norsu
-
Content Count
626 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
Posts posted by norsu
-
-
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.
-
I just feel Mods are other's problems, not the original and standard vanilla game.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.
this is the main reason why a lot of people don't use mods! because they don't know how to install them or even bother taking the timeI 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.
-
Norsu why "low learning curve" and not "normal learning curve"? The "steep+slow learning curve" could be reserved for hardcore simulations. ;)
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.
-
BIS need to find the magic trick to make new people get into the world of Armaverse. How do you convince someone who has never played a game like this to enjoy it?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.
-
But beta patches are for nerds. Standard consumers only need a game that works.Exactly. That's why BIS uses "nerds" to ensure that standard customers get the goods and there's no need to go backwards.
-
No, switching to previous working build is practical for all those who just want to play + enjoy the game. Why people should wait + hope that the next patch version does really fix all the current important bugs/issues? Mixed versions doesn't matter as long as people know what version they use and why. Try to look at it from the consumer perspective and not only from programming/"nerd" view. ;):)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.
-
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.
-
Thanks.Is that how things go in other games, with large player numbers, and perhaps good working server browser etc?
Personally I wonder if the same would happen in ARMA if there would be more ARMA players, and a better server browser, I would expect an organization body to be involved like PR etc, but I guess benefit of the doubt :-)
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.
-
[/color]One thing I do wonder about, and interests me to think about is what is the motivation for wanting to have more players, more servers, etc?...
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.
Is it about making the arma game more like all the other 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.
-
Because mods that fix and improve things come out really fast?
BIS still didn't fix the damn loader which sits there under fire and it's been 2 years, BIS still didn't fix engine being turned on when turret is being turned - community did fixes in less than a month.
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.
You didn't answer my question - what stops people from playing online without mods?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.
-
What do people who want to use have to do with people who don't?Yes cutting out mod support is an awesome idea that totally won't stop a lot of people from buying ArmA.
Thankfully what you suggest will not happen since BIS is not stupid to shoot itself in a leg.
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?
What if community wants big mods right away?
I personally know that ArmA will always be inferior to ArmA with ACE, why should I care about people who don't want to play with mods? Nobody stops them from not playing with mods you know. I mean think about it - you can actually play without mods, nobody forces you to install them. Incredible, right?
Why should I be forced to play vanilla if I don't want to?
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?
Most people have specific jobs / assignments / area,e.g a programmer generally doesnt work on missions, models or textures, and visa versa. So not spending resources on X, does not mean you have more resources to do Y.
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.
-
A valid issue Norsu, but your solution would be way too extreme IMO. I would do like TF2.Only show 100% standard servers (be it missions or mods) on the 1st page of server browser. The major problem is that this would require a variety of official MP missions that don't suck, with PvP and everything. Perhaps allow mission wizard games too on this list.
Then of course have another separate tab that only shows all the mod and addon using servers, and all the cool kids with their crazy evolution, domination, citylife missions and such that might not be the first thing a newbie wants to see.
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.
-
Why so modest? Only cutting out stuff to return it later in a patch?Why not release that as DLC for $10 later then?
Did you even read my posts?
Maybe people just like to use mods since vanilla doesn't suit them? An unacceptable thought, I know.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.
-
I wouldn't agree with reducing modding. What do most of your MP issues come from? That's the question you need to ask and solve. For instance, we desync like hell if too many people try join? Solutions: Que'ing system, autocheck modlist before join, tonic's suggestion above, a warning saying they do not have the mods before they even connect. Simple things like that, that will save people from clogging up a server. 90% of the people that try get on ours are running pure vanilla... there needs to be a way to stop this before they even try connecting--or make it so they cannot connect alltogehter--and a way for them to understand it all. When I first played Arma I did the same, I didn't know WTF it was on about giving me a list of 'missing' pbo's, then trying to set up a modfolder... oh jesus, @Mod with no addons folder within that and it took me half a day to work out how to fix it through google. Having it easier for beginners is fine by me, but not restricting those who play Arma comfortably with their mods.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.
-
Partly agree with you, at least on the accessability points.Having a "mod brake" intact at a new release though, shitty solution for a merely existing problem.
Yeah, it's a drastic solution but I think the problem with MP fragmentation is still notable and BIS should address it somehow.
-
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?
-
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.
-
Movement is OK, try to be smoother with 30kg on you back and 5kg replica of m4 in your hands as an airsofter.I don't have to beg or ask BIS I know that, that they never do casual shit from this game like Ghost blabla or other CODs, BF's ect.
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.
-
There is already a single key that toggles "prone/get up", and also a key for toggling "crouch/stand". The only problem is that they are badly named in the key setup screen.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.
I hope the other dumbing down you suggest will never make it into the game. Learn to play. No need to ruin it for people who like to play games.:j:
Hopefully BIS is brave enough to improve their game and ignore comments like this.
-
Mod looks really good and I love the new island. Any chance of getting a list of class names used in the mod?You will find list of class names in readme.
-
-
I downloaded and installed the 4th time, I alway get this error messages:CRC failed in FDFmod\AddOns\fdf_isle1_a.pbo
CRC failed in FDFmod\AddOns\FDF_men.pbo
CRC failed in FDFmod\AddOns\FDF_music.pbo
I tried another Filehoster but it didnt fix the problem.
If the installer repeats CRC error, you could try extracting it with 7Zip or any other rar supporting program.
-
I have retail Arma 2 but steam OA, i installed mod to Arma 2 folder but when i start combined ops it doesnt seem to be there.Or should i install it on OA folder instead?
Install to your OA Steam folder and make a shortcut of arma2oa.exe. Put this to shortcut's target line:
X:\***\Steam\steamapps\common\arma 2 operation arrowhead\arma2oa.exe -mod=Y:\%%%\arma 2;Expansion;ca;X:\***\Steam\steamapps\common\arma 2 operation arrowhead\FDFmod
Where X is the drive and *** the path where your Steam is installed.
Where Y is the drive and %%% the path where your retail ARMA 2 is installed.
Steam is not very user friendly with unoffical mods and addons so you have to do some trickery. Expansions-menu will work only with retail version. More here about addons and mods on Steam version: http://www.armaholic.com/forums.php?m=posts&q=11146
We will update our install instructions today for Steam users. If you still have problems post to our forums at fdfmod.org.
Controls improvment
in ARMA 3 - GENERAL
Posted
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.