictional content, another eruption of no fiction! should not be any surprise.

[x3kj 1247]

20 minutes ago, krzychuzokecia said:

We know what people like, and what other people doesn't like when it comes to this DLC. However this is based on emotions, personal preference etc. I would rather prefer to focus on objective things - such as quantifiable ratio of content/price

Price content ratio isnt really that objective either. The difference between what it costs now and what i think would be more appropriate cost compared to other DLC amounts to 2kg of bread (where i live). But in context, the DLC now costs equivalent of 7kg of bread or 2 movie tickets in my area. Is it worth 2 movie tickets? I would say yes.  And 2kg of bread is not a worlds difference - for me. If someone lives in eastern europe or asia and would have to pay the same € price (possibly with their local currency even) i can see how it would be a much bigger deal.

[CaptainDawson 93]

45 minutes ago, krzychuzokecia said:

 

We know what people like, and what other people doesn't like when it comes to this DLC. However this is based on emotions, personal preference etc. I would rather prefer to focus on objective things - such as quantifiable ratio of content/price.

 

 

I bought Contact as soon as I was able. ANYthing that involves an official update or reskins I am all for, and I want to support the devs work on the game. (In hope that we will get fixes to the existing issues in the game...) I think so far the new Livonia map looks great (despite a few issues), and I am really looking forward to the final release! But nothing I can do will convince any of my Discord teammates to pay the price for this DLC. IMO, while the expansion pack is worth it for me, it's difficult to justify or quantify the value of Contact to others, given all the reasons people have been discussing on this thread.

[target_practice 163]

6 hours ago, x3kj said:

I dont agree with that... all the features we have in A3 are so "un-advanced", that they have been introduced around 1970-1990 or even earlier.

Sensors and sensor sharing (Radar etc) , Render to texture (mirrors, CCTV), FCS for vehicles, plane pylons, plane huds, heat penetrators /submunition/cluster weapons, guided ammo, top attack missiles, firing from vehicles, vehicle-in-vehicle transport. Remote controlled vehicles are not new either although not extensively used militarily in that period. All things considered, pretty old things.

I'm not complaining btw, but with an older setting you'd have needed the exact same features to get "on the right level". 

I wouldn't be surprised if BIS avoided going all out on cutting-edge military technology to avoid antagonising their playerbase. Given how much flak they got for the timeframe as is that wouldn't be an unfounded concern; one only needs to look at the complaints directed at CSAT's uniform (arguably the most modern thing in the game, seeing as it incorporates a personal air cooling system and helmets with integrated electronics) to get a picture of how some people would have reacted to more of the like (RIP Railgun Varsuk).

 

I suppose from an in universe perspective they can partially hand wave it by saying that the USA and Altis are too broke to afford that kind of thing.

[ISparkle 49]

5 minutes ago, target_practice said:

I wouldn't be surprised if BIS avoided going all out on cutting-edge military technology to avoid antagonising their playerbase. Given how much flak they got for the timeframe as is that wouldn't be an unfounded concern; one only needs to look at the complaints directed at CSAT's uniform (arguably the most modern thing in the game, seeing as it incorporates a personal air cooling system and helmets with integrated electronics) to get a picture of how some people would have reacted to more of the like (RIP Railgun Varsuk).

 

I suppose from an in universe perspective they can partially hand wave it by saying that the USA and Altis are too broke to afford that kind of thing.

Pretty much this. They had plans for more next-gen ish future tech planned before people lashed out at the idea of it being set in 2035. So BIS actually dialed back iirc from alpha days. On a tangent... sucks that my copy wasn't recognized as a supporter's edition btw. =(

[jakerod 254]

14 hours ago, Greenfist said:

The near future setting is kinda genius premise. I mean if BI had redone that same old cold war era USA/USSR again, we wouldn't have a solid official basis in the game for modern advanced technology. It's much easier for the community to create content backwards from 2035-ish than to go forwards from the ever-popular gunpowder era of M16s and T72s.

That isn't really the least bit true though. Pretty much everything in Arma 3 existed in the mid to late 80s. The only difference is that all the model content is worthless for going back in time. Take the Merkava or whatever they call it in Arma 3. It's useless for everyone except Israel. A T-72 on the other hand is used by dozens of countries and has been used from the 70s until present day and probably into 2035. M16, same thing. Doing a Cold War game would have opened things up to modders even more. 

 

I would also like to point out that Contact is like $7 cheaper than Apex when it came out (not including discounts). The Contact terrain is bigger in terms of landmass and potentially has more unique objects. I haven't counted yet. It's the only non-CDLC continental map we have which can make for far more interesting stories. Sure the buildings are DayZ but they had to dezombify all of them so that's work. We're getting an entirely new faction with the Livonian guys. Yes, those are retextures but that still takes skill and time. Plus they have new gear. Plus a campaign by the guys who did Remnants of War so that should be amazing. That sounds worth it.

[mmm 35]

I would have welcomed ARMA modelling real modern technologies properly instead of "its 2035 cuz we tell you so" reskins. Programmable fuzed round, man in the loop NLOS missile, small loitering munitions, dismount soldier SA systems(say nett warrior, some of it could be as simple as tying certain blufor tracking difficulty setting to equipments instead), to name a few. If you want to go a bit more wild how about things like legged logistic robots for terrains unsuited for vehicles to keep up with foot soldiers? They could use the goats as starting point. Features that are genuinely new but also based on reasonable projection of near future(or even existing) technology. Instead ARMA 3's "futureness" is mostly just in appearance, others deviate way too far from real world capabilities. I mean what kind of function does the CSAT helmet HMD have? Or CSAT uniform with neck to toe coverage , protecting against only small shrapnels, what kind of 2035 body armor design is that?

[AveryTheKitty 2626]

1 minute ago, mmm said:

I would have welcomed ARMA modelling real modern technologies properly instead of "its 2035 cuz we tell you so" reskins. Programmable fuzed round, man in the loop NLOS missile, small loitering munitions, dismount soldier SA systems(say nett warrior, some of it could be as simple as tying certain blufor tracking difficulty setting to equipments instead), to name a few. If you want to go a bit more wild how about things like legged logistic robots for terrains unsuited for vehicles to keep up with foot soldiers? They could use the goats as starting point. Features that are genuinely new but also based on reasonable projection of near future(or even existing) technology. Instead ARMA 3's "futureness" is mostly just in appearance, others deviate way too far from real world capabilities. I mean what kind of function does the CSAT helmet HMD have? Or CSAT uniform with neck to toe coverage , protecting against only small shrapnels, what kind of 2035 body armor design is that?

 

You could argue that the HMD / HUD stuff in the Combat Goggles, Tactical Shades/Glasses, CSAT Helmets, and definitely the Fighter Pilot Helmets are projecting the in-game HUD plus things like the GPS.

 

Regarding CSAT's armor, my personal theory is that the top is a two-piece suit: camouflage cover and the more functional part with kevlar (?) armor, cooling tubes, wires, Air Conditioning / CBRN filter (the thing on the back, confirmed by devs), etc. The pants probably have *just* armor sewn in with the fabric, which would explain why CSAT officers have armored legs but not armored arms or torsos.

[haleks 8212]

2 minutes ago, AveryTheKitty said:

 CBRN filter (the thing on the back, confirmed by devs)

 

What use are they without any kind of mask to go with?

 

If those things were filters from the start, it's another thing to add on the failed 2035 things list...

[AveryTheKitty 2626]

1 minute ago, haleks said:

 

What use are they without any kind of mask to go with?

 

If those things were filters from the start, it's another thing to add on the failed 2035 things list...

 

Who knows. Doesn't seem like BIS even knows and they're just making up things as they go. 😛 They are getting gasmasks in Contact but the lack of a CBRN suit was explained as "their suits are CBRN capable".

[x3kj 1247]

2 hours ago, target_practice said:

I wouldn't be surprised if BIS avoided going all out on cutting-edge military technology to avoid antagonising their playerbase.

for "cutting edge" technology they would have had to make the "non-cutting edge" technology first eitherway.  Whats the point of "cutting edge hud" if you dont even have proper radar or even the most basic FCS. We dont even have the capability for radio fuzes on flak ammo  - a thing thats been around since ~1945... Or fuse delay for HE weapons, so they can penetrate a little bit.

 

BIS had (and still has) a lot of catching up to do to get even on the level of cold war, or even WW2 technology. The only cutting back they did was from visual/story aspect i bet. From something like Battlefield 2145 or Carrier Command esque content (i suspect) back to 2035. The features would have very likely stayed the same. All those scifi games we get ... the technology they utilize in gameplay is almost always pre year 2000. Only differences are what kind of "thing" a weapon shoots (bullets, plasma, ...).

Also these smart lethal "future" things -> most are just not fun or applicable to games .  self guiding bullets. Great for the military that has them. Not fun for a game. Rail guns - supper accurate, destruction of everything in single shot. *boop*, dead. How's that fun? Armored warfare is much more interesting when you can't just hit anywhere but need to aim for specific points. And infantry battles are also way more engaging if you have to look for your enemy and cant rely on 'drones with infantry radars' that give you full 360 all time info on enemies on your hud. Robot donkey... not much use, when everyone in vanilla already runs around with AT launcher + supressed machinegun + medicpack in guillie suit anyway. Esp. not when that would be controlled by AI...

 

2035 is away just enough for them to stay creative with models and story, without armchair generals complaining every other day how "the pattern of those trousers is incorrect", so i can see why they preferred that...

 

[mmm 35]

3 hours ago, AveryTheKitty said:

 

You could argue that the HMD / HUD stuff in the Combat Goggles, Tactical Shades/Glasses, CSAT Helmets, and definitely the Fighter Pilot Helmets are projecting the in-game HUD plus things like the GPS.

 

Regarding CSAT's armor, my personal theory is that the top is a two-piece suit: camouflage cover and the more functional part with kevlar (?) armor, cooling tubes, wires, Air Conditioning / CBRN filter (the thing on the back, confirmed by devs), etc. The pants probably have *just* armor sewn in with the fabric, which would explain why CSAT officers have armored legs but not armored arms or torsos.

I would, some interface symbology elements could be easily tied to gear, with some room for functionality expansion. Say you have HMD paired with network device, there's the full benefit of symbology. Device without HMD, then only on map. Maybe only when you're not being interfered with electronic warfare systems. Just a very simplistic idea how it could potentially be implemented from the existing system.

 

Thing is not real armor design allocate protection that way, unless it's bomb suit. You know how it works, it starts with a helmet, by 2035 maybe a UHMWPE shell one with rifle protection to a degree, then there's the torso rifle protection. If you can afford the extra weight the state of art today can have a helmet visor/mandible, deltoid protector, and combat diaper of some sort. The wildest claim I've seen is the (never realistic)TALOS spin-off armor gives 44% coverage, likely soft armor only outside the rifle plate. Neck to toe coverage, at the weight class suggested by the game stat, will probably be as protective as blast boxer.

 

Though the more realistic things they could do with supposedly "advanced" uniform could include vital monitoring, which is another more "sci" than "fi" thing. A basic implementation in game could be an update on unit status without visual contact or verbal comm. So you know a unit is downed or dead without having to see it getting shot, or approximately how fatigued a unit is.

[EO 11275]

 

[krzychuzokecia 717]

On 5/29/2019 at 7:40 PM, x3kj said:

Price content ratio isnt really that objective either.

Well, it's an approximation of how much investment went into the product, and (when comparing with similiar products - in this case Apex expansion) how big gain is expected. Clearly Contact development cost was lower than Apex (due to the mostly reused assets), so BI (pricing it in an Apex range) expects to earn more on a single copy. Why is that, that's point of speculation (maybe because they expect lower sales? I don't know).

 

But bread and movie ticket comparison is cool!  (though it's really more about regional differences in price, than price/content ratio)

On 5/30/2019 at 2:05 AM, jakerod said:

I would also like to point out that Contact is like $7 cheaper than Apex when it came out (not including discounts). The Contact terrain is bigger in terms of landmass and potentially has more unique objects. (...) Sure the buildings are DayZ but they had to dezombify all of them so that's work. We're getting an entirely new faction with the Livonian guys. Yes, those are retextures but that still takes skill and time.

Maybe it's bigger in landmass, because buildings are circa 150% bigger than real ones?  I haven't played DayZ standalone, so can't tell, but I have a feeling that buildings were not modified for Contact? At least that's my take, reading feedback threads.

 

As for the Livonians - hard to call them entirely new faction when all that differentiates them from AAF is rifle and camo. Which is a shame - like some other poster noted, even giving them A2 ACR DLC Tatra truck (instead of Zamak) would make them stand out a little. Community made better stuff using retextures and ported assets, than BI did with Livonian faction (Aegis mod being prime example).

On 5/29/2019 at 8:12 PM, CaptainDawson said:

ANYthing that involves an official update or reskins I am all for, and I want to support the devs work on the game.

I prefer to support good products, than blindly follow (presumably) good devs. Afterall, even the best people put out a lemon from time to time, and why I'd waste my time and money for that? Let's hope the campaign will be interesting, that's my fine line in the sand :D

 

Off-topic:

On 5/30/2019 at 2:38 AM, AveryTheKitty said:

You could argue that the HMD / HUD stuff in the Combat Goggles, Tactical Shades/Glasses, CSAT Helmets, and definitely the Fighter Pilot Helmets are projecting the in-game HUD plus things like the GPS.

But it doesn't have any basis in gameplay - you can take off all helmets/goggles, and game still shows you the same UI. Which is a shame, when A3 was first released devs hinted that what equipment you have on you, will affect how you will see the battlefield. Imagine being hunted by well-equipped CSAT, with you being a lowly guerrilla!

On 5/30/2019 at 2:44 AM, haleks said:

What use are they without any kind of mask to go with?

 

If those things were filters from the start, it's another thing to add on the failed 2035 things list...

IIRC CSAT suit was supposed to provide air conditioning, and even lower thermal signature of soldier. But neither fatigue system, nor actual TI sights, seem to be affected by CSAT uniform. CBRN features are obvious retcon for Contact.

Edited May 31, 2019 by krzychuzokecia
typo

[x3kj 1247]

4 minutes ago, krzychuzokecia said:

how much investment went into the product [...]though it's really more about regional differences in price, than price/content ratio

talking about development cost and regional price - development also costs depending on where its developed... cost of living is higher in netherlands than czech republic or thailand, so employees will need more pay.

Just saying...

[chortles 263]

17 minutes ago, krzychuzokecia said:

Off-topic:

But it doesn't have any basis in gameplay - you can take off all helmets/goggles, and game still shows you the same UI. Which is a shame, when A3 was first released devs hinted that what equipment you have on you, will affect how you will see the battlefield. Imagine being hunted by well-equipped CSAT, with you being a lowly guerrilla!

I wouldn't be surprised if this fell by the wayside due to 'the engine as of 2011-2012 couldn't actually do this'* followed by 'after the disaster of the end of 2012, publisher wants the game to be launched by the end of 2013', the latter of which was the direct/explicit cause of going Steamworks.

* As far back as soon-after-E3 2012 the then-project lead admitted that enemy-uniform-swapping had been dropped not just due to Geneva Conventions but also due to issues in MP.

[target_practice 163]

I'm pretty sure there's nothing in the engine that would prevent the implementation of gear-based UI.

 

Also what is this disaster thing you refer to, and what publisher? BIS published it themselves.