Arma 3 IS NOT "Military Simulator" genre

[Arma 3 IS NOT "Military Simulator" genre]

So is there a better noun one could use to describe the game that sets it apart from other military FPS games?

Most games described as simulators are not the same as real simulator software used in professional fields. This thread is just confusing the two senses of the word.

[Legal discussion regarding Steam Workshop]

About a year ago. He lost everything permanently. The situation escalated pretty quickly, but much past the initial exchange i can't comment, I know hes not used steam since. I know there were emails back and forth but I didn't see the content. He just said he was robbed by steam for calling out a bullying moderator. They removed the threads very quickly but I know he tried to get his account back several times but was permanently banned for his conduct toward Steam representatives. It wouldn't surprise me if the content of the email was filled with choice language though. Tim is a bit...salty... in the choice of his language.

I would have to agree with you on that case then, losing your account for a forum scrape and then not getting it back just for being upset about the ordeal sounds a little unfair. Still, I've heard stories like this that end happily too, especially being generous with refunds.

[Legal discussion regarding Steam Workshop]

Why am i creating paranoia? Just spend 5 minutes googleing "Steam closed my account" or similar. A friend of mine lost over a 100 games because he called a moderator a "moron" in the forums. He didnt hack, cheat, share his account etc. The moderator was rude and heavy handed. Tim called him on it and lost his account and games.

When was this? I highly doubt that he would be unable to get his account back if he contacted steam support. Interactions on SPUF should result in bans from SPUF, not revoked steam accounts. I would like to know how Steam responded when he told them he lost his account for calling a forum moderator a moron.

[Legal discussion regarding Steam Workshop]

You don't "own" the games you buy in a retail store either. You never legally owned games you bought. You are purchasing a license to install and play them.

Steam does not just close accounts willy nilly. Stop creating paranoia. You have to do things that are very clearly illegal for Steam to take away your whole account. Even when hacking in games, you are only banned from the game's multiplayer. You don't lose the game or your account. The list of things that can cause you to lose your account are very obviously serious offenses, not something you could do by accident. Certainly not by "saying" something they "don't like" :rolleyes: (where did you get this idea?) Steam support is also good about recovering your account if you lost it.

[Audio Tweaking (dev branch)]

I noticed this the other day - grab an MX and fire full auto. After the first shot, everything else is drowned out like someone is turning the volume down. When you notice it, it's really quite annoying.

This effect has been in the game since Arma 2. Ideally, it shouldn't be noticeable; it should seem like a natural way to make the gun sounds seem louder, since a video game has drastically less dynamic range than real life. It would be odd to hear birds chirping while firing a rifle.

[Female character models]

no matter how trained woman is she is no match fоr trained man on front line, she will only causes problems

Thank you for picking up the discussion with a great post like this.

Any woman no matter how trained or physically fit is no match for a trained man. Huh. She will only cause problems. Gosh. I never knew. Tell me more.

[Make a body fall backwards]

Huh, now that I read it more carefully, I don't either.

[Make a body fall backwards]

I don't understand the 'tin.'

It's an expression meaning that the contents are described simply by the title. As in, what is written on the tin (of food) is exactly what's inside.

[revamped the CSAT PLZ !! :(]

Yeah, that's why for instance if in a F1 series, instead of the realistic F1 car, they use a Star Wars Tatooine racer in their sequel, following "your logic" would be perfectly legit and reasonable, as the gameplay would be exactly the same ( to race in a track against opponents, to be the first to cross the line after certain laps ).

An F1 series is, by name, about F1 cars. Arma is, by name, about war. And no, a realistic F1 car would not handle the same as a pod racer. You're oversimplifying it and you know it. The MX as a fictional weapon performs just the same as any real life assault rifle. Its effective range, it's magazine capacity, it's rate of fire, it's recoil, its noise level, its attachments, need I go on? Let's talk about unit and vehicle roles. Rifleman, sniper, grenadier, AT, AA, all still there with their same purposes. And now you're comparing a hovercraft to an F1 car, as if that's just as similar. Please, you're grasping at straws.

Just take the box of your OFP, OFP: Resistance, Arma 1 or Arma 2, and read the phrases / synopsis. They all describe the games as about real world setting and realistic warfare.

Because those games were about real world settings. I fail to see what this proves. The Arma 2 box says "Ultimate Military Simulator" right on the front, and I would describe Arma 3 in the same way. Cosmetic differences in weapons, vehicles, and uniforms does not change the fact that it's a military simulator.

In fact CoD it's about WW2. But I guess you talk about the spin-off Modern Warfare which is an arcade first person shooter that was inspired in real actual warfare. While Arma was a series of tactic "simulators" based in actual warfare. If you see the difference.

This is the exact point I was making to you, why are you repeating it back to me? The difference between Arma and other modern military shooters is the tactical gameplay. Arma 3 retains that same tactical gameplay, even if its setting is different.

The fact that a mod could simply port over every asset from Arma 2, and remove every futuristic asset, and result in a game that would satisfy your definition of the Arma series demonstrates how arbitrary and superficial your argument is. You know very well the core of what makes Arma is still there, despite what the weapons and vehicles look like. A simple cosmetic change in all of them brings us right back to a milsim based on real life settings.

[revamped the CSAT PLZ !! :(]

But it's also clear that they have made an extreme radical change in the direction of the series, betraying its essence.

Extreme radical change? Arma 3 plays just the same as Arma 2, except improved, which is exactly what a good sequel should do. As roshnak said, the essence of Arma is not dependent on whether the lump of polygons you're holding is based on a real life weapon or not. It has zero effect on the gameplay, which is the essence of any game. I feel like you're clinging on to one comment from Marek and drawing it way out of proportion. The biggest change from Arma 2 is in its setting, but even that is not much of a change, unless you compare it directly to the change between Arma 2 and 1, which was minimal. Guns still shoot bullets, vehicles still have wheels and treads. Marek's statement doesn't change this objective truth. I have to wonder, if this is an "extreme radical change" what words would you use to describe Arma 3 if it really were spaceships and laser guns?

they should just be faithful to the previous parts of the series.

Then we disagree here, because I never viewed Arma as a game that is defined by its use of real-world setting, but rather its gameplay. Following your logic, CoD is a more similar game to Arma 2 than Arma 3 is because it has a similar setting.

[revamped the CSAT PLZ !! :(]

I don't think the "spirit of the series" has ever had anything to do with the setting, which has been radically different in various iterations.

What defines the "spirit of the series" to me is the gameplay, which has remained relatively constant (for better or worse) throughout its history. Arma's gameplay and mechanics are immediately recognizable no matter what the setting. Take on Helicopters is clearly Arma. DayZ is clearly Arma. The game could be about fighting Sewer Aliens on Mars with plasma guns and it would still feel like playing Arma.

Very good point, I agree. To suggest BIS has betrayed the series just because the weapons and vehicles aren't in use in real wars is just silly.

[revamped the CSAT PLZ !! :(]

You mean because BI has already included all the possible military realistic settings in their games? ( Just check how many armies are in the world. And how many wars and backgrounds ). There's thousands of possibilities, and this time BI opted to make an extreme radical change in the series, they betrayed the spirit of the series. And of course that has had a lot of consequences ( for instance the creation of a new game: Take on Mars and the huge delay in A3 content half made with what they got from the previous sci-fi project.

I don't believe I said anywhere that their only option was go to near-future with Arma 3's setting. It's what they chose to do, because they were interested in it. This demonstrates that they are passionate developers, not trying to chase popular trends. How can you say they betrayed the series? It's their damn series! I cannot see someone use the word "betrayed" when talking about BIS and not see complete entitlement. They do not exist to pander to your every desire. They already do listen to us far more than most other developers. They could have looked at Arma 2's mods, which consisted mostly of modern-day weaponry, and said "well, this is what people want, so we'd better make it to get the most amount of sales". But instead what they did was pursue what they had a genuine interest in, and any developer will tell you that is the key to making a great game. They knew that the mod community (with the help of making all Arma 2 assets legally portable) would bring back the "classic" weapons that people unhappy with the new weaponry wanted to see.

Well the main OFP/Arma community seem to always want to fill the same gap: realistic & actual warfare. Even when in OFP the setting was the Cold War or A1 and A2 realistic warfare. For instance you have a lot of reference photos and models and info of Star Wars, or Lord of the Rings, or the American Civil War ( you have even all US Gov. photo archive open ). But people always go to the same.

Two major reasons:

1. Arma as a game is far better suited for actual bullet-shooting guns than it does lasers, space ships, swords, bows, etc. Arma has fixed and rotary wing flight models, and ballistic models. It doesn't have spaceship flight models or laser gun configs.

2. Arma, as a milsim, is going to attract people who are interested in real life current and past military hardware. Of course there are going to be fans of things like Star Wars and LOTR as well, but the most consistent interest among Arma fans is exactly what the majority of addons have been focused on.

But ok, you are right, it's all a coincidence.

Where on earth did I say that? It's no coincidence at all, it follows logically.

I guess I don't see what your actual point is. You're saying BIS should make games that appeal to what the majority wants? Most addons makers make real-world weapons, so most people want real-world weapons in Arma, so BIS should make that and only that? By that logic, BIS never would have made OFP, because a majority of gamers out there were playing arcade FPS games (and they still are!)

[revamped the CSAT PLZ !! :(]

It's clear that people are not happy with the A3 setting, this forums, Steam ones, etc are a witness of it.

Clear that some people are not. It would also be clear that some people aren't happy with the game not progressing in military tech if Arma 3 had been present day. You'd have people complaining that BIS is selling the same game twice with prettier graphics, among a thousand other things people could possibly complain about. In the end it's about what BIS has passion for making. If they were forced to make something they don't want to make just because some veterans want it, we get a less quality product as a result.

Also the fact that most of the mod/addon makers are creating realistic stuff being actual or past, proves my point.

That's a fallacy if I've ever heard one. How does it prove your point? It proves that Arma 3 doesn't have actual/past weapons and vehicles, which we already know. Thus, mod makers fill the gap. Not to mention it's easier for mod makers to model things off of objects they can find a lot of reference photos or models for. I also see some mod makers making futuristic stuff. Am I going to use that to "prove" a point that people want future stuff? Of course not.

[Fatigue Feedback (dev branch)]

So you're coop, OK, me too, but I'm also SP 60% of my time with the game.

You've backpedaled from "what you're saying only applies to PvP" to "what you're saying only applies to MP". You tried this PvP line on me just a few days ago in this thread, and it didn't work (I'm coop as well). But now you're talking about BIS not working on the AI, as a complaint regarding the new fatigue system? Small portion of the player base? I'm fairly certain a massive majority of the player base plays chiefly MP in Arma 3, in some form or another. Why is the fact that a new fatigue system is easier to implement than overhauling the AI a reason not to do it? That's exactly why they should do it, and have done it. If it's achievable for them, and people want it, that's a good thing. But you're complaining that they did it instead of something else, which is such a generic complaint that it could be made in response to any feature BIS adds to the game, because there will always be someone that wants something else.

And by the way, I'm looking forward to the new fatigue system influencing my tactical play and gear decisions in SP as well :)

Please drop this "fatigue only helps people who play X" argument. It helps all players looking for a tactical depthful experience in Arma. If you don't want it, disable fatigue.

[Bootcamp / VR Discussion (dev branch)]

Played bootcamp and VR now i dont want to be ashole but i cant kill shit because of fatigue and weapon sway can we please get bipods in arma 3 vanila. Not a request but who ever tested it it will admit that it is damn hard,

i runned until my character slowed down drasticaly and weapon was moving like crazy when i was looking true scope, coudnt hit one target with holding breath and rest of i need to take out with the prone..

It is realy dificult to do it!

It should be difficult to hit targets after running to the point of slowing down drastically. That said, I highly recommend using VTS weapon resting mod until BIS implements their own solution.

[lack of coop missions]

Feels almost like I wrote it myself :) You should come play with us vegeta. Check my signature.

Hey, thanks for the invitation. I will check it out! I haven't played with large organized groups since Arma 2.

[Fatigue Feedback (dev branch)]

Perhaps some slight randomized jitter could be added in real-time to some of the bones in the extremeties, in addition to the slowed animations? No idea how possible this is, but with the dynamic reactions to getting shot, it seems within the realm.

[lack of coop missions]

Well, everyone has a different taste.

We like to play small Coop missions most of you would not touch because:

1. We like Respawn because we like playing together and dont like to restart a mission just because some lucky AI shot !

2. We only play scenarios with reduced AI accuracy (via script) because playing against the Aimbot AI is awful !

3. We like to have all weapons and gear available and pick what we want !

I created some missions for me and my friends and released them but got no feedback so i guess most dont like the style (respawn ect.) ;)

1. I don't mind respawn, but what I really prefer is a good revive system. The penalty for dying needs to be more significant than the time it takes to run/drive back to the battle. I've found again and again that as the penalty for dying gets smaller, the less you care about playing, and the game becomes a chore instead of a challenge. A revive system is also more tactical, forcing your team to react. Better for gameplay while not excluding people from missions permanently.

2. I use ASR AI to reduce the AI accuracy a bit from default and give the AI more interesting behaviors.

3. I can't stand VAS in missions. Crate humping is the worst. It also makes almost the entire game's arsenal useless because I can just choose my favorite weapon or 2 every time. Being forced to use what you're given is part of the fun and challenge in Arma.

[Legal discussion regarding Steam Workshop]

The service that Valve offer isn't really any better for addon makers than PW6 or AH except that it makes it easy for players to install addons and connect to servers using those addons. However, widespread usage by the community and resultant "fame" of having a successful piece of work isn't really the motivation behind why people take the time to make addons in this community or why they publish them. People make stuff because they want to see that particular idea they have, ingame.

This sounds like one big contradiction. If mod makers didn't care about people using their work, they wouldn't post about them at all. It's not about a desire for fame, it's about wanting to share your work with others. The workshop is an easy avenue for that because it will (hopefully) provide many advantages over the classic "go to a site, download, and install" process. I don't see why uploading to the workshop is inherently different or driven by different motivations than a modder posting their work on this forum or anywhere else.

[crosshair, third person and zoom needs to be rookie difficulty]

You can actually change rookie, normal, veteran, expert etc. to have any settings you want in the menus and on servers... =/ I think default setting are negligible-who really plays default anything?

Lots of people. You'd be surprised how many people don't bother changing any settings that aren't graphics. Many games don't even have detailed difficulty settings like Arma does. If third person was disabled by default, there would be drastically less people using it today. It does make a difference. Many people play for a while with default settings before even thinking about changing it, much less being aware that they can. By then, they're used to what they've been using.

[Audio Tweaking (dev branch)]

So you would recommend a surround headset for Arma? Even just for Arma? I thought the surround sound didn't work too well.

Good virtual surround isn't really in the headset itself, it's in the hardware/software that does the virtualization (converting the game's surround sound channels into a stereo mix that has the proper processing to trick your ears). If you already have a headset you like, I recommend getting one of these, it offers virtual 5.1 and it works quite well in Arma.

Razer's free software also works just fine in Arma, but I don't like how it muddies the sound a bit.

[Fatigue Feedback (dev branch)]

That's exactly the point. The AI behaviour will never be changed to consider these things. Just as they don't hold their breath to take shots at you now, much less will they move considering when to run and when to stop, etc. You believe so because you think BIS will modify the AI FSMs. They're not. They can't. They prefer to go for these changes that are easy. The new animation system is a good example. It is good for us, but it makes the AI get stuck like they didn't in A2.

How can you say so definitively that they will never be changed? Balancing the AI in response to the new fatigue and sway does not have to involve the FSM at all. BIS have already been making changes to AI behavior in firefights several times since the game released. Things like how they react when getting shot and how it affects their aim. You can look these things up in the change logs yourself. Making their fatigue reduce their accuracy/ROF also has nothing to do with the FSM. The required changes are not as drastic as you're making them out to be.

You don't? Take for example the difficulty to fire a rifle. If concessions (in detriment) of realism were not made, by the time you could effectibly shot your rifle towards the AI, you would have 20 shots coming your way. Flashpoint didn't have much recoil, then Arma 1 introduced lots of it, then Arma 2 reduce the heck out of it, and it was better gameplay. Then Arma 3 introduced it again (plus weapon sway) in a way that you practicaly can't use the standing stance to shoot the AI (because they don't get suppressed by just poping shots at them), so every simulation you add, has the potential to restrict the platform.

Perhaps we have a different definition of what restricting the platform means. You seem to think I'm trying to say that any amount of realism is good for the game. Of course it isn't. But making it harder to shoot my gun doesn't restrict the options I have in the game - it just makes it harder. Requiring me to consider my actions and choices more carefully is not a restriction of the platform, it is an enhancement in that it requires me to explore more of the platform, to leave my comfort zone where 1 strategy is always going to work. Running straight toward an objective carrying everything I need and then stopping to shoot as soon as I see bad guys is that 1 strategy that would always work without significant fatigue effects and sway. I wouldn't have to worry about carrying that satchel charge or bringing a machinegun into an urban environment. If you want to call it a restriction of the platform that this arcade strategy no longer works very well, so be it. I call it the game forcing me to utilize its strengths. Making tactical decisions, exploring more of the platform in this way.

[lack of coop missions]

People can go around toting Zafirs and 10 boxes of ammo easily

Well, not after the bootcamp update :)

[Fatigue Feedback (dev branch)]

Funnily enough, you're exactly wrong about your assessment of me. 95% of my experience in Arma is coop or SP. Would you care to explain why the gameplay mechanics I mentioned are exclusively PvP? If the AI is balanced in tandem with these new changes, I don't see what the issue is. How is not being able to carry a dozen mags and a launcher and still be highly mobile an exclusively PvP concept? I want to have to consider my loadout, my movement, my cover, etc. whether I'm against a human or an AI. I don't want to have to pretend that they matter.

I don't understand how giving the player a real reason to consider these things limits the platform. What if the game didn't have weapon recoil at all? Would that be a less limited platform? I don't see the connection between realism and platform restriction. BIS is not taking away any features. They're making existing features matter more in a way that is both realistic and encouraging of tactical gameplay.

[Fatigue Feedback (dev branch)]

People get too used to bad game mechanics that they go nuts whenever you make it better. With this new system, your gear actually has real impact. This is perfect for Arma, and it should have been in the game from day 1. Just because it hasn't been in until now doesn't mean it shouldn't be. The devs aren't going to go back on their decision to add diversity to their game just because some people lack the ability to adapt.

Use smoke, flank, counter-snipe. If your old strategies relied on being able to move fast and snipe targets within the span of a second, or dodge bullets by dashing around, then you weren't taking advantage of what makes Arma unique. Those are strategies that work in arcade FPS games. They do not work in real life, and should not work in arma. I'm not saying Arma should model real life as much as possible, but this is a concession in gameplay that actually makes sense. It encourages tactics over speed and headshots. It makes you consider what you're carrying. Cover matters more. You can actually pin and suppress more effectively, because they can't just dash out of your view in a second.

Why would you want a player who has a stationary and stable position to have no firefight advantage over a player that just dashed 50 meters? In what way does that belong in an Arma game? The firefight advantage is not the only advantage. That stationary player, if remaining in a fixed position, is prone to tunnel vision and being flanked. Choosing to remain there has its own pros and cons, just as moving up on him has its own as well. This is the beauty of a strategic and tactical shooter.

The OPREP has some good tips and explanations of the system. This is a very useful read for getting acquainted with the new mechanics. I'm so glad to see BIS isn't afraid to introduce changes like this.