metalcraze
-
Content Count
5281 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
Everything posted by metalcraze
-
Does backblast injure?
-
Arma 3 full analysis - The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
metalcraze replied to Polygon's topic in ARMA 3 - BETA DISCUSSION
What do apples have to do with oranges? The point is that there are no game mechanics for a medic system to be improved in any way through mission design. Among whom? Casual players aka the new ArmA standard? Because in ArmA2 getting wounded mattered - got shot, get incapacitated, still able to crawl in pain and shoot though but you are also bleeding out and can die from that. You can be pulled/carried out from combat area to either be given first aid by anyone that doesn't heal injuries or use medic to heal them too. And it took up to 30 seconds making getting shot matter. So how's that better in ArmA3? You are either dead or you still can fight without any problems making medics completely optional and more of a "let's pretend we need a medic" since there are no gameplay mechanics to back that kind of gameplay up anymore. In ArmA2 there were mechanics for realistic play. In ArmA3 we must pretend it's realistic. -
Arma 3 full analysis - The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
metalcraze replied to Polygon's topic in ARMA 3 - BETA DISCUSSION
It can't be changed by a mission design. Simply because nobody will bother. So I'm sorry but "fix it yourself" is not an excuse. And even then we would be stuck with a medic that insta-heals by casting a magical spell and never runs out of supplies. So I'm not sure what's worse. Good for you. Again good for you but I can easily see when soldier falls down in a way that human skeleton simply wouldn't allow. He falls down literally like a ragdoll. Also he drops the weapon too which is another way to see he's truly dead. -
Arma 3 full analysis - The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
metalcraze replied to Polygon's topic in ARMA 3 - BETA DISCUSSION
The player base that asks for that flight model that you wouldn't even notice is there due to a serverside option to switch it on / off? I'm sorry but ArmA playerbase aren't only casual deathmatch players that for some reason should dictate to everyone else how series that should never care about a casual player should be. They improve only pvp gameplay. They hurt every other type of missions where AI is present because as it is AI has trouble using cover with basic 3 stances from ArmA2, yet current A3 stance system makes players simply untouchable. If at least BIS expanded cover memory points to force AI into a more appropriate sub-stance instead of the main three - then it wouldn't be a problem. Not true. Current completely unnatural ragdoll of ArmA3 is very easy to distinguish from a mocapped going prone animation. Shooting soldiers and not killing them doesn't ragdoll them and it doesn't make them fall down. I know it was one of BIS hype points but in reality it made no difference to the gameplay apart from dead soldiers not clipping through walls. Alas Arma3 got rid of bleeding. -
Altis looks disappointing. Another empty desert, more like Takistan 2.0 if anything. Meh. A whole island made for overpowered ArmA snipers. With Arma3 zeroing and lack of wind you either ban sniper rifles from the mission or have your mission ruined. Except seems that Merkava in ArmA3 has none of that.
-
Exactly this. But this is how it was in World Wars and Cold War too - you'd never see any sides being equal, wielding the same weapons. They always came with their own stuff and exploited enemy weaknesses. The point is that Starcraft completely ditches any symmetry and mirroring and yet still remains perfectly balanced for PvP. Yet in case with ArmA3 sides are very much 1:1 copies of each other with the difference being mostly in fluff (this vehicle is exactly like that but can swim, this vehicle is exactly like this but has 2 AA missiles etc)
-
Ironically RTS like Starcraft have an asymmetry between sides to a degree about which ArmA3 can't even dream in its current state
-
Meanwhile DayZ gets item degradation among other things. Now I realize why ArmA3 stopped being advertised as a simulation. Two of them competing among themselves is too much, need only one.
-
I've answered this a few pages back. And before you go "no you must play on Altis first all screenshots, videos and information doesn't count" I will ask you the same question "how do you know it won't be less detailed despite all the info available"? I don't doubt that Altis will be great since BIS always manages to create good environments and thankfully they didn't lose that talent thus far. But it still will be a desert-type island with no lush fields and forests.
-
Is it possible that the info on how ArmA3 originally was planned to be will be revealed someday? Just to compare the vision back then and now.
-
That submarine is just a prop. It's not playable. Not true. Russians had all those cutting edge tech available for their side. AK-10x, T-90, Tunguska. Their bros Chedaki OTOH had dated cold-war era tech like BMP-2 and Shilka. And then compare to US. Whatever similarities there were they were nothing like exactly same HMGs/GMGs installed on both BLUFOR and OPFOR (and even GREENFOR) vehicles down to a point where all 3 sides cars are basically the same with the same weapons and with even the exactly same amount of ammo. Now compare A2 Humvees with Chedaki cars. Or Russian BMP-3 to American LAV-25. And then A3 Marid to Namer. Both BLUFOR and OPFOR use 6.5mm caseless ammo in A3 of all things. All sides use the same reskinned SDV and underwater rifle. I don't see how complex unit customization and vehicle physics make all sides share exactly the same weapons and even loadouts. Physics programmers aren't making weapon models. Except the issue is with the lack of 'new' content. Why don't you think it's possible that higher res textures are created first and then down-scaled to fit into memory limits? Especially when they are made from photos? Gotta consider both options here.
-
There's Stratis which is very much the same asset-wise and then there are also Altis screenshots and videos.
-
Still less content than in ArmA2. Also it's a 'jet' and 'SDV'. ArmA2 also had 5 sides and all were unique. ArmA3 has all sides sharing the same weapons and weapon systems. Let's see. Quality is very much the same except with higher res textures (comes with 2013 vs. 2009) - but at the same time cockpits are gone for APCs. And yet ArmA3 still has less content. Altis? Yes it's bigger but it is also a desert-type island and is way less detailed than Chernarus.
-
There's nothing tin foil hat about it. BIS wanted us to find bugs in a version of a game that is buggy and lacks most of the content, thus they must give people incentive to do this and 50% price drop is what it was. If it was full price a lot less people would've done it. Sure you can say that - if all games you know apart from ArmA3 is Battlefield and free to play. But thankfully the gaming is not that narrow and plus we also have ArmA2 Combined Operations which thus far is a superior game in almost every way. Final means there will be no changes gameplay-wise and bugs are not the problem with ArmA3. It's simplified and axed features that are. Past release date changing loadouts, changing AI, changing medic system WILL break the campaign and all missions that BIS has done thus far. You can repeat this mantra "give them more time" but I've heard it since alpha and it is never true.
-
No he does not, read again. And with all their "post-release" promises I wouldn't be hopeful. Remember apart from missing planes and weapons BIS also has to do a campaign, bipods and TOH FM and whatever else they've promised post-release. There is absolutely no way they are going to make all that happen for free. It took them 3 years to not finish ArmA3. And for people saying "we paid half the price". For some reason you forget that BIS didn't shave off half the price because they are such a caring studio that spends sleepless nights just thinking about the player. They did a -50% discount so they wouldn't have to spend any money on real QA replacing it with us.
-
Please do it. And I personally don't mind game allowing to lift up heavy burden, just not 'unreasonable' burden like it is now. Alwarren is correct about this. Even when max possible load is put on it's still possible to counter the sway all too easily since after you've stopped running the fatigue restores too fast and you are able to hold breath for seconds almost instantly. And since you hold breath after you've generally aimed at an enemy to make the shot more precise - those few seconds are more than enough. How long does it take to reach 100%? Because I don't seem to get there even after relatively long running. If anything it should hit more immediately when heavy load is carried. That's reassuring and hopeful to hear - and I will gladly shut up about the issue after it's fixed :)
-
Meh it's pretty obvious now that BIS is not interested in improving fatigue or limiting loadouts within any reason. They've made it so that you can carry 1 rocket less, pat themselves on the back and called it an "overhaul". We still will have to pretend like we need ammo bearers among other things if we want to play in a realistic way or have any in-game reason to have a teamwork. The more or less realistic inventory limits of ArmA2 made all the difference and they are what makes ArmA2 a superior game in this regard. Guess "casual players" has indeed became a benchmark for everything.
-
This discussion becoming more adequate is good and all but by now sadly it's pretty obvious we will never see suppression implemented.
-
And the difference is? They can still run easily like they don't carry 100 kgs on them. Don't see any difference whatsoever. Carryall backpack and the default vest.
-
I don't see any improvement? It's still possible to carry GM6 Lynx with 12 mags, Titan launcher and 4 rockets for it, pistol and some mags for it. And there's still capacity for more stuff. What exactly has been overhauled here?
-
There should be multiple jets in the release version
metalcraze replied to Marioshata's topic in ARMA 3 - GENERAL
Yeah that's why ACR DLC assets are re-used. There was F-35 in ArmA2, it had perfectly working TAB-Lock (which you call "weapon systems" for some reason) and Jay Crowe was flying it at one of previous E3s in ArmA3 already. Flight model also hasn't changed a single bit in ArmA3 for choppers, why would it be different for planes? The only thing that needed prettying-up was the cockpit perhaps. You are just giving BIS a green light to do stuff like this again. A game will have less content than ArmA2 (excluding OA), and that's an OK thing, yes BIS you did a great job, please do it again and again. -
Read Ghost-TF's post jeez And that was a reply directly to "If any Devs are watching this thread could we please get confirmation of the "Launch Content" list - ie no shotguns, no F-35, no xm-25, no Osprey? " Yes that means 'huge' according to BIS is having one plane. I'm sorry.
-
If official list and dev statements in this very thread aren't enough then how else can I prove it? Don't tell this to me. Tell it to BIS.
-
It is final. Devs don't know if they will introduce anything past release either. It easily has twice the content. Check ArmA2 website and see for yourself. 5 sides (excl. civilians), each having mostly unique weaponry. All ArmA3 sides (which are 3) even share the same weapons on most vehicles and even vehicles themselves (L139, SDV)
-
ArmA2 vanilla? You mean that game that easily has twice the content ArmA3 will have? No it wasn't. It was one of the issues and it was bad yes. But it wouldn't kill the game. Although perhaps you are talking about DayZ