norsu

Are there any plans to add content outside the original OFP? Maybe something similar like the Czech and German units OA.

Changing ammo type could be done without the action menu and specific hotkey (too many mandatory hotkeys isn't a good thing). My suggestion for rapid ammo type change is to hold down reload key which would open a small prompt where you can see different ammo types available. Ammo types would be numbered and pressing the corresponding number would select desired ammo type. If player has only two different ammo types available for the selected weapon, holding down reload key would automatically change ammo type. This method could also be applied to vehicles.

I play classic FPS games a lot and I rarely hit the mouse wheel by accident. Right now it's easier to mess up your weapon selection in A2 than in TF2 for example. I would divide weapons like so by default: 1 = Primary weapon slot, doesn't matter what you have in it à la Call of Pripyat 2 = Secondary weapon slot, doesn't matter what you have in it à la Call of Pripyat 3 = Sidearm slot. For pistols and PDWs 4 = Throwables and bombs like satchels. This can be multiple choices à la Half-Life since players can carry hand grenades, smoke grenades, satchels etc. simultaneously 5 = Special items like binoculars, night vision goggles, bakcpacks etc. Of course hotkeys for very important items like night vision and binoculars would be available too.

In my opinion BIS should ditch the action menu altogether. First person games have had pretty much standardized control scheme since Half-Life. Weapons are selected using mouse wheel, environment and NPCs can be interacted with a universal use key, obstacles are passed with jump and crouch keys etc. I can't see why ARMA 3 couldn't use such familiar control scheme - with needed additions like secondary sights and under barrel weapons of course. For example in ARMA 2 player must use two methods to select weapons (launchers & handgrenades) which is just odd and confuses newcomers. Or when I want to quickly heal someone I would only need to press the use key and not scroll through action menu for first aid action.

If it only were that simple. Reality is however that ARMA 3 will get tons of mods starting from the release day. The surge of mods will no doubtly cause problems again in multiplayer, especially among new players. There simply needs to be some kind of system that will ease mod management. I believe most of these people can't be bothered because they just want to play the game they have just bought. And when they ask about mods, they realize that it's not going to be just as simple as downloading an installer and running it.

Well with low learning curve I ment something like what was done in OFP campaign. The first couple missions are very simple and require the player to just follow their squad. Missions get harder and more functions are introduced as the players progresses. More functions like squad leading increase the difficulty steeply but at that point player should be fairly confident already. ARMA 2 campaign threw the player into role of a squad leader from the beginning and worst of all you couldn't even take losses.

The basic principle is very easy. Make ARMA 3 more accessible while retaining the uniqueness of the series. How to achieve that should be the main question here :). Improving animations and movement in general is only one of the many important issues. In addition to that there's multiplayer accessibility, single player campaign that doesn't fall apart and has low learning curve, smooth user interface, AI which doesn't require babysitting and follows orders, better collision detection, physics etc.

Exactly. That's why BIS uses "nerds" to ensure that standard customers get the goods and there's no need to go backwards.

I'd say consumers want evenly distributed patches to ensure compatibility. If for some reason patch causes serious problems there's always hotfixes. Going back in versions without reinstall is never going to be foolproof unless the game is made with that in mind. I'd rather see BIS using their resources on something else like good updates. BIS already has decent beta patch program that weeds out the biggest issues.

As we all know BIS games have always been mod friendly since launch day. As a veteran mod maker I think this has been a mixed blessing. ARMA games have moved towards better multiplayer support and hopefully ARMA 3 won't be any different in this regard. However I think every ARMA release (since OFP) has made the multiplayer harder to approach for new players. BIS has added new game modes, improved netcode, included JIP and generally tried to make the multiplayer more accessible. So why have I found myself spending more and more time in the multiplayer lobby trying to join a game despite all these improvements? I hate to say it but I think the very loose mod support is partly to be blamed here. To establish a good multiplayer scene you'll need few basic things: -Good servers -Lots of players (at launch majority are new players who have never tried ARMA games) -Good gaming modes and missions -Stability The problem with loose mod support is that it takes the stability away. It also means that the multiplayer community will quickly abandon the vanilla game and become very fragmented. New players who are not familiar with mods and heavily customised missions won't linger around for too long if they can't join a simple public server or have no idea how a mission plays. Needless to say this will quickly lead to drastic decrease in player count. If the vanilla game and game modes were given more time, there could be more public servers for the more casual crowd. This casual crowd could then enjoy the game as it is, become familiar with the game mechanics and in the end respect the endless multiplayer possibilities. To succeed in multiplayer BIS needs to make lots of decent and stable missions for each game mode. Also I think a drastic reduction in multiplayer modding and mission scripting possibilities at ARMA 3 launch wouldn't be a bad thing. It might be seen as blasphemy at first but I think the vanilla game should be given a chance to prove itself. After a while BIS could release a major patch and unlock full modding and scripting functions for multiplayer. So, drastic and heretic measures but I think necessary. What do you think?

I vote optional. The game should inform players that an update is available. Updating the game should be possible using a manual exe or an in game download system.

Yes it does work like that. With a large player count and accessible MP you'll attract big public server communities with dedicated admins like Multiplay for example. But for public servers to really succeed it's not all about ease of joining a game, it's also about how easy it is to maintain servers that run 24/7. Without an admin being present it's hard to run say a classic ARMA coop server because once the mission ends you have to manually select next mission, fill the player slots etc. Many servers run Domination/Evolution and I think that's because those game modes can be endless or require just a simple reset every now and then. Same thing goes for PvP missions, the one mission type that can be left alone on public server becomes popular. Mission lists, better player management etc. are also needed for more accessible MP.

My personal motivation is to be able to join non private servers running different game modes and missions without too much of a hassle. I like private servers too but when I get a sudden urge to play the game I bought mainly for multiplayer it's nice to know that I can just fire up the browser and jump in. If you have enough audience and multiplayer is hassle free there will be good public servers too. Public server communities can be formed and with them a network of admins to keep the trolls out from popular servers. Private servers will always be there for die-hard-fans but public servers have never really been successful in ARMA games. It's about making ARMA more like other games when it comes to multiplayer accessibility. I can't see how that will disturb die-hard-fans who can still organize private events. The mod limitation is a radical idea and I can see that there are alternatives which is why I started this topic in the first place.

I agree on this. It's all really up to BIS to nail things in right this time. When community fixes things, it's never offical. That's why I suggested small server side mods that fix little annoying things like the turret problem. These kind of tweak mods have been around for other FPS games for ages and they require nothing from players. Nothing of course. However when ARMA 3 is released, majority of the players are newbies who don't know anything about mods. We veterans are used to mod management but we are also the loud minority. I for one would like to see more people enjoying what ARMA games have to offer in multiplayer but right now that's a very tall order.

Once again, did you ever read my posts? I never said anything about cutting mod support, just limiting it for a while to set up a solid player base and multiplayer community that isn't dependent on private servers. BIS has shot themselves many times already with buggy releases and messy multiplayer management. Why do you think I opened this topic? So you really think BIS can't make a proper multiplayer game? That's one of the problems I can sometimes see in this community. Vanilla gameplay is seen already as inferior to whatever big mod comes up next. I sure hope BIS doesn't think like this :j:. Big mods take time so what's the harm in ensuring that multiplayer stays focused until decent alternatives are released by the community? BIS doesn't have unlimited funds. The longer someone has to work to get multiplayer mod support right for A3 launch the more it's going to cost. I'd rather see that funding going into multiplayer gameplay and mission design.

That's a fine idea. Good to see this topic is producing opinions on the matter. Whatever solution BIS comes up with I hope they understand how open their multiplayer world truly is and how that becomes problematic without management. Maybe mission editor could tag any non-standard missions and place them away from the default category. Big mods like ACE could create their own tab to further improve mission filtering. Also addons & mods shouldn't be shown just as mod folders. Smaller addons can be placed into whatever folder you want which further complicates things. Sometimes I see servers with odd folder names or sometimes the well known mod folder simply contains more addons than I expected.

Did you even read my posts? I understand the need for mods, hell I've modded BIS games since 2002. But I feel that this community is often too eager to get the latest mods and concepts out and thus fragment the already niche crowd before it has a chance to become bigger. Like I said a mixed blessing. Implemention of small server side mods could be another solution. This way community could make tiny (config) mods without having the players to download and manage them. Later when the community has grown and hungers for big mods, BIS should open the flood gates.

This pretty much sums up why I would reduce modding at launch. If BIS didn't need to spend resources on download managers and making MP mod support suitable for the new players, they could spend those resources for better MP missions and stock features. We use mods because the vanilla game is lacking something and frankly just because we can. But it takes months for community to come up with decent "default" mods, download systems etc. All the while the MP community slowly dies because joining a game is so frustrating. The current trend of multiple mods and missions with different spectator mods, revive systems etc. support private servers and weekly events just fine. But the main crowd is left stranded from the beginning. After release BIS could use their resources on making a mod friendly MP experience and get it all right with one big patch. Hell, maybe even a mod repository like Bethesda is planning for Skyrim.

Yeah, it's a drastic solution but I think the problem with MP fragmentation is still notable and BIS should address it somehow.

Blaming mission makers won't solve anything. Missions like Domination are an easy choice for server admins since they are proven to work round the clock while providing simple gameplay for those who just want to blast things away. Making a proper classic coop mission that is stable and takes JIP into consideration takes time and usually ends up in the abyss of unknown missions anyway. BIS could help this situation by introducing easy to use mission repository that would be integrated into multiplayer. Admins could pick missions from this offical repo to create a mission list for their servers. Players would then automatically download selected missions from the repo and its mirror saving server bandwith in the process. Naturally players could write reviews for all missions in the repo, give ratings and comment on stability. Unstable missions would be removed from the repo or put into beta missions section for example. Admins could also create random lists that pick up best rated missions from different categories and players could vote for missions that are in the repo. I think a repo like this would help to keep things fresh within the multiplayer community.

I wouldn't mind a cover system like in RO2. Simple 3rd person cover systems where you are glued to a wall would be too easy and make battles repetitive like they usually are in cover system games. Current way of taking cover suffers from couple of annoying things: -Movement near objects and walls can be clumsy -You can get stuck into rocks and other small obstacles -You need to position yourself carefully to take the advantage of leaning and freelook. This wouldn't be an issue if movement was precise. With TrackIR this is easier but TrackIR shouldn't be mandatory in any way. -We need multiple keys to do to simple things like quick freelook leaning. Maybe universal leaning function that you can adjust with mouse movement would be better? Something like in Thief 1 & 2 where you can adjust how far you lean using the mouse movement and leaning keys.

Despite all the weight your brain can still order your limbs in nanoseconds. In ARMA 2 I often get the feeling that I'm controlling seriously handicapped person whose limbs and mind are constantly lagging behind. For instance I can't stop any actions like getting over obstacles, I get stuck into doorways, I can't move precisely even without any gear, I'm clumsy with a pistol etc. And how would improving the current movement system make the game somehow casual and bring it to COD level? BIS indeed has a vision of realistic player movement but their execution is flawed in so many ways that I too think this area of the series should be drastically improved.

Indeed but then there are also other keys that make you go prone and up. I think Cookieeater would like BIS to clean up the controls and ditch many of the unnecessarry keys and generally make the player controls more intuitive out of the box. :j: Hopefully BIS is brave enough to improve their game and ignore comments like this.

I'm pleased to announce that FDFmod will continue on in ArmA 2. At the moment it's too early to say how we will proceed and what is our schedule but here's a little something for starters: (Click for full image) --FDFmod website--

You will find list of class names in readme.