metalcraze
-
Content Count
5281 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
Posts posted by metalcraze
-
-
^^Most of the time you are not close enough to tell if the guy is friendly (would you really close in on a static defense with a thermal vision to check?). It's the same as with vehicles. You determine if they are friendly/enemy by a silhouette and a sound they make.
Try morning/twilight/night and especially with NVGs which make everything the same color (try telling green opfor camo from green greenfor camo in nvg from afar) it's really hard at times. And it shouldn't be. What's to say about a static gun that is exactly the same for everybody and you will just see a silhouette of a guy behind it.
The only way for BIS to save face is to start working on replacements ASAP and get rid of crappy balance where everybody has the same vehicle. Why everybody (even "republic of altis") has the same drones all of a sudden? Balancing taken to a mega ridiculous extreme?
-
So BIS didn't even bother to reskin (which in itself is bad) static weapons?
I mean it's already hard telling friendly vehicles from enemies unless it's a bright day and you have binos but how are we going to tell which static weapon is friendly?
Regardless the original post is very spot on. Nice work OP, you nailed it perfectly.
-
just with the the absence of a campaign and a slight hole in the military and civilian arsenals which BIS has already stated they will plug, for free.Just the absence of campaign. Oh what a minor thing.
Slight hole? You mean like having only 1.5 sides where only one side really has its vehicles and for everybody else it's just reskins of them?
And BIS never said they will plug anything. They said "maybe but no promises".
I bet they will never bother un-copy-pasting the present content - so what if they will add a plane or two a year post release? That won't fix the game.
While I was disappointed with the dev release, thinking there would be a little more, I'm really not too upset about it. BIS will address these issues, given past experience, but at least at the moment most of us can play the game in a stable matter, which is a lot more than it was with Arma 2 and especially Arma 1 which were basically broken upon release. This game's good and it's only going to get better.Except the release of ArmA3 was technically on 5th of March and it took exactly the same amount of time as ArmA2 to make it playable.
Yet ArmA2 has a lot more features and content.
-
Updating older content takes less time than creating new one from scratch in any case.
Reuse (but update) old content if needed, just make sides unique.
For example M2 Browning is in service for 80 years now and will not go anywhere anytime soon. It's very plausible that many of the outstanding tech in use today will be in use in 20 years.
Seeing stuff like Bradley with better / A3 style camo texture in its unique place will be much more pleasing than taking chassis from Marid and turret from Kamysh and calling it a new vehicle.
-
Yeah I remember saying that shooting with HAMRs & Co takes more skill now. Yet cons (named above) outweigh that by FAR. Also don't forget that on the other hand sniper rifles were made a lot more broken since they have no recoil now and zeroing of up to 2.3 kms.
Sure killing targets while having "3D" scopes is harder yet does it really make up for everybody having mostly the same guns (and even loadouts) as their sworn enemies?
-
Think that's a fairly broad breakdown of where the huge list of Arma 2 content originated. Some of it might be wrong, but what I remember of various pics of Arma 1 and Game 2 content it seems that a lot of recycling got done in previous titles, and Arma 3 has many many more new assets built from the ground up to a correct standard for the game.There's nothing wrong with taking old content and updating it with better textures and more detail overall (which however isn't the case with L-159). What matters is the end result. ArmA2 had 5 sides and all were mostly unique.
ArmA3 basically has 1.5 sides.
You don't see a lot of complaints about takistani content being recycled on Altis now do you? That's the point. If it fits it fits.
When sides are not only "balanced" to be 1:1 copies of each other even down to loadouts but also look the same - it just doesn't fit. There's simply no excuse that makes it fit.
I think there's even a screenshot showing A2 MLRS vehicles in ArmA3 firing rockets. Yet they got replaced by a crappy frankenstein's monster that makes zero sense in a final version.
-
Busy with fish and sea turtles maybe?Imagine how much more content and features we could have if it wasnt for all the resources being spent on the whole underwater thingie.
It's not even underwater that's the issue since it was done a year ago. Remember how they've spent time adding gimmicky 3D scopes a few months back?
OK they look better than 2D overlay but with them comes a ton of issues - like impossible to read markers on scopes, magnification of the area outside the scope which is seen better than the stuff inside the dirty scope etc.
And honestly if you run out of time and you already had to resort to copy paste (see cars) to pad vehicle/weapon numbers what option would you choose?
A) artists making gimmicky 3D scopes that aren't really 3D scopes
B) artists making more vehicle weapons so sides are more unique
I doubt detail and effort wise they are much different but why, why would you pick A?
-
... where to start?guess we're bad bad for allowing AiA and supporting it ...
AiA is adding content from previous games. It isn't exactly related to the issue at hand.
is it fair to count all A2 vehicle variants against A3 non variants (or as some who count CO vs A3 (technically 2 games and 3 DLCs))Actually A2 unique vehicles were counted vs. what A3 has. That was the point. Even A2 alone offers a lot more unique stuff than A3 (oh and it has cockpits for APCs too as a bonus).
nonsense about models c&p (w/o even opening them to compare shapes)Well duh Scorcher has a pair of canisters on the side of its turret but otherwise the turret is completely the same as on OPFOR arty.
GREENFOR APC is just a chassis copy-pasted from Marid and turret from Kamysh. And examples can go on and go on.
I mean some vehicles don't even have a hatch for a gunner with MLRS making it even more ridiculous without having a space for a gunner (because it's obviously quickly put together vehicle consisting of Merkava's chassis and A2 MLRS launcher) yet having a gunner. Honestly if BIS had no time or something - simply updating textures on A2 MLRS would've been more than enough.
Many weapons on vehicles are exactly the same too with 1:1 loadouts.
I can understand if there is some major reason for all that but saying there's no copy-paste is being in denial.
anyway ...there is some valid critic (wish it was more of that and less ranting) and things and changes are coming but as there is certain 'no promises' policy
i can't promise ;) but i can grin and throw on you goodies {hint who remember me saying stuff coming}... :p
there is lot to fix, improve and deliver ...
Sadly "no promises" policy thus far seems to mean "you can forget about it"
-
Something interesting:T-100 - doesn't have machine gun for gunner!! But has for commander....
M2A1 - doesn't have machine gun for commander.. but has one for gunner...
WHAT THE ....??
Probably a leftover from the time when BIS wanted to go 2 men crew for tanks or something.
The same reason why commander's hatch was sealed shut on AMV with commander optics absent until the complaints.
Commander space certainly feels quickly tacked on Merkava. Empty space for coaxial MG on the turret, no commander's gun, only one hatch. When I pressed F which would've normally been commander's weapon switch it crashed the game.
Also IIRC Merkava is actually a 4 men crew tank. Yet 4th guy is missing.
In 1.63 beta for ArmA2 they've added dedicated thermal optics for a loader I think (apart from him having a dedicated MG!) making him quite useful. So tanks in ArmA3 are definitely a giant step back from that.
-
I can't go back to A2 no matter what, A3 feels much better in almost every sense and I'm pretty sure a good chunk of people feel the same way - and the game isn't even done yet! Is it perfect? Nope - the medical system in particular is something that I really miss - but at least I feel playing it and having much less frustration while doing so. If you don't see the giant potential the game has now more than ever, oh well.
Well the game is done now. And look at those vehicles. Sure playing as infantry is smoother... until you encounter absolutely ridiculous superhuman abilities of soldiers. But having any kind of combined ops mission is boring since everybody has exactly the same vehicles and weapons on them.
I even bet people will be blowing up these "new" vehicles which will be friendly under low light / bad weather conditions since they are indistinguishable between blufor and opfor. Both visually and in loadouts.
Potential? There would've been potential if the game was a step forward not a giant leap back. You can't be sure it has the potential to ever be on par with ArmA2 with many features simply not being in the engine anymore.
Of course I don't doubt that ArmA3 is more appealing to people who just want to jump onto a random server and simply run n gun with enemies being exactly the same but wearing a different texture. After all they are whom ArmA3 is aimed at.
But a tactically rich realistic game it is not.
Showcases? Who cares about them anyway?I certainly do (and I guess BIS too since they keep making them even though the results are absolutely terrible). I want a good SP content for once. But I guess it doesn't matter?
-
Merkava tank fires its MG out of an empty space on the turret side that has no gun in it.
And just like with MLRS there's also no gunner hatch. Yet it has a gunner.
Comedy gold dev branch update.
-
Well at least it's closer to the human player's authentic prone rotation. So improvement.
-
Today's update has bursted "quality over quantity" bubble for good.
"RO2 has 2 vehicles? Well if those dudes just put the turret from one onto another they would've had 4 already!" - a mathematics master class by Bohemia Interactive "ArmA3 has 40 vehicles"
-
What's with the arty overall? Both BLUFOR and OPFOR have exactly the same arty vehicle save for chassis which is naturally copy pasted from other vehicles in the game?
-
Also you still can use NVGs and optics together despite the addition of new ones making them redundant.
-
BIS took the top from ArmA2's MLRS and put it on top of Merkava (which itself seems to be missing a coax mg although it has a spot for it) - MLRS 2035 ready. Truly a hard work.
Where is gunner's hatch there? How does a gunner get in or get out?
-
“Patience you must have my young padawanâ€.Sorry for the Yoda crap, but it really fits the situation. :cool:
Also note that those features were never in-game before, simply wished.
Personally, I want an advanced battlefield Clearence & First Aid solution but, the old Arma 2 scripted system was not good enough, and a scripted solution. We would like to have it in engine (better performance, more consistent, more advanced), but such a move requires a lot more work, but a better outcome.
Arma 2 system was also a no go because it was designed around the obsolete, badly designed RE system, had major JIP problems and simply wasn't good enough.
OK. Thank you for the explanation. Although it still doesn't help that even the basic OFP system was completely ruined with the addition of FAKs making medics a thing of the past.
And it seems there are no plans to get rid of them / add better system.
-
In that case please tell us how ArmA3 originally was considering that before the shift stuff like encumbrance, improved flight system (TOH FM) and improved advanced medic system was promised and instead in ArmA3 right now we got many existing features simplified/gone and no plans to get them back to at least ArmA2 standards.
A simple and clear statement from a dev will put this issue and speculation to rest once and for all.
-
Because A1\2 releases were really awesome with all that official content who everybody played. :j:I always played official content. It's part of the game after all. Some of it was good, some of it was terrible.
Doesn't mean they should not improve and just charge you money for nothing.
At least they're making official what was known by the community last time and providing a more solid base game (except for MP) from the start.I'm sorry what? ArmA3 thus far is inferior in almost everything to ArmA2 and 'solid base game (except for MP)' - have you forgotten it has no SP either but atrocious handholding-heavy CoD-like showcases apart from having a ton of features simply cut out?
-
A large majority including myself never want to see "balance" in Arma 3. Some things will always be more powerful than others, you have to survive, adapt and then win.Ugh huh. Except in ArmA3 a .50 cal sniper rifle has a lot less recoil than a 5.56 carbine. Why? Because new ArmA3 team 'balanced' it like that so that it's easy to snipe using optics where any recoil would seem 10x times higher due to magnification which in turn causes a ton of issues with realism effectively eliminating any skill involved in aiming sniper rifles and making them laser precise with ironsights. MX SW (which is MX with a bipod) also has no semi-auto fire and other MX rifles cannot accept its 100 bullet mags. Another example of arcade balancing just to give BLUFOR a dedicated MG without making a new model of an actual MG for them.
So your statement would've been true for original trilogy, but not for ArmA3.
-
The article only reinforces the suspicion that DayZ basically killed ArmA3.
-
Myke]It is not valid to claim that MP is nonexistant just because the offered missions wont fit ones personal interests.It is valid to claim that official MP content is non-existent because it simply is. And it's not just PvP missions that are missing.
BIS is charging $60 for a game that has next to no SP content (showcases are just absolutely terrible compared to single missions in any other game in the series), a few quickly thrown together MP missions and a lot less playable content than ArmA2.
It's not some $20-30 DIY game, it's AAA pricing.
-
Before bipods will make sniper rifles stable when prone there should be the addition of a wind.
Sniper rifles are already badly broken (apart from the lack of wind they have almost zero recoil - which is ridiculous for a .50 cal) and with Altis not having a lot of concealment they are already a problem. Give them complete stabilization and there will be no better weapon to use since due to the lack of aforementioned recoil (and no collision model) they are like slug shotguns in CQB too, not just a long range weapon.
Bipods for MGs are most certainly welcome. But they need to fix MX SW first which still has no semi-auto fire. And OPFOR's MG has it for some reason even though it should be vice versa.
-
But I remember RiE saying that after latest patches game turned much more into A2 gameplay than it was previously planned.
Actually ArmA3 was going to be more like ArmA2 before the shift when DayZ came out. That's why it was advertised as a simulation before and now any words like 'realism' are completely dropped from the game (replaced with 'streamlining'/'accessibility') and it plays a lot more arcade (no need for medics/ammo bearers/ridiculous load carry capacity/unrealistic movement). With all this I would be very surprised if TOH FM is even mentioned at their brainstorm sessions.
Disapointed with the full release content
in ARMA 3 - BETA DISCUSSION
Posted
Well why don't they just give away their engine for free if we are supposed to make our own/install somebody else's content for it?
After all you can do the same with UDK and it's free.
Last time I've checked CoD always delivers what it promises. I don't think there's anybody expecting anything else but a team deathmatch shooter with a "cinematic" campaign from it.
How about comparing A3 to comparable games?
Like for $25 you can buy A2 CO and it will offer a lot more content in vanilla than $60 ArmA3 that forces you to install mods to be somewhat enjoyable.
Even A2 on release (at $50) offered a LOT more.