ARMA 2 (OA) : DLC discussion thread

[Banderas 0]

Dumb down often is the wrong way at least when dealing with games that are trying to reflect real life settings.

We're agreeing in that, but unluckily "dumbing down" is a common practice nowadays, so more people can buy and play the "products", see what have been done to the Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six (recently even to Il-2 Sturmovik :()series, opposed to these franchises I see (vanilla) CWC/ArmA series is getting more and more realistic with each newer installation, at least looking at the basic games...But...

Another thing is that videogames can teach you things. Why would you want to teach people that you can “heal†shot wounds on the battlefield, be “revived†on the battlefield or teach them to ignore incapacitated or dead comrades??

...this is something which is rather can be called a "serious game", made specifically for training/teaching purposes, what is not really the purpose of ArmA 2.

Once again I would be happy to have an even more sophisticated injury handling/MEDEVAC system like we saw in the VBS 2 1.30 video, but as we are not governmental organizations having an almost infinite budget to pay for everything, I feel that implementation of such things will be on the shoulders of modders for at least the upcoming few years, in the best case only until the next standalone DVD expansion...

On the other hand, I remember there was a nice feature in Full Spectrum Warrior Ten Hammers, where if a team member gets shot, then the team has to bring him to an evacuate point, put him into a vehicle and after a random replacement soldier will take his position. I think that is something similar to what you would like to have in the game?

[Pvt.Reaper 8]

I would like to see a DLC that expands on the tank combat game play, make it more realistic.

[twisted 128]

I would like to see a DLC that expands on the tank combat game play, make it more realistic.

+1. also air combat as the potential arma2 has here is awesome. never was a fan of the airside much, but recently bought a new joystick and wow, it is lots more engaging than i thought. especially in supporting ground troops role.

Edited November 1, 2010 by twisted

[JojoTheSlayer 35]

I would like to see DLC that regardless of the single player content add units that blance the sides in MP PvP like death match, team death match or CTI etc.

A few issues that comes to mind is:

****************************

Air vs Air in CTI and Ground vs Air in CTI.

A west mirror to the Tunguska. For example the Flakpanzer Gepard and a East VTOL airplane to counter the Harrier and F-35 like the YAK-41.

[stupidwhitekid75 11]

I would like to see DLC that regardless of the single player content add units that blance the sides in MP PvP like death match, team death match or CTI etc.

A few issues that comes to mind is:

****************************

Air vs Air in CTI and Ground vs Air in CTI.

A west mirror to the Tunguska. For example the Flakpanzer Gepard and a East VTOL airplane to counter the Harrier and F-35 like the YAK-41.

Wouldn't creating a mirror to whatever unit make this game exactly like every other thats out there? I thought the whole point of CTI was to use what you have effectively to take over the map..not have symmetrical warfare against another force.

[JojoTheSlayer 35]

Wouldn't creating a mirror to whatever unit make this game exactly like every other thats out there? I thought the whole point of CTI was to use what you have effectively to take over the map..not have symmetrical warfare against another force.

Rather have the mission builder make that choice than it being forced on everyone. Asymmetric fighting is fun, but I also like symmetric fighting... and both sides have to be balanced for that to happen.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

It's also bloody hard to make missions based on asymmetry. For coop, it may become impossible to at least play west, because you can't "keep up" with units to fight without straining the server too much (or making it a low playercount mission). For PvP, I hear there are few who likes to play east - everyone wants the tec. I'm not a PvP player though.

If relatively balanced (each side should still have their own uniqueness though) between the main factions, you can still achieve asymmetric fighting by chosing one of the lesser factions available.

[stupidwhitekid75 11]

I guess if BIS released an OPFOR DLC that was as well equipped as the US forces then the problem would mostly be solved, wouldn't it?

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Actually, no, it wouldn't Because it would only affect missions where they are actively used. Typically few public games use these in order to remain addon/DLC free. At least that goes for the stuff I do.

I think we have to wait for the next game.

[JojoTheSlayer 35]

Actually, no, it wouldn't Because it would only affect missions where they are actively used. Typically few public games use these in order to remain addon/DLC free. At least that goes for the stuff I do.

I think we have to wait for the next game.

Thats BS.

Most servers I play on now, be it CTI, COOP, PVP or similar, has a Jackal or a Wildcat in the mission somewhere. So adding vanilla DLC to tech balance the sides for missions or PVP etc would actually work, I think.

[stupidwhitekid75 11]

Looking through Q&A on BI's wiki I find this..

Q: "Rumors have been increasing that BI is getting "burned out" on the ArmA series and that OA could be the last ArmA product we see for a very long time. Is there any truth to this?"

A: "It is correct that BI is not planing to work exclusively on military simulations, but it is not true that BI is planning to move away from this genre."

http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Ask_Bohemia_about_A2OA_-_Answers#About_Bohemia_Interactive

I don't know about anyone else but it kind of gives me the impression DLC is all it's going to be anymore...at least for awhile anyways.

[maddogx 13]

A: "It is correct that BI is not planing to work exclusively on military simulations, but it is not true that BI is planning to move away from this genre."

http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Ask_Bohemia_about_A2OA_-_Answers#About_Bohemia_Interactive

I don't know about anyone else but it kind of gives me the impression DLC is all it's going to be anymore...at least for awhile anyways.

I don't see how you came to that impression. BI's answer contains exactly two pieces of information:

1. BI will no longer be working exclusively on military sims.

2. They definitely are not moving away from the milsim genre.

None of the above supports the conclusion you have drawn.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Thats BS.

Most servers I play on now, be it CTI, COOP, PVP or similar, has a Jackal or a Wildcat in the mission somewhere. So adding vanilla DLC to tech balance the sides for missions or PVP etc would actually work, I think.

No, not BS ;) Depends very much where you stand. If you support DLC, then naturally you'll play wherever. But for those of us that never bought that whole DLC idea, we're pretty much stuck without. And if I see those units on a server, I just quit. What I do typically involves a very small platoon (even combined roles to bring the playercount down as much as possible), and such small sizes doesn't allow me to mix and match factions if I want the mission to remain credible (at least in that respect).

However, I might allow myself to mix in a new DLC based opfor in a coop game to balance things out a little, despite the really bad looks. Might. I have to see how it looks, and especially feels, first.

One of my biggest hopes for Arma3 (not suitable in scope for a DLC) is that we should be able to build our own "sides and factions". Any unit and hardware can be set to any side and faction, using setObjectTexture. With that in mind, I could make textures suiting whatever country, using stock models. Like Egyptian forces, which have equipment both from west and east. Or a fictional force using vanilla equipment and textures. Currently that would require an addon.

2. They definitely are not moving away from the milsim genre.

They wouldn't dare :p

Edited November 3, 2010 by CarlGustaffa

[stupidwhitekid75 11]

I don't see how you came to that impression. BI's answer contains exactly two pieces of information:

1. BI will no longer be working exclusively on military sims.

2. They definitely are not moving away from the milsim genre.

None of the above supports the conclusion you have drawn.

I wouldn't say that.

In my post I said it sounds like "DLC is all it's going to be anymore...at least for awhile anyways." I think by not working on something exclusively, they mean that they won't be releasing ArmA 3 in the next two years or so like they did with A1 to A2. By not moving away from the milsim genre, they're working on these DLC's and expanding upon the game for us in multiple ways.

That being said, I feel like it does support my conclusion.

And in all honesty, I would be angry if they came out with ArmA 3, unless it was an expansion to A2/OA. A2 is pretty solid as is and has great potential, why wouldn't they put time and effort into perfecting it the best they can before they would release A3 (assuming A3 would be a whole new version of the game, not some expansion)?

[maddogx 13]

I wouldn't say that.

In my post I said it sounds like "DLC is all it's going to be anymore...at least for awhile anyways." I think by not working on something exclusively, they mean that they won't be releasing ArmA 3 in the next two years or so like they did with A1 to A2. By not moving away from the milsim genre, they're working on these DLC's and expanding upon the game for us in multiple ways.

That being said, I feel like it does support my conclusion.

I guess that does make sense, although there's still a lot of speculation in there. Remember that BIS recently acquired a number of other dev studios, so their overall manpower has increased.

And in all honesty, I would be angry if they came out with ArmA 3, unless it was an expansion to A2/OA. A2 is pretty solid as is and has great potential, why wouldn't they put time and effort into perfecting it the best they can before they would release A3 (assuming A3 would be a whole new version of the game, not some expansion)?

Search for posts made by BIS devs in the beta patch forums and you will find they often explain why certain features cannot (and will not) be implemented in Arma2. Some engines changes may risk breaking other aspects of the game, potentially creating numerous new problems that need to be fixed. Some features would require too much dev time themselves to justify incorporating them into a free patch and would take too much dev time away from other important things like bug fixes.

One example is loading and unloading addons while the game is running. In this post, Maruk explained why this will never happen in Arma2. But we may see it in Arma3. :D

[JojoTheSlayer 35]

...But for those of us that never bought that whole DLC idea...

Dosent really change the fact that there is allot of servers running DLC content. I would actually argue that maybe most servers had some of it in there missions, even if its only the rifles. I mean, if you run a Arma 2 server you most likely have the funds and will to get the DLC.

The group that wont buy DLC because they wont buy anything online is probably a shrinking minority. I am not totally sure, but I think even you said or agreed with someone saying that you would buy the DLC if it came out on a combo DLC disk in a physical store... Which, if correct, kinda adds to my point that DLC on servers isnt uncommon. Besides, the quality of the stuff is client side anyway.

Just wished they took the time to fix the 12,7mm, wildcat autogun etc sounds. Maybe the new autoshutgun will sound like a 9mm pistol for the next 6 months after release of DLC "2".

[dm 9]

Not to mention the way BIS does it everybody has the DLC anyway...

[CriminalMinds 10]

New PMC vid!

[papanowel 120]

Nice video :) , especially the end.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Nice video :) , especially the end.

True, nice vid.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

@DM: Ehm, no. Everyone doesn't have the DLC, but we are not locked out of a server that runs it. It's a pretty good way to do it, sure. With the reticles being a blurry mess, it rips away my ability to fight, especially true if all we get are DLC weapons. Texture resolutions will be doubled for BAF Lite in the next full version, hopefully that will improve matters some. I couldn't care less about textures, they just make things look ugly. But I'd like full res reticles and american voice replacement instead of uberlow british voices. But, that's just me :)

@JojoTheSlayer: I know we are a shrinking part. It's not about the money, but the principle. It may be a stupid principle on my account, that doesn't matter, it is what it is. The solution from BIS was pretty damn good, and without them doing it that way I would be gone already. Point is I don't need BAF or PMC to have a good time in the game. There are still some fairly major issues with vanilla content that is ignored because of focus on DLC (I'm guessing that's the reason). I'll buy the gold version in the store if it one day comes and support all the DLCs that way.

Remember that BIS recently acquired a number of other dev studios, so their overall manpower has increased.

Oh, wasn't aware of that. Must have had my head buried in some other thread :p Thx for the heads up.

[BF2_Trooper 0]

Is it too much to ask for a DLC that gives us Desert camoflage and paint schemes for USMC units? This would be extremely useful for those of us that has Combined Ops. Yes I'm aware that people have already made add-ons of this, but not everyone downloads certain add-ons. If British Forces already get camo and paint schemes for every enviroment, why not do the same for the USMC? This would have to be a free DLC ofcourse, unless it comes with a new campaign featuring the Marines in Takistan.

Edited November 5, 2010 by BF2_Trooper

[TechnoTerrorist303 10]

What bf2 trooper said and I have said several times before. The USMC needs reskinning with desert camo and the US Army needs reskinning with woodland camo for people with combined ops. I know the people with OA only or both games uncombined (why would you do this?) will moan but if they want to get the maximum replayability and variety out of the game then they should be getting combined ops anyway.

[BF2_Trooper 0]

What bf2 trooper said and I have said several times before. The USMC needs reskinning with desert camo and the US Army needs reskinning with woodland camo for people with combined ops. I know the people with OA only or both games uncombined (why would you do this?) will moan but if they want to get the maximum replayability and variety out of the game then they should be getting combined ops anyway.

Well only the US Army vehicles I guess, not the troops since ACU is what their going to be using for all enviroments for the forseeable future.

[stupidwhitekid75 11]

Well only the US Army vehicles I guess, not the troops since ACU is what their going to be using for all enviroments for the forseeable future.

Actually I thought the same thing about the ACU, turns out it's not true. The Army is actually going to be fielding multicam to soldiers to better suit woodland environments and terrains like those found in Afghanistan. In fact the 173rd Airborne in A-stan has already been equipped with them. Be nice for BI to switch the current list and do what they did for BAF, one set for desert, the other for woodland. They could cover all the vehicles too.