Should any VBS discussion be allowed here?

[shinRaiden 0]

Presently the rules for this forum state that basic discussions about VBS news and general info, with an implied loophole for technical discussion of content released for both products, is permitted on these forums.

However, in light of the repeated and virulent antagonism against Bohemia Interactive and its products in immediate response to any thread even referencing VBS, should a recommendation be made to have the rule changed to prohibit any reference to or discussion of VBS on these forums?

Entertainment community hostility to government, military, and other professional users of Bohemia Interactive's products, when those users come to these forums properly licensed and in good faith, not only has serious consequences for Bohemia Interactive's product image and viability, but also ultimately to the personal entertainment community users of the products.

[Billabong81 0]

I really don't care much either way at the moment. There aren't a TON of topics about VBS on the forums and most are short-lived anyway.

[crashdome 3]

I voted no.

If I can afford multipe websites, they can afford another forum site.

[Daddl 10]

There is a separate VBS forum, but prohibiting any discussion about the product here would equal to censorship. After all, it is a product BIS are making, both communities benefit from synergies between the products, and the only problem about it is that most people simply don't know what it all is really about. People think BIS is keeping 'the good stuff' for the military, and they envy them - but, as VBS is way too expensive for them to get, some turn that envy into anger.

Like the video demos of destructible building and free shooting from vehicles - things that actually never materialized in VBS1. Things people missed dearly in OFP and then suddenly they were made to believe VBS1 had it. Or all that talk about how superior the VBS1 engine was compared to OFP... some slight improvements, yes, but that was it. No radical changes or anything... but if I hadn't bought VBS1 how should I've known that?

Just saying 'OFP/ArmA is the better choice if you want to play' is an argument that never works in a community where everyone thinks OFP/ArmA is much more than just another 'game'. To them VBS sounds like the 'holy grail' of tactical gaming - hey, even the military uses it, so it MUST be great...

I call this bad information policy, and the result of it. Keeping any discussion even further under the carpet will make VBS only more mystic, and cause only more rumors to run wild. At least in a discussion an official statement (or clear words from those who have VBS) can clarify things.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

I'm not a member of any official VBS forums but I do have to wonder if there one is able to talk about OFP/ArmA. If yes then I think it would be gross discrimination if one wouldn't be able to talk about VBS here... I'm holding out my choice in this vote till when I get an answer. I mean, one thing is to pay alot more to have access to something better than something that is otherwise available cheaper, another thing is to somehow limit the communication on said issues... although of course this is an official forum and such communication could also be practiced on inofficial forums... It's just that THIS forum for us seems to be "THE" place to be...

[stevevcb 3]

Given that some of the more vocal elements of the community can't help but make out that the $1500 military training sim having more features than the $40 PC game is a sleight against the community and that the development was funded with African conflict diamonds and the devs drank fresh virgin's blood during development (or whatever the latest mad conspiracies are), I can understand why VBS discussion isn't allowed here.

It'd be great if it was, because then we'd be able to discuss whether or not some of the more basic features could be jerry-rigged in ArmA, but seeing as there are people here who'd complain if you bought them a pint, any discussion would probably end up going to the dogs very quickly.

[shinRaiden 0]

There's a number of fairly reasonable points for discussion there.

Quote[/b] ]both communities benefit from synergies between the products

This is indeed the case, significant parts of VBS1 code and VBS2 content was added to Armed Assault. VBS1 and VBS2 both benefited from the content development lessons-learned from OFP and Armed Assault respectively.

Quote[/b] ]most people simply don't know what it all is really about

While that is the result, I believe that state of ignorance is largely part of the supporting of inaccurate speculation. One only has to look at recent Armed Assault information threads to see examples of wild rumor opinions still regarded as fact even after BIS's lead programmer stated that the rumors were in fact opposite of reality. There is a level at which no amount of information can adequately combat popular acceptance of wildcat rumormongering.

In regards to concerns about apparent differences between VBS announcements and what was maintained in the general release, I'd recommend considering the example of other development projects. A good example that comes to mind is the pre-cursor to the Game2 platform. If we were to assume that all PR communications are announcements of completed and shipping products, we're missing a multi-era "Operation Flashpoint 2" as developed by BIS, featuring Vietnam themes. Similarly, with VBS, press releases can be used to create awareness within the industry, for competitive purposes, or as a courtesy bonus 'cool thing'.

It should be noted that there's actually quite a few different versions of VBS1 based on the application. The application roles for VBS can differ substantially from traditional roles. For example, several projects were in fact contracted experiments, where the extent of the work was solely to enable the customer to determine if virtual training would be practical for a particular task. Once the exercise was complete, the requirement was considered finished. In other cases, it was determined to be more advantageous to both the customers and BI to integrate the development of certain projects into a unified project as opposed to separate contracts and engine hacks.

Quote[/b] ]everyone thinks OFP/ArmA is much more than just another 'game'. To them VBS sounds like the 'holy grail' of tactical gaming - hey, even the military uses it, so it MUST be great...

It is the Holy Grail, which is why it's so successful. However, when insatiable compulsion is the driving force, then it becomes a problem. This results in the "if I can't have it then no one should" or "I don't agree with their business decision no matter the reason, so I'll just fight it" attitudes that commonly define the VBS related flaming. Greed and jealousy come from the end individual, and no amount of patronizing can fix what's wrong with them. In fact, in can even reinforce that misbehavior.

Quote[/b] ]I call this bad information policy, and the result of it.

Perhaps. But business-oriented attitudes and actions can differ significantly from approaches targeted at individuals.

I think the over all point I was trying to explore, is whether the community here is willing to allow discussion of VBS in a peaceful and moderated fashion. So far, that has not been the case. The 'draconian' and 'exclusivist' handling has been in response to, not the original cause of the flaming and intolerant behavior.

While OFP/Arma topics are on occasion raised in the offtopic section of the VBS forums, the recommendation there has been consistently to use these forums instead for those subjects.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

While OFP/Arma topics are on occasion raised in the offtopic section of the VBS forums, the recommendation there has been consistently to use these forums instead for those subjects.

I’m sorry but that’s not entirely true now is it. What about all the posts about converting OFP releases?  And the stickied threads about: "Implementing all Resistance stuff in VBS" etc? If the same rules were applied in the VBS forums with regard to OPF to VBS discussions, as they were enforced here with VBS to OPF then perhaps there might be a different feeling.

From the 2 years + of access I’ve had to the VBS forums I've not seen the kind of moderation policy there that’s gone on here with VBS.  While I freely admit that the majority of topics in the VBS forums are about VBS.  With regard to OFP it was more about what people could "take" from the OFP community and convert to VBS.  

I think the majority of the problem is one of perspective.  VBS users got to see both products in the cold light of day without having to listen to rumours and half truths.  While users that only had OFP (and now ArmA) only saw part of the picture.   There are also (true) stories of community made OFP content being ported into VBS without permission which further fuelled the bad feeling.  Maybe instead of trying to restrict information being that little bit more open about it might change the ‘bad feeling’?

VBS2 has some features that ArmA doesn’t have.  I’m sure given time either BIS or the community may well bridge the gap between those capabilities. But right now the stock VBS2 doesn’t seem to have much of an advantage over ArmA when it comes to features the average gamer would use. Personally, I’d like to see the cargo handling (ie the cones and road block stuff and under slung loads) implemented but honestly most of the other stuff whos really going to use it?  Maybe allowing the discussion of VBS technology in these forums might have the same effect that discussing OFP 'tech' supposedly had on the VBS forums had?  Might it not inspire addon makers to make thier own versions of the VBS2 features?

[colt 0]

You might as well have a VBS Topic stickied in the BIS General forum. That forum is pretty quite (last active post April 13th).

VBS still falls under the BIS umbrella so it's natural that people will want to discuss and compare it to other BIS products.

All you have to do is reiterate what VBS2 is and isn't (to the Gamer) and a link to the the proper VBS2 website and Forum and then leave the topic open so people can talk about it.

People will keep making topics about it because they're enquisitve and the fact that info about it is out in the public domain via the tech demo and screenshots, etc.

You might as well have one thread dedicated to it where people can flock too instead of VBS topics popping up in the ArmA or OFP forums.

[Rhodite 3]

You might as well have a VBS Topic stickied in the BIS General forum. That forum is pretty quite (last active post April 13th).

VBS still falls under the BIS umbrella so it's natural that people will want to discuss and compare it to other BIS products.

All you have to do is reiterate what VBS2 is and isn't (to the Gamer) and a link to the the proper VBS2 website and Forum and then leave the topic open so people can talk about it.

People will keep making topics about it because they're enquisitve and the fact that info about it is out in the public domain via the tech demo and screenshots, etc.

You might as well have one thread dedicated to it where people can flock too instead of VBS topics popping up in the ArmA or OFP forums.

To be precise it is a BIA product NOT a BIS product.

One may have been setup by the other but they are indeed to seperate companies with two completely different markets and goals.

[echo1 0]

I vote no. Always turns into bitching sessions, or people asking stupid questions....

[JdB 151]

If OFP and the converting of OFP community made content is discussed in the VBS forums like RockofSL says, then it should also be allowed for us to discuss VBS on these forums.

The ""take"" in RockofSL's post seems to suggest that sometimes this is done without permission from the original creator, which is just as illegal as converting items made by BIA for VBS to OFP is. Such things should never be allowed on any forum, regardless whether it is VBS, OFP or ArmA content, and regardless of whether it is official or unofficial content.

[colt 0]

@Rhodite

I understand that what you're saying but considering the words 'Bohemia Interactive' appear in both companies name, it's natural that people will come to this forum seeking info about it.

As for different markets and goals, that's somewhat moot considering that VBS 2 is also being offered for Joe Public to purchase. If it had remained an exclusive tool for the military and private companies the difference between OFP/ArmA and VBS would be clear cut.

Edit: Just looked at the VBS2 main website and it says "...Developed by Bohemia Interactive (BI)"

It doesn't differentiate between BIS or BIA.

Besides, I think having one topic left open would be fine, I think it would die out under it's own steam pretty quick anyway.

[Daddl 10]

To be precise it is a BIA product NOT a BIS product.

One may have been setup by the other but they are indeed to seperate companies with two completely different markets and goals.

Yes, I know it's hip nowadays (and definitely a sound concept when starting in a new risky market without wanting to endanger the 'mother' company) to have one company spawn endless 'independent' children. The problem with that is that people just don't buy it:

BIA is owned by BIS, at least in parts. BIA markets a product based on the very engine that BIS has developed. Engine changes specific for BIA's products are still implemented by BIS, not BIA. VBS1 (don't know about VBS2) came with many models we already knew from OFP, etc.

So while by law they are definitely separate companies, by public recognition BIA is just BIS' Australian office responsible for developing and marketing VBS. The emphasis in the former sentence is on "BIS' office".

So I think BIS has to live with the fact that people regard VBS as their product, and come here to discuss it. After all: it's even mentioned on their own homepage (news page: "Bohemia Interactive to demonstrate VBS2 at I/ITSEC 2006 - 22.11.2006")!

Separating the communities is good, that's why there are separate forums, but again, prohibiting any sensible discussion is counter productive!

[shinRaiden 0]

Quote[/b] ]prohibiting any sensible discussion is counter productive!

I wholeheartedly agree. But, if sensible discussion is impossible, then what?

[crashdome 3]

I guess I really don't understand everything then, shinRaiden.

Can you explain the benefits and who gets them? I realize they are two different products and that one targets a different group of people. this is *exactly* why I feel it shouldn't be here. You asked if we should allow discussion, but then tack on the part about having the VBS customers coming here. It is baiting IMO. I would like for us to discuss VBS and VBS2 and discuss what it is and isn't, but it sounds like the purpose is to allow VBS consumers (VIPs) to somehow mingle with community (non-VIPs) and extract information. I realize they can do that now indirectly by trolling the forums, but if it were "open" to discussion it is more direct and the only benefit is the VBS consumer.

It is of my opinion that if you want VBS customers on these forums, BIA/BIS must reciprocate the benefits to the community by allowing them to produce add-ons and packages for VBS customers - no strings attached. Currently, we cannot create add-ons and discuss projects for the VBS community without somehow circumventing any BIS tools or agreements. This may or may not be possible.

If I am wrong.. if we can currently (legally) develop for VBS customers and negotiate with them (freeware or payware) without BIS/BIA consent or involvement, then please enlighten me, because it would seem the only reason we were not allowed to discuss it in the first place was because it might infringe on some agreement.

[Guest]

I voted no

Ive read some really dumb posts from users... like here is my absolute favorite from some 10 year old who soiled his pants..

Quote[/b] ]Can you also add VBS1 features? like 3d editor.. and try to get your hands on somebody that has vbs2 so we can have those tracers and sounds. If you havnt seen vbs2 trailor then... CHECK IT OUT NOW.. IT IS AMAZING!!

Thats why I vote NO

For the most part, the threads dealing with converting OFP to VBS1 were almost always stating that permission must be first granted before converting any addons. Like with the BWmod.

As its been stated.... 40 dollars vs 1500 dollars.... Most mature people will understand this concept.

When I fly across the atlantic in a 747.... why shouldnt I get to sit first class when i only paid coach... Both seats are on the plane. The plane is in the air... ....

or I buy an ipod that holds 20gb.... but i see my friend has an ipod that looks the same but is 60gb. Why should the store owner listen to me when i say that I want the same 60gb ipod for the same price.

sorry to bring it offtopic

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

For the most part, the threads dealing with converting OFP to VBS1 were almost always stating that permission must be first granted before converting any addons. Like with the BWmod.

I was refering the contradiction in Shinraiden's post that there was discussions on the VBS forums about OFP.  When discussions about VBS are banned on the 'OFP' forums.

[AgentJonathan 0]

My answer is hekk no! I have read some pretty lame, and useless pieces of decroated crap from VBS nerds.

PS: Frogstar's reason for no VBS is just another piece of crap, that really makes no friggin sense.......

[Guest]

My answer is hekk no! I have read some pretty lame, and useless pieces of decroated crap from VBS nerds.

PS: Frogstar's reason for no VBS is just another piece of crap, that really makes no friggin sense.......

well obviously you must be from china where copyright laws dont exist. If you read carefully as to why I voted no, you would see that I dont like morons screaming that someone should go steal code and give it to the community. ... sorry if ILLEGAL doesnt make sense to you....

PS. AgentJonathan has nothing to add to this topic but his own stupidity

[shadow 6]

My proposal is if AgentJonathan and djfrogstar cant discuss without insulting eachother they wont be allowed to discuss anything.

[Guest]

My proposal is if AgentJonathan and djfrogstar cant discuss without insulting eachother they wont be allowed to discuss anything.  

It wasnt my intention, I stated my opinion why I voted NO.

and that was because of users blatantly suggesting that code should be STOLEN and handed out... Robin hood mentality

This was my reason for saying no...

If agentjonathan cant except my opinion, he can pm me.

I think he just didnt get the concept of 40 euros vs 1500 euros and the analogy i gave. It was way too confusing and over his head, so he left a friendly PS flamebait.

[shinRaiden 0]

This whole flaming is the very issue I was aiming at when I created the thread, given that flamewars are the consistent result of any VBS discussion on these forums, is it practical to have any VBS discussion here at all?

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ] is it practical to have any VBS discussion here at all?

No.

2 different worlds collide and people will always be ranting about things from VBS2 they want to have in Arma as they are so "cool" features.

Sure, noone is willing to pay thousands of dollars for the "patch" though

...and the campaign in VBS sucks badly gents

[Heatseeker 0]

My answer is hekk no! I have read some pretty lame, and useless pieces of decroated crap from VBS nerds.

PS: Frogstar's reason for no VBS is just another piece of crap, that really makes no friggin sense.......

This "sample" kind of proves that sensitive discussion isnt much of a possibility most of the time here .

From what i've seen there isnt enough value in VBS2 to justify its availability to gamers (at such a high price) when they can get Arma for €40 (and dropping).

Arma is a very generous product with a very large user base (and hopefully growing).

I dont understand why everyone is getting so hyped about VBS2 . The "diferences" betwean OPF and VBS1 seemed more significant than betwean Arma and VBS2.

Im still going to vote yes .

[*]The engine is the same, both civilian and military will use, edit and modify it, even if the purpose isnt the same the means to achieve are.

[*]Un-mystify VBS, VBS is this, is that, is good, is bad... enough of that please.

You cant go wrong by informing people.