Ironman13

intuitive tools require the coders to be intuitive first.

Myke if a soldier is going for a swim obviously they wont be packing 40+kg. I have never seen videos of guys swimming with a ruck sack attached to em. Why is everyone taking this swimming thing to the Nth degree like I am expecting unrealistic things to occur? A soldier carrying what he needs for a single mission wouldn't require 40+kg of gears if they know they are doing a swimming insertion. If they have to swim to be extracted they definitely will drop gear and probably disable it somehow. I am not some idiot rambling on. I have suggested improvement that can be fulfilled within the constraints of reason. I do not want to hear another post about a heavy ass load on an infantry swimmer and how that is unrealistic. I never claimed that is what I wanted to see. If BIS makes it that way then fine by me though, there would probably be a way to manipulate it.

Bootsy, that does look beautiful for island creation. I doubt you would get much support from this BIS forum community but I will agree, it makes island making so much more simple. Now be prepared to get punched in the sack with these points ppl will throw at you: 1) road generator 2) vegetation generator 3) ability to import sat imagery and probably much more I don't know..... I already feel the hate coming to you lol, I am just warning.

@Swat: So your "BI = slackers?" was a rhetorical question not directed at anyone. You just thought you to formulate that sentence outta the air. Fair enough. As long as you are not inferring that my point was anywhere like the one you posted I am fine with that. But I am smarter than that. Your last two questions have nothing to do with this post. They don't require an answer. @NoUse: Unless you are willing to assume EA and UBI have the means to support there community "to the best of their ability", there is no reason to compare them to BIS. That is like me saying smoking is hazardous and you responding in jest, so is speeding, both are hazardous and saying a silly thing like that doesn't prove any point, thus being meaningless. You can't justify something by comparing it to something imperfect. Also, how many days of training are put in to training the army and marines to swim with a basic load out? In general, not just talking about basic training. And nope, we don't have moving functional ships. We have some scripts like Mando Missiles that simulate having functional ships. However, that is a work around and probably required a lot of time on Mando's side.

Prof thanks for contributing to the population who twisted my words. Pandur: I never said I wanted improvements for free. Where ever you got that idea, please point it out to me. The 400+ voters I keep referring to said make an expansion instead of DLC. I would definitely like an expansion that has at least a year or more in development and is clear of most bugs. To me, what the DLC represents is meeting a time frame rather than high quality work. Expansion pack to me is more based on high quality work free of issues (within reasonable expectations). I definitely appreciate Suma chiming in. I wont back down from my points of improvements however just because a developer comes on. Some might say that means I am cocky/arrogant. If I had weak suggestions of improvements I probably would have shut my mouth after Suma posted. However, I am not bringing up stuff that only I agree with. ****Remember, I did say I respect the devs and their work. Some improvements I listed might not even be possible yet. I am willing to accept that. That is no reason to just give up on the idea though. Innovation is born from an idea, no matter how simple or complex. My suggestions might not even be implemented ever. At least they are known by someone who can weigh the options now. Who knows, maybe the modules are right around the bend to being MP-Dedicated compatible or a 3-D editor. The water system may be reworked in ArmA 4. I am not setting a deadline by saying that, it is just acknowledging the obvious that some things might be already in production, some might never, or some can't be produced yet due to lack of technology/tools/etc....

Why would you not go there is the question I am asking.... You would not go there because you can't do anything with the water. No ships with function, can't swim without losing gear, can't even die from it. It has nothing to offer besides being a border right now. You might as well just put a 5,000 foot wall up where islands stop. The only thing that you can do in the water is drive those silly fishing boats, I would really like to meet the guy that said, "we must have fishing boats lol" or those CCRX and the PBX or whatever the correct acronym is for them. I just dare to dream a little I guess. Maybe you can come join me and the many others. All we are talking about are improvements.

Well said Suma. :clap: That is one of the more well thought out responses I have had in the short time this post has been up. Thanks for actually thinking about a response and not taking what was said and twisting it. Figuring out what is "sustainable long term" is a challenge in and of itself. So basically what you are saying Suma, is that 400+ people that voted no more DLC basically don't know what they are asking for. I think to a certain extent that is true. I also believe that many would love to have a polished game than a game that is never finished. I mean, to prove that point, look at how many complaints went up about the ArmA2 campaign and the enormous bugs. It was quite obvious that the deadline was more important than the quality of work put into the campaign. Many were outraged. Some didn't care. Those bugs were extremely obvious. To BIS credit they EVENTUALLY fixed them. I think it took about 2 or 3 patches. In my mind if any other game had the amount of bugs in it as that ArmA2 campaign did, we would throw it out and always refer to it as an OFP: DR disaster. Is this community not loyal? Hahahahaha. I mean BIS could sit on a toilet for an hour and whatever came out of it we would still support BIS. Just look how people jumped all over me for mentioning improvements. hahahaha. Regarding the water system: Yep many of them died most likely. However, today's gear is mostly made up of plastic or other lighter substances than what they had during WW2 times. So, this goes to prove the point even more-so that the water system should be reworked. At least in my head and many others. @Concurssi: Really? I mean come on really!?!? I guess you never saw the giant bodies of water surrounding Utes or Chernarus or the river in Zargabad. Reworking the water system wouldn't only effect these islands, but all islands that have bodies of water.

Marines would swim ashore if there Amphibious vehicles went like 10km/hr lmao. Correct me if I am wrong but probably in WW2 some soldiers had to swim ashore due to their landing craft dropping them off to far from the shore due to the tide/fog of war. But surely, I make this up. I am sure marine force recon or even Navy Seals get deployed from submerged subs. Has this happened in the game yet? Surely not, that is why I said, REWORK THE WATER SYSTEM. Listen, I am not asking for some dumb 007 crud where we shoot enemies with harpoons with snorkeling gear. As someone posted in the other thread... War is LAND, AIR, AND SEA. We have 2/3 covered, granted the air system could use some attention, at least it is included though. If someone weighs to much then, they probably should lose some gear. But, to come to the conclusion they can only handle a pistol, lol-tastic. You could even say if soldier weigh > X then they die from drowning. But that wouldn't satisfy you guys would it... It is just totally unrealistic. Or having moving ships with working artillery/cruise missiles. Or a fully functioning carrier. All this is what addons are for right? Well, many things are engine related as someone already brought up in the other thread. I am not saying a soldier with an MG and AT should be able to swim with all of that. Get real people.

Claim = to assert or maintain as a fact. Which I have not done. I stated it was my opinion. My opinion is formed from what I see/hear from reliable sources. @SWAT either quote me or don't bother making your own interpretations and try to have me explain why you inferred that. Only you control that. That is right Mosh, *yawn* these guys are trying to come up with their own interpretations of what I said. It does get tiring showing knuckleheads things they just make up. O yea, dancing bananas go for it!

Why would I claim ideas are only mine when I hear others say the same thing? They are not only my ideas. It is a collection and I go about it in that way. If that makes me look insecure, ha, then so be it. Many people agreeing with what I have to say proves the validity of my argument. Otherwise, I would be a moron throwing mumble jumble at a wall. If the points seem presumptuous, and people agree with them, then I must carry at least an ounce of truth to my presumptions. Which many would say that I am a good observer/listener, I don't ever expect to hear that from the flamers here though. Once again, if anyone is working on more than one thing they are not putting 100% in to either. You can say certain offices put 100% in to their part but overall, it is a split of some kind. --------- About beta patches: Unless you are omniscient you can not say they are supporting us to the best of their ability. See how that argument works?

Spooner back in ArmA made an addon to swim under water. I believe it wouldn't work on a dedicated server too well. So, if beta patches are for testing, answer the ridiculous question of how flying AI smashed into the ground. That was on an official patch. So, lets go through this logically. Beta patches are for testing and tinkering around right? Then after a beta meets many goals, it turns into an official patch right? Am I missing something so far? So, if there were no AI flight problems in the beta patches, how was there magically an issue on the official patch? O yea, but of course they use the betas to test everything before making an official patch, right? @No Use For A Name: 1) Did I say BIS doesn't do as much as EA or UBI? Don't bring up silly points that are meaningless. The answer remains no, BIS doesn't support us TO THE BEST OF THEIR ABILITY. I will agree that they do support us. 2) "As for water....First, US military infantry rarely go into the water during combat" You are making yourself sound silly. You even acknowledged you were in the Navy. We better turn all them carriers and destroyers back home, tell the sailors their time was wasted lol. O yea, don't the marines normally get deployed by the Navy? Wasn't that even the case in the title ArmA2? I mean, need I say more? I accept that some people wont like my list. However, if you feel this is an idiotic list, better go check the other forum post I started. Read it through and see how many people say "Don't speak for me" and then say they agree with one, two, or even three points. That is done multiple times, so obviously, I raised valid points. I am prepared to defend this list because, a decent number would love to see it. Mission makers - modules fixed and 3D editor, Gamers - Water combat/swimming, Gamers - Hand Grenade toss fixed/adjusted, pretty much everyone would like to see CQB improved. Whether or not you accept this fact is on you. The only thing I am frustrated at is the way people degraded my character by mixing around my words to say, "This was my interpretation of what Ironman's intentions were." You talk about arrogant assumptions? People sue others for just that and they always win. The BIS forums is an official forum board of the company BIS. It is a way for gamers to communicate with people who are actually open minded. Otherwise, what would ever be the point of posting anything at all. I am not frustrated at all about people not liking my list. I didn't post it expecting everyone to be in complete agreement with me. That would be idiotic of me.

volumetric clouds would be nice

I am following the rules of your head admin: "I think this thread is best left to gather dust and you reshape your requests to be your requests not your assumptions that everyone wants your requests" I reshaped my request and made clear that not everyone will agree with me. The title is of good representation of that. So, you can skedaddle or make input. Either way that post is more suited for a PM. Wouldn't you agree? I have broken no rules regarding the forums and it seems non-rules are being created as everyone is going along. If placebo told me to stop posting then there would be grounds for "punishment". He simply said, reshape.

Did you miss that I have been around since the beginning of OFP? I stated that in the last topic that had the title changed twice by admins and then placebo locked it. And no, I don't think BIS supports the community to the best of it's ability. Once again, this is my opinion.

It might be possible, it might not. If BIS doesn't need as many personnel then they will cut many of their contractors out. If you have one goal you can spend 100% of time on it. If you have two either it is 50/50 or one of the two projects isn't receiving as much time. I believe that this principle is more often the case. With every DLC came a patch, and with this, 400+ are not pleased. However, this is not the full point of the post. The list on what should be improved is the main point. I can state 400+ agree that there should be no more DLC over and over again, but that doesn't accomplish anything. It only recognizes an issue with no suggestions on how to work on it. ------------------------------- In my personal opinion regarding beta patches: I believe that these patches have caused many problems. Not more problems than solved problems, but nonetheless, spawns other issues. I respect the people that work on everything that might be posted on the dev-heaven. However, it would be an issue of me practicing blindness to say that they don't create any problems of their own. Of course they are just BETA-patches. But correct me if I am wrong, didn't a recent OFFICIAL patch cause AI's in flight to almost 90% smash in to the ground? So what happened between the beta and official patch there? To the best of my knowledge a beta didn't cause that issue. But beta's do cause many issues. This is for another topic post though.

If you are asking is it possible to just use patches for these improvements I listed.... No I don't believe it is. I believe a patch can be issued for the 3D editor, modules, and hand grenade bug. The water system and improving CQB may require upgrades with the engine itself, which in my mind is more than a "patch". The 400+ I am referring to said "not to make DLC but make an expansion pack" again.

No more DLC for now. Fix the dumb shit first. 1) All modules need to be MP-Dedicated compatible. If it works on a dedicated server, it should work on everything else fine. Mission makers shouldn't have to resync anything because pretty much all missions require re-spawn and Mission makers shouldn't have to write a ton of code to get what they want out of it. Keep all the options but maybe have some presets, not just 1 default. 2) REWORK THE WATER SYSTEM! This is lol-tastic. In OFP you died when you tried to swim in water. In ArmA you could swim and lose all your gear, except your super duper pistol. You wonder what changed from ArmA to ArmA 2 regarding the water system, nothing. We should be able to swim in water without losing anything. Soldiers in real life are taught how to do this with all their gear. Maybe give us scuba gear so we can even, dare I say it, swim underwater. I find it hilarious how a game like Delta Force-Delta Force Team Sabre can accomplish swimming underwater but a sophisticated game like this will either have you die, or lose all your gear. Not asking for much with this as you have had MANY years to fix this. 3) Throwing a hand grenade while walking. This was possible in the original ArmA and in ArmA II, fix it. 4) 3D editor. Yes we have one in the game, Yes there are addons out there. It should be "noob" friendly though. Make it so we can access it from the single player mission editor. So where the button for "preview" is you can also have a button called "3D editor" and you could save it in a mission.sqm or a "blahblah.sqf". The 3D editor menu should be uniform to the 2D editor except instead of the Map in the background you are actually seeing the environment of wherever you are editing. 5) Release MLODs! Who are you kidding? If the end product is good, BIS will just take it and use it in VBS which makes your main money maker, get even more money. 6) Better CQB. There are a number ways to accomplish this. Dare I venture out into the abyss. How about simply increasing building sizes? Having hallways where more than one person can fit through. Increasing sizes of rooms. I don't think many people live like Harry Potter did under the stairs. The buildings should keep a good ratio to the size of the AI. I feel like most buildings do have a good height, what it lacks is depth. Most will probably say the AI are too dumb to fight in that kind of environment. I would agree. But, that would take a lot of time and maybe leaps in technology to achieve the level of realism everyone is looking for. So, lets focus on what is achievable right now. Increase building depth. All of these things are achievable. BIS, we have paid for 2 crappy DLC. It is obvious that we all love this game and support your company. Will you support your loyal community? Will you hear our voices? Don't continue to give us crap that doesn't change the overall gameplay experience. Give us game engine upgrades! Don't tell us it will require us to buy new computers either, you have the means to accomplish this goal with our current rig specs. Do it. I may be one voice but I speak for many.

If you had courage enough to search for an answer to your rhetorical question I would say that is an initial step. What proceeds that would be the determining factor of whether or not you use that knowledge for good or evil. As for myself, I don't like to see people's characters degraded. Much less by people that don't even know him/her or the experiences of this person. He who is without sin can judge me and throw the stone. Until that day, I will forgive those who need forgiveness and defend those who need defending to the best of my abilities and more.

This was my thread with the original title of "Improvements the Community Wants". http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?p=1832856 Wolle changed the title to "Improvements I demand". This is a misrepresentation of myself and my post. I would like to know why this change took place without any fair warning given to myself. This is, in my mind, an act of degradation of character. I take this very seriously, and I hope you do too. Thank you for your time and level headed response.

Nope, an admin changed the title, not myself. Wolle you need to send me a pm asap. I never said "Improvements I demand". I will PM all the forum admins regarding this change of my choice of words, and wolle you will be held accountable. Once again, it is funny how everyone is ranting about how I chose my words and still, people are agreeing with my points. If "crap" and "shit" are considered swearing I must be in an alternate dimension. If there is a general consensus on this finding between the admins I WILL CHANGE THOSE WORDS! However there is no basis to change the title of my message as it was on point with what I wished to get out of it. I never actually said, I represent the majority or community at large. This was assumed by almost everyone. All I said was that I am one voice for many. This remains true. I am part of the community and the people I represent are too. So, when I say we are a loyal community, I am a part of that. http://www.armaholic.com/polls.php?id=84 Read that poll and look at the 419 voters that said no more DLC. While I wont say I represent all of them, I definitely know what many of them want to see. If no one else is willing to say it, then I will. If that makes me a spokesperson then that is a title you all gave me I never claimed that. 419 votes is a huge amount of the ArmA community. If not half, at least a quarter. You would be lucky to see 419 people playing in a weeks times frame. If I sound like I am ranting that is because MANY of these issues have had no changes over a substantial amount of time. What gives me the authority to say that? I am a purchasing customer. With that alone it gives me some level of authority to make known my strong wishes/ as wolle said my "demands". If a customer of any product says this is how you can improve your product and people actually back him on the many points made. Then yes, that is constructive criticism. The company would be foolish to not listen and at least weigh their options. I am willing to accept the majority may not agree with the MLODs released. That is 1 point out of 6. I do have substantial backing for all my other points.

This isn't a post about things they have done right. I wasn't aware I am only allowed to say good things and never offer any constructive criticism. Just as you are entitled to your opinion, I am entitled to mine. Thank you very much. No excuses. I can say that I love that BIS made Zargabad and Takistan with almost 100% open buildings. I can say that I love those two islands. I can say I love the improvements with AI behavior. I can say a lot of things that I love about the game. However, I am not blind, nor intend to act like I am, unlike some people. Are you flamers satisfied yet?

lol Haystack, couldn't you tell, I am a self proclaimed community spokesperson hahahaha. I mean that is the title everyone is giving me, might as well run with it while people are agreeing with ALL my points to some degree. So far it seems few care about the release of MLODs. Which is fine. To those that say, "blah blah blah is a waste of time".... Well, where should time be spent? One guy suggested warfare missions, I highly doubt that is a high priority to most others as no one else has said boo about that. Think big picture, what do you want to see change from the gameplay experience? If you don't like what I said then come up with your own list and lets see how many people bash you while agreeing with what you have to say. Only then can you judge me. "350+ views". Who would post in here while all the lil kids are posting in here flaming? You guys seriously need a change in attitude. I am not an OPFOR unit that just killed all your buddies from shooting behind a bush and tree in the night with no night vision. I am a fellow gamer since OFP and the list is things that I have observed that people really want to see from the small scale to the large. To those 350 views, remember you can't say what you want on these forums. The trolls are out. Trolls? Are we playing LOTRO? Just go back to sleep lol.

the mesh might be yours but look at your qualifier... IF YOU DON'T USE O2. I mentioned using BIS tools, which last I heard, includes O2. But we can stop this point because it is a rabbit hole for another discussion. My point is it will help with VBS which is BIS main money maker. Why do I find myself repeating what I already said? Why do I find myself.... Lets stick to the main points here please.

SCOREBOARD, it speaks for itself thanks very much. "Just because they agree doesn't mean you speak for them." hahahahaha, really? That would be like saying, "Just because the community agrees doesn't mean you speak for them." Dank you very much, come again.

did I say it was without someone consent? Might want to check your facts before you make accusations.