Quality vs Quantity

[Dwarden 1125]

i want balance :)

aka playability, usability, variability, enjoyability

sadly You completely forgot that option thus the poll is sorta useless

[50.cal 10]

Yes the stock product is very good. It just need to be a bit polished now.

And it seems that's what we're getting with OA. According to the official videos we can now see that some efforts have been put in order to simulate some weapon systems better than before.

I'm not an expert but the Javelin optic and the AH-64D HUD seem to be looking closer to their real counterparts now.

I just hope that the same level of attention has been given to all weapon systems and optics this time ; )

Finally to make a long story short, I think I could definitely live without the bicycles ; )

Quality.

[Nightrain 10]

I like both in terms of game, who doesn't?

However, in terms of mods I go for quality, thats why I only use 10 (vehicles, inf, and a few misc things) but they are 10 of the best.

[chefd261 0]

Have to say I agree with several points in this thread but above all I need stability and functionality in the mods I use for me I don't put much into eye candy and don't care if X bolt is where Y bolt should be in the real world I want something that is more than just a nice texture on a nice model.I need a functional reason to get it.Just my two cents

Cheer's ChefD

[anguis 4]

Quantity has a quality all of its own...

My sentiments exactly. Given the totality of what BIS has done (and is doing), their quantity is high quality.

For mods and missions: quality, be it in visual detail (optimized, cf. Sanctuary's OFP efforts), gameplay enhancements, campaign story presentation, etc. . .

[Alex72 1]

A mix for me too. But yes quality weights a bit more. For example having 10 tanks with vanilla functions or get 2 RHS style (BMD's) i would go with option nr 2 personally. However a balance between the two makes me very satisfyed. Content for contents sake doesnt attract me so much. If i went for that i would have even more addons than i have - wich is a lot. :)

[Inkompetent 0]

Quality, as long as there is base quantity, which I'd say ArmA2 per default has covered. So on top of what's in basic ArmA2, gief quality!

I like to go "WOW!" the first time I use an addon, but then I want to... well... it should feel so natural and well done that I don't think about it. A lack of defects, so to say. Nothing I can notice is wrong, bad, or disturbs me in any way.

I don't like having a ton of addons. Sure, I download most of them, but I rarely touch them. I have a few pet addons that I keep running, then a few more just to get into servers although I wouldn't use them otherwise. Most weapon and unit addons are pointless to me. They just add a different flavour that I soon won't notice, and that doesn't actually make any difference. In the end, does it matter if I shoot CDF soldiers with this or that texture on them? Hardly so.

Features and polish though! That I like. Stuff like my own addon for disposable launchers, addons for fixed ballistics, okt_noblur, WarFX, fast-roping, vehicles that actually bring new features such as the BMD-1 and BMD-2 addons, barrel fixes (shooting out of all barrels on multi-barrel weapon systems), the Chernarus electrical grid, a whole truckload of features within ACE, and a lot more in that direction. That's the shizzle!

Same with CBA, really. Or more specifically Extended Eventhandlers. That is my favourite addon of all times. I still can't understand why BIS hasn't built in a similar system as default in ArmA2 considering XEH has existed since early ArmA1. It is the mother of all fantastic addons!

[Evil_Echo 11]

i want balance :)

aka playability, usability, variability, enjoyability

sadly You completely forgot that option thus the poll is sorta useless

To follow-on to this. How do you define quality?

Rifles that have exquisite detailing are great for making vids, but if I engage the guy from >500m I'll never notice the difference.

What about a mod feature that adds more "realism", but lags the heck out of the game? I went through that dilemma with my designs for nukes and can't say where the perfect balance point is.

As far as the poll question - I just don't know.

[evilnate 0]

A high quality addon/mod will get used be the community.

A low quality addon will get loaded in someone's mission editor and played with for about 10 min, then thrown away.

Quantity of mods and addons will accumulate over time.

[galzohar 31]

Well quality of course refers to all quality standards. If something fits 1 quality standard (say looks) but doesn't fit another (say, realism or performance) it simply isn't considered "quality" in the overall sense which is what matters in the end.

[SASrecon 0]

Easier done than said:

I'd rather have ultra-smooth gameplay with very high quality objects and terrain than stuttery blobs.

End of.

:D

But yea, EvilNate has a really good point. The only addons I'm playing with now are the really nice-looking ones, even if they're slightly buggy - they look sooo good^^

[galzohar 31]

The question was whether or not you would like to see better quality or higher quantity, not which aspects of quality do you wish to trade off.

Sure good looks vs functionality vs performance is something that even with infinite amount of work can't be perfectly balanced, but I think the question at hand is whether you'd like to see more addons that do what they do as well as the game allows VS just seeing more addons that do a larger variety of things.

[D00mbuggy 10]

In Quality vs Quantity ArmA II seems much more focused on the quantity. There's no point in having 20 civilian vehicles if all of them handled the same. There could have been 5 vehicles though, polished with gear shift and realistic traction and physics. Instead of having hundreds of varients of guns, we could have had fewer guns with more options(flashlight, laser, detachable scope). If ArmA II focused more on quality, it would have been much better.

[james mckenzie-smith 1]

The civilian vehicles do not all handle the same way, just pretty close. Excluding real world, specialized vehicles like Gallardos and Porches, that is actually not that far off the way it is in real life. A ten year old Corolla's handling is not too far off a brand new Focus, for most purposes. Additionally, there is plenty of reason to have many different civvy vehicles. It's going to look pretty silly if someone makes a scenario that includes a VCP, and everybody is driving a white trabant or something.

As for realistic gear shifts etc., perhaps you are mistaking the concept of quality with complexity. Provided your controller is not porked, the vehicles should handle more or less as you would expect a civvy vehicle should, if realistically driven. Nearer the limits, it is not quite as good, but then, this is not rFactor. Why should it be? Almost everything is simplified, and given the number of assets and the purpose of the game, that is as it should be. Do you really imagine that the realism of what you consider polished shift and realistic traction could be maintained with all assets in the game? Do you expect Falcon 4.0 avionics and flight models for the FWAC? A recreation of Longbow 2 for the RWAC? Forward assist on the M-4s? Steel Beasts ProPE standard FCS on all of the vehicles? If they included these things, who would have the time to become proficient on more than one or two weapons systems, or one more than one or two aspects of warfare?

This game simulates a lot of things, and it at least gives a taste for each thing, in a manner that is at least somewhat reasonable. Of course it is not perfect - some aspects more so than others - but in terms of being a light, accessible sim, there's quality there if you allow yourself to recognise that your own definition of quality is by no means universal.

[50.cal 10]

Almost everything is simplified, and given the number of assets and the purpose of the game, that is as it should be.

Hence the question of whether having more of simplified assets or less and better simulated ones.

Do you really imagine that the realism of what you consider polished shift and realistic traction could be maintained with all assets in the game?

Same answer as before.

Do you expect Falcon 4.0 avionics and flight models for the FWAC? A recreation of Longbow 2 for the RWAC? Forward assist on the M-4s? Steel Beasts ProPE standard FCS on all of the vehicles? If they included these things, who would have the time to become proficient on more than one or two weapons systems, or one more than one or two aspects of warfare?

I don't think it's possible atm but that would be ace!

There's no need to be proficient in all classes. This would push ppl to train with what they're good at.

Give me a plane or a chopper correctly simulated and you'll see what I mean.

[james mckenzie-smith 1]

Hence the question of whether having more of simplified assets or less and better simulated ones.

The assumption being made here is that complexity equals quality, or that quality lies in procedural accuracy, rather than how well something integrates into its virtual world. That is open to some debate, and I would argue that complexity for its own sake does not add either to game play, nor does it actually guarantee realism. It certainly does not guarantee quality, if badly implemented.

There's no need to be proficient in all classes. This would push ppl to train with what they're good at.

That would be the antithesis of the freedom that ArmA2 offers. One of the great liberating aspects of BIS games, is the sheer number of options that are presented to a player. With BIS games, I have been a virtual everything, from an Apache pilot, to a tank commander, to a leader of a Spetsnaz team scouring the woods of Everon for guerillas, to a Harrier pilot dropping ordnance on targets in Chernarus. Using mods, I have been the virtual commander of a WW2 mech company, on the run from the NVA in Laos, inserting Ranger teams from an MH60 in the Afghan hills, a leader of an SAS troop in Land Rovers in the Libyan desert, and a commander of an entire US Army tank battalion in VBS2 (with the ability to drop into almost all of the vehicles, at any point in the mission, to fully experience the battle as I designed it).

You seriously think that people should be pushed into training with what they are good at? I cannot agree with that idea at all. That would certainly junk a significant part of my gaming hobby, at any rate. If I wanted to do that, then I would just play individual sims (as a matter of fact, I do play SB Pro PE, but there is a good variety of kit in there, the game is not drowning in switchology for its own sake, and there is a strong command simulation in it, as well).

[50.cal 10]

You seriously think that people should be pushed into training with what they are good at?

Affirm.

I cannot agree with that idea at all. That would certainly junk a significant part of my gaming hobby, at any rate.

I can understand that.

[james mckenzie-smith 1]

Fair enough, then. I'll meet you halfway, and argue in favour of scalable systems/procedures/flight model simulations, to satisfy guys like you who want a realistic heli sim in the Armaverse, and a more survey approach for those who would like a light sim buffet, or the opportunity to perform many roles over the course of a single long scenario.

That said, I think that it will be a long time before you are satisfied (if ever), whereas the status quo is pretty good to me right now, especially with the OA improvements that we have read about.

Edited May 31, 2010 by James McKenzie-Smith

[Laqueesha 474]

Fair enough, then. I'll meet you halfway, and argue in favour of scalable systems/procedures/flight model simulations, to satisfy guys like you who want a realistic heli sim in the Armaverse, and a more survey approach for those who would like a light sim buffet, or the opportunity to perform many roles over the course of a single long scenario.

Not realistic, but decent. The current flight system in ArmA 2 is okay, but could be better. Many people will point out the fact that ArmA 2 is not a flight simulator, but why bother putting in aircraft if not modelled and implemented correctly? ;)

That said, I think that it will be a long time before you are satisfied (if ever), whereas the status quo is pretty good to me right now, especially with the OA improvements that we have read about.

It's not a case of satisfaction, but more of a case of improving the game from its current state. We're not bashing the game, but simplying pointing out errors and offering solutions to them, as we all want to see the game improved as much as the next bloke.

[james mckenzie-smith 1]

Many people will point out the fact that ArmA 2 is not a flight simulator, but why bother putting in aircraft if not modelled and implemented correctly?

Well, even then, how can we agree what is correct, in the context of ArmA2? From the standpoint of the man on the ground, the helis flying overhead look like they are flying realistically, apart from the odd AI cock-up that is more to do with the AI, than the modelling of the Heli (and even this looks better in OA). For the people in the cockpits, some will consider the FM to be too hard, some think that it is way too easy, and for others, it's the porridge that Goldilocks chose. Ditto, systems modelling.

There is no objectively correct method of simulating helis across the board. In ArmA2, the current method of heli simulation is not at odds with the other aspects of the simulated battlespace, so I would argue that, if it is not truly correct by some standards, it is close enough. For me, a non-helicopter pilot in real life, the helis perform roughly as I would expect them to, while not proving an undue challenge that detracts from the overall survey game play experience.

We're not bashing the game, but simplying pointing out errors and offering solutions to them, as we all want to see the game improved as much as the next bloke.

Understood. Of course, BIS's challenge is to balance the needs of a diverse community that has wildly variable expectations, with their own vision, resources, and need to make a living making the games we play and conduct friendly debates about. I think that the baseline that they offer is a good compromise of quantity and quality, and they have given modders the ability to tweak it somewhat for those who want certain features introduced, emphasized, or changed.

I think that those are my last words on the subject for now.

May all of your real lives be peaceful and full of bliss, and may your virtual lives be full of blood, stratagems, and wars.

[bravo 6 0]

QUALITY should be the option for all people because without quality on the addons, these addons will become problem to the game..

There are alot of people making addons and don't know how to correctly build them and how to correctly use the O2 program. Numerous people build addons, islands and they don't know how to correctly set it up on O2 and when they are used in ArmA/ArmA2 the game lose performance due to their work or bad O2 settings and options.

There for i think an exhaustive Quality / Detail work is very important to our community!

If people want Quantity / Content, please do them for private purposes and do not share with the community at all, because they will be a pain in the ass in the end and will not promote the true potential of ArmA/ArmA2 engine.

Thank you!

EDIT: Even BI original models have bugs and bad settings in O2, I think BI should concern more about QUALITY / DETAILS then the other way around! STARTING WITH BIS AND THEN THE COMMUNITY!

Edited May 31, 2010 by bravo 6

[galzohar 31]

Better simulated doesn't just mean more procedural. It also means that more things that can happen in real life can happen in game. A great example is the ACE armor system VS the BIS armor system - Can you really compare? ACE system is much better simulated and isn't more procedural (by itself, not talking about ACE FCS here).