Speeding up time in game magically makes those graphic fps issues no problem

[Speeding up time in game magically makes those graphic fps issues no problem]

Thread seems to have forgotten that the likely cause for this is the reduced AI complexity when time is sped up. Did somebody rule that out, or what? I know for a fact AI driving ability takes a toll.

[The new ARMA 3 DLC system - debate]

Let's not get crazy here, though. Most of the vehicles on Armaholic are ports of Arma 2 content, almost all of the units are retextures of the default Arma 3 units, and almost all of the weapons are ports of models that were made for CS:S.

I agree with you on this. I haven't been too impressed with the custom models I've seen on Armaholic so far, save for a few. The main problem I have is that I can't find a practical use for the good ones anyway. I play small coops with some friends, so I'd have to convince them all to download each model/pack. Then I have to find or create missions that use them. DLC is a much better solution for me in this regard, because it's official and requires no extra work. And there are guaranteed going to be missions that use the DLC, for the same reasons. I'm of course only speaking for myself and my situation, but I have to imagine other people are in this conflict as well. Hopefully BIS's mod integration into the steam workshop can help out here.

[The Nvidia DLC]

You see with all this talk of DLCs, we need to make sure that BIS hasn't lost sight of the goal of 'make everything ingame right', before adding content.

There are just as many, if not more features coming right along with the DLC, as well as before, after, and in-between. The content does not seem to be BIS's main priority here. We're finally getting features that people have asked BIS to add to the series for over a decade. Don't tell me BIS has lost sight of anything. They've gained clarity as to the community's desires, if anything.

[The new ARMA 3 DLC system - debate]

From a business standpoint BI are shooting themselves in the foot with this courtesy and should be using a "Buy it or don't get to use it" system...it's also the least faulty in that you cannot mistake it for a bug, glitch or something else...either you have it or you don't...and yet....

By "buy it or don't use it" do you mean let people play a mission or server that has a DLC vehicle, but not let them enter it, period? I can't see how that's less immersion breaking than letting them in with the visual nags. Either way, it's going to inform them of the DLC restriction. And you could essentially act as if the vehicle is off limits by simply not entering it.

If you mean don't even give people the opportunity to join the server or play the mission, I'd like to hear more about this, because to me it seems like a massive amount of disadvantages for saving a bit of immersion. I would guarantee you that most people would rather be able to at least play on all servers and missions at the risk of some loss in immersion. At most you're only going to accidentally try to get into DLC vehicles a few times before you remember which ones to consider "off-limits".

-When playing on another server that has DLC that they don't own, only the low LOD of the unowned content is displayed.

The only problem I see with this is that people will only realize it's DLC if they try to enter it. Such is not always the case on multiplayer servers. And displaying notifications just for looking at it would be truly intrusive, but that's the only way I can think of to make the message clear if they don't use the vehicle. That's one reason I like BIS's idea. I can fight along side people, or against people and see beautiful machines of war without any quality reduction, even if I don't own it.

[The new ARMA 3 DLC system - debate]

In regards to people who are truly interested in the base game/series, I agree. They'd know better.

Several of my (newer) Arma friends did not know. They assumed it was just an LOD not loading in, as happens sometimes as a glitch or when video memory is low.

I tend to put more stock into BIS's own research than anecdotal evidence from veteran arma players. But I know from first hand experience this was not limited to DayZ players. It's not like all Arma players are inherently or automatically more knowledgeable on BIS's DLC strategy than DayZ players.

Further, my friends also did not care enough about the low quality models to bother purchasing the DLC. I barely did either, but wanted to support BIS.

Let's accept the fact that this strategy did not work for BIS, and focus on the alternatives.

[The new ARMA 3 DLC system - debate]

Do many large communities use Steam Workshop missions?

More importantly, this is really just the second of the two scenarios that I said was likely to happen. These missions are made purely for DLC and are basically unplayable for anyone who doesn't own it. It's functionally the same as if I don't have any of the DLC assets because I can't (or won't, because of the restrictions) take part in those missions.

The alternative is more likely to occur with the helo DLC, which is that a mission will have two helicopter sitting next to each other: a DLC helicopter, and a vanilla helicopter in case players don't have the DLC.

I agree, you're right. There will be missions like that, but there will also be a number of mission makers that either do not care, are not aware, or will specify that the mission requires a DLC. As for large communities, I have no idea. The missions that are played by big communities can be posted on the workshop too, can't they? The points made about not wanting to exclude players within that community who don't own the DLC are definitely valid, though. If I was a mission maker for one of those communities, I'd be concerned. But you have to admit, some of the claims in this thread about lack of missions were a bit over-dramatic. Not yours, though. I got a lot of perspective on this issue, discussing with you.

[Female character models]

Yeah, but so what? What is the art department working on that's more important?

So what indeed! I'm all for female models in Arma. I only posted in here in response to a specific post claiming that it would be easier than it actually would be.

[Did anyone else get the Operation Flashpoint refference?]

Don't get me wrong, I bought all the Arma games for the editor and custom missions as well. I'd be pretty disappointed if I spent ~$50 for the campaigns. I'd just appreciate it if you didn't make a judgement on me (or others) based on what I think of the campaigns :)

Yeah, I put words in your mouth when I said you dismiss it. I'm sorry for that, I got a little flustered. My original observation was just poking you in the ribs for speaking about things you have purposely chosen not to experience. No offense intended!

[Did anyone else get the Operation Flashpoint refference?]

"The campaigns are simply there to sell the product"

Easy on the elitism, eh? Someone can't be a "wargamer" (what?) if they enjoy BI's campaigns? My point was that you're dismissing something, and making statements about what component they play in BIS's games, without having actually given them a proper chance.

[The new ARMA 3 DLC system - debate]

In case your reply is directed at me (purposely ambiguous posts aren't too helpful), let me qualify my intentions:

Some quotes from this thread:

"How in hell are people going to make MP Missions with that stupid restriction?"

"I seriously doubt that we will see many missions that use the DLC Content"

"Nobody will risk it."

"these missions that have DLC specific slots won't exist."

"potential scenario mission makers will just edge their bets and not include those assets"

"So I go and buy the DLC to never see it used in a MP Mission?"

"What will happen with this method is that you will never see the DLC content used in MP Missions."

I could go on, this thread is full of these claims. The one thing these claims always assume is that every mission maker out there wants maximum compatibility. That simply is not true, and this is proof of that. It's the same reason that missions using obscure mods that few people will ever download exist. Official DLC isn't even obscure. It's going to have more than enough popularity to have a healthy amount of missions available.

[Did anyone else get the Operation Flashpoint refference?]

Campaigns are simple games nailed onto, what is, a great format idea, i.e. the editor, mod/addon making ability ('military' sandbox).. The campaigns are simply there to sell the product, they could have released the editor alone with mod/addon making ability, as it is now, and it would still have been worth a few hundred pounds to buy, its gold this series (not the campaigns)... A2 is far more geared to that side (wargaming), at the moment, it may change later down the road..

Hey now, you're making a lot of claims about campaigns for having not played them :p

Seriously though, I don't find myself enjoying much of the Arma series campaigns, but the OFP one(s) was really special.

[Female character models]

Unless I'm mistaken, that's not the way uniforms work in Arma. It's not a clothes model on top of the underwear model, it's just a whole separate model that is swapped in and out. I think the vests are layered on top, but even in the unlikely event that the female uniform model is so different from the male that it caused clipping or floating, I doubt it would take much more than pushing and pulling a few verst with soft selection to create a female vest model. You probably wouldn't even need a new set of UVs.

Yes, I know the non-vest non-backpack gear are separate models. That means having to create female versions for every piece of clothing that a female model can equip in the game. As far as the vests, it doesn't really have to be "so different" for it to clip or float over the model. The more minor you make the difference in body shape, the less it's going to look like a female. And I'm talking about non-geared females. Look at how broad the shoulders are on the Arma 3 model. The gear is designed to fit that. A female model with shoulders that broad would look pretty odd. As far as mo-cap, I think the current animations would work fine for female models. I don't have any proof to back that up of course, but it's not like a trained female soldier runs or does any other action that differently than a male.

I didn't say it wouldn't be difficult or easy to do, but the fact remains it's work that needs to be done if this is to look remotely professional.

[The new ARMA 3 DLC system - debate]

Just want to let everybody know that the Arma 3 workshop on steam has now reached over 50 kart missions (and that's just a keyword search, there may be more. There are also more kart missions not posted on the workshop)

Over 50 DLC-centric missions within 2 days of the release. Now I ask, how can anyone really believe that this new DLC model is going to result in no missions with DLC? No matter how many mission makers you talk to, you can't talk to all of them, and there are always going to be mission makers using whatever assets they own to make missions. Lack of DLC-centric missions creates a demand for them in return. That's the beauty of community content.

Edit: Oh, and before anyone brings it up, yes there are populated servers running these missions. One of them even has 36 players right now.

The proof is in the pudding, folks. The doomsday claims need to stop.

[The Nvidia DLC]

Paid DLC for features and fixes is much closer now than it was last week. Once the infrastructure is in place it will naturally creep in to incentivise DLC purchases.

Let's not start ridiculous rumors, okay? BIS has said nothing but the opposite of that. Nothing in the new DLC model has anything to do with locking out engine features. It re-emphasized the separation of content and features.

[Female character models]

Myke;2701701']No shit' date=' Sherlock[/quote']

Okay wow, I did not expect a moderator to be outright rude to someone making a civil post. What's your problem?

I think you're missing my point. Any change to the shape of the underlying body of the model is going to cause the gear you put on top of it to either float above the body or clip into it. Posting a real life photo doesn't prove anything with regards to how it's going to look in the game.

[The new ARMA 3 DLC system - debate]

While BIS certainly could label DLC content in the editor, they haven't done so. I'm really not sure why you are so vehemently defending this strategy. You're acting like people want BIS to just give them things for free, and that's not what anyone is saying.

No, I'm acting like people would rather see DLC entirely removed from their games if they don't own them, thus eliminating any possibility of playing on a server that is running a mission that happens to have a single DLC item in it, that may not be necessary to enjoy the mission.

They're just suggesting that the current system is maybe not the right solution. Really, if the current system rubs people the wrong way, maybe it's not the best marketing strategy in the first place.

I won't disagree that the proposed solution isn't perfect. I don't think any solution could be, though. The problem I have is that so many people want a return to the Arma 2 system, as if that is acceptable. BIS has already explained why it isn't, so I don't see why anyone would argue for it. It is essentially getting to use the DLC for free, since there were so many cases of people not even realizing it was DLC content. Not everyone cared that they were low quality models. Look at the millions of people who played the DayZ mod, despite most of them seeing the player models as very low quality. That is a problem for a company trying to make money with DLC.

So if the lite solution is out, and you don't like the "we nag you if you use it" solution, and you don't want any unwelcome intrusions into your gameplay, the only logical place you lead me to is a seperation of the player base, where you can't join a server if you don't have DLC that is in the mission. If you honestly think that is a good idea, then we can agree to disagree right here.

Edit: Just saw your edit. If you don't like the concept of DLC at all, then we've nothing left to discuss (at least not in this thread). I can say I do understand your plight about not wanting BIS to essentially dangle content in front of you by including it in your game, but I would rather have that than lock me out entirely.

I would also appreciate it if you fixed your second quote, since I did not post that.

Sorry about that, fixed.

[Female character models]

No need to modify the skeleton or accesories n junk, a vest is a vest regardless of the body its on and when you start messing with that stuff you bring unecessary work upon yourself.

I'm not sure it would work out as great as you might be imagining. A slimmer waist "hourglass figure" with breasts of any size is going to require changes to gear like vests. If you put all the existing male equipment on a female model, it's going to look like a man's body.

[We need worse weapon systems]

I have to agree. If there's one complaint I have about future warfare, it's that it reduces the challenging fun of using the weapon systems.

At the same time though, I'd rather have BIS simply release more weapons and vehicles than try to improve the existing ones.

[The new ARMA 3 DLC system - debate]

First of all, you're being needlessly pedantic. A demo is an advertisement in the same sense that an excerpt from a book or a trailer for a movie is an advertisement.

Second of all, there is much less distinction to be drawn when the content being demoed is seemlessly merged with a full game that I have purchased. I didn't choose to install a demo and try it out. I'm placing down a bunch of civilian vehicles in the game I just bought and woops one of them apparently I can't actually get into or has a dumb icon or overlay on my screen while I'm using it.

This system is obnoxious. Pergor said it feels like blackmail and I agree. It's just kind of a gross marketing strategy and I think there has to be a better solution.

You call me pedantic for wanting to distinguish between 2 very different types of marketing, and yet your argument against my point that you don't have to use it if you don't want to is "what if I accidentally use it?"

So basically your problem with it is: you don't want to accidentally stumble upon using a DLC asset you don't own? That seems like a very arbitrary complaint. BIS could easily avoid the scenario you described by indicating that the asset you're placing in the editor is part of a DLC. Better yet, they could put DLC in a separate group in the unit selector.

If you want to talk about what can be called marketing, having servers that I try to join only to be told "you need to buy this DLC in order to join this server" can just as easily be called intrusive marketing. At least with this method, I can play with my friends and enjoy the assets I do own, while others enjoy what they own. You cannot tell me that is a downside.

Arma 2 system was much better. Please return it. Voting menu is showing you everything.

This thread is for feedback, not telling BIS what to do. Saying "switch it back" is not a compelling argument. If BIS is to gain any insight from this thread, it's going to come from responses that actually give reasoning. The poll is not overwhelmingly against the new system anyway.

[The new ARMA 3 DLC system - debate]

Yes, it is. A game demo is an advertisement.

A game demo serves to advertise in the sense that its intention is to get you to purchase, but it's not in itself an advertisement. A game demo is something you choose to download and play. It gives you a taste of the experience. An actual advertisement would be telling me about the DLC out of context, when I'm just playing the game and not trying to use content I do not own. It does not give me the experience of trying it. It just tells me there's a go-kart I can buy, and maybe what it looks like.

Even if you want to call a game demo an advertisement, there is still a distinction to be made. There is a very clear difference between something being displayed to you in the form of "hey, look, buy this" vs. you actively choosing to use the content, and being notified that there will be limitations unless you purchase it. To ignore this distinction is purposely being ignorant about the issue. Let's not be reductive.

[The new ARMA 3 DLC system - debate]

do not like ingame advertised DLC´s while playing the game- arma 3 is not a mobile game.

do not like to pay for a single chopper or gun and so on...

1. An advertisement is not the same thing as a notification that you do not own the content you are using. That's like saying downloading a game demo is advertising when it reminds you that you're playing a demo.

2. The notifications are entirely up to you to avoid. You are not forced to use any DLC content that you don't own.

3. No future DLC is ever going to be a single chopper or gun. If you are accusing BIS of unfairly pricing their DLC, (which is too early to say, since we don't even know the full content list of the future DLCs) that's another discussion. I'll reiterate what I said on this same page: The Karts DLC is a one-off, it's not a sign of more one-vehicle DLC to come for a couple bucks each. It's cheap because it's more or less a test of the new DLC model, and it obviously should not cost very much considering it's not much content.

It is different in the sense that it is not as drastic as low res textures, wich some people really seem to dislike, while serving as an advertisement for the DLC.

The fact that it isn't as drastic is exactly what's wrong with the idea. Those texture overlays would be even easier to ignore than the lite models were. Perhaps BIS didn't make it clear enough in the roadmap, but the old Lite model did not work for them. It worked for us, because thousands of players weren't even aware that they were being limited by non-ownership. But that is not a viable business model for BIS. We have to make compromises here. BIS needs to make money, and we need a fair way to try out things we don't own, while not be able to get used to using them despite the drawbacks. If people can get used to lite models, they definitely can get used to some fake branding.

It also does not make it clear that it's DLC content. How does seeing some generic company branding on a weapon tell me that I don't own the weapon, and should buy some DLC to get rid of it? There's already fake branding in the game itself as part of the setting. That's totally confusing.

[The Nvidia DLC]

I don't think optimization should be a paid DLC. Imagine the huge number of complaints from people who buy it without understanding that it only benefits Nvidia cars. Or, people who buy it and then upgrade to an AMD card. It's full of problems. Either do it as a standard part of the game's updates or don't do it at all.

[The new ARMA 3 DLC system - debate]

We're still getting an expansion pack. And these DLC are not "microtransactions". $16 is not micro in any sense of the word. It's less than a full expansion, but so is the content. If you think the price to content ratio is unfair, that's an entirely other discussion. The Karts DLC is a one-off, it's not a sign of more one-vehicle DLC to come for a couple bucks each. It's cheap because it's more or less a test of the new DLC model, and it obviously should not cost very much considering it's not much content.

Besides, if the content to price ratios are assumed to be fair (and BIS is not a greedy company, we can all agree) then this actually gives more power to the consumer.

Say an expansion was released instead of all the DLC that contained everything. X amount of content for Y price. That means if you want anything in that expansion, you have to buy the whole thing. Or you can split it up, X/3 content for Y/3 price. Then people can buy only what they want. Your wallet only gets crossed as much as you want to cross it. You are not forced to shell out additional money for things you don't want. Enough people are complaining about the existence of go-karts in Arma. Imagine the upset if they were included in the expansion, and the logical conclusion would be "I'm paying for go-karts in a military sim, and have no choice because they are not sold separately from this all-in-one expansion."

[The new ARMA 3 DLC system - debate]

I'm not yet in-game in that case. That's the lobby, and yes, that's much less infuriating (if at all), if you ask me. You see a list of servers, some are green, others red. Some popup on mouseover (or whatever) will explain you why that is and what you need to do, to be able to join... pretty standard and fully transparent - in the best case there is simply a filter, and by default on, so that a new user only sees "green" servers. It's not like expansions (or DLC) would be anything new...

And what if you want to play with your friends? Too bad, they're on a server that has DLC assets. You don't even have to use the DLC assets to play on the server, yet you're for the idea that the player should not be allowed on the server full stop. That is far, far worse. Restrict the content itself, not the entire server. "Hey guys, I don't have to fly that new helicopter to play with you, but BIS says I can't even join your server because I might be caught looking at that new heli." Come on, this is clearly a step down in UX.

Maybe this seems not important, or arbitrary to you, to me it is important. I don't want to play some chess to be bothered that there exists some new figure that can teleport - wanna buy it? only 2 dollary!!, no! If I want teleport-chess I buy teleport-chess to begin with. Stop bothering me already.

Sorry, that's a poor analogy. First of all, teleporting chess pieces? As if the DLC is some kind of pay to win crap that is going to give you massive advantages over other players. That's not the kind of crap BIS adds to their games, paid or not. And I reiterate, you are not bothered about the "new chess piece" unless you actually try to use it. You will never be bothered about it if you never use it.

As said, I fully understand that there probably is no optimal solution to this clusterfuck of what a single game consists of nowadays. But developers need to find solutions that don't screw with their audience. And just to be perfectly clear: I'd rather have no "free" DLC that is just there to remind me that I could buy that too. No thanks. I know what I've bought, that's what I'm going to play with. Leave me alone already, I wanna have some fun here. *grrrr

Listen, I get what you're saying, but I honestly think you're making it out to be worse than it actually is. The DLC is not just there to remind you to buy it. It's to let people try it for themselves. Arma is a game about experiencing things for yourself, after all. Watch a mission being played on Youtube and you see one out of thousands of ways to play it. The beauty of Arma is in doing it yourself. So let's carry over that beauty into the concept of trying DLC before you plunk down $20. If you are not interested at all in content you do not own, you can simply enjoy its presence on the battlefield while others enjoy it, and never be nagged about it at all just by not using it, as if it were not in the game.

[The new ARMA 3 DLC system - debate]

The in-game experience is sacred territory, don't you dare to bother me about real-life stuff while I'm trying to immerse and enjoy myself in there (e.g. with purchase decisions).

In other words, you'd rather be able to enjoy the DLC without any notifications that you're using something you do not own, for free. Or, you'd rather the DLC not be accessible at all, so that nobody is able to preview them for themselves, and are forced to rely on pictures and video. Simple solution, do not use the things you don't own, and BIS won't ask you to buy it.

Just imagine some guy going online, after getting his copy of ArmA3, and is immediately greeted by such a friggin popup?!

Just imagine some guy going online, after getting his copy of ArmA3, and is immediately greeted with "you cannot join this server because you don't own this DLC."

I don't get how that's a better solution than at least letting the person try out the DLC that BIS wants him to buy, and see what it's like first hand, for himself. The nagging does not impede his ability to do so, it only makes sure he can't fully enjoy using it without owning it (which is what the problem with the Lite assets was).