Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

vegeta897

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    696

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Posts posted by vegeta897

  2. Posted

    This has annoyed me in the past. Having to equip a rifle just to take off its optics and then take my rifle back and attach the scope. I'm not sure how it should be done design-wise to let us grab a scope/mag/attachment from a rifle on the ground (or in a backpack) but I'd really like anything that makes this process easier/quicker.

  3. Posted

    I'd argue that BI probably shouldn't be selling static weapons DLC until each faction has unique static weapons and launchers. Looks quite cheap otherwise, like for helicopters there's quite a lot of choice already, and we aren't too badly off for sniper and marksman rifles but the static weapons are quite obvious. It just looks like milking it a bit too much otherwise. (FIA would be the exception since their stuff is supposed to be captured mostly).

    That's a pretty good point. I guess I overlooked it because I really don't mind the copy pasted stuff in that area. I'd be happy for the free enhancements. Maybe they could "make it right" and finish out the variations for each faction for free along with adding brand new stuff for money.

  6. Posted

    I like the system and the effect it has on gameplay.

    The only change I would like is to see is better representation of the difference between longarms and handguns. With a longarm the largest portion of sway should be represented in the screen moving (and only a very small amount of movement in the weapon model within that) because of 'cheek-weld'. Handguns would have a smaller amount of that but continue to show most movement in the weapon model. I think this would significantly improve the feel of the system.

    I like this idea in theory, but I wonder if moving the entire screen might be a bit nauseating and make the sway feel even more pronounced.

  7. Posted · Edited by vegeta897

    Unlike in other parts of the community is obsessed with the fact that the game should be getting more and more difficult in an obsessive search for realism.

    Nothing in my post has to do with realism. It's about interesting gameplay, pure and simple. I couldn't care less about how realistic it is. I don't want a boring game where the biggest weapon is always the best choice, and the choice to sprint is always correct. If I can get tired in the game and my gear has weight, I want that to actually mean something for the gameplay. If the game has small calibre weapons, I want them to actually have a use, a set of pros that the big machine guns don't have. Can you seriously not see how this point of view is entirely focused on improving and diversifying the gameplay, not about realism?

    Maybe you should try reading my post again without the preconceived notion that anyone in support of the current state of the game only cares about realism. Arma 3 has never had the ultimate goal of realism.

  8. Posted

    It's not funny to see some Arma 3 player storm into this thread with exaggerations and non-useful remarks. And then when someone replies to it offering suggestions, they're ignored.

    You can run 50 meters and shoot. You can't sprint for 50 meters with an unrealistic amount of gear on you and expect to have no ill effects without resting. Give us some real data if you want to complain about specific outcomes that you're unhappy with.

    Why have a stamina system at all if players shouldn't have to be concerned about managing their kit and movement?

    Why have weapons of various sizes and choices to make when selecting your gear if we're just going to complain about the consequences?

    Why have a sprint key if we're not even going to care about when to use it and when to jog?

    The core of Arma's gameplay is about cause and effect. You make choices and they have consequences. If you're implying that your ability to shoot should be the most important thing in the game, you're playing the wrong game. Go play with a mod that disables stamina if you really want that. Before the stamina changes, you had no reason to not grab a scoped Zafir with a Titan launcher and 6 box magazines, sprinting all the way to your objective. That is boring as all hell, and reduces the gameplay dynamics to "bigger gun, better player".

  10. Posted

    Added: AI rate of fire randomization

    I hope this means what it sounds like. No more constant steady pop pop pop all the time?

    A note on bullets hitting weapons/launchers... It seems like the only 2 options that wouldn't require a significant amount of work are the current system, bullets hitting and possibly ricocheting, or bullets just going through the weapons completely. Keep in mind the implications of shooting at a target's weapon when they're facing to the left or right in relation to you. I think it looks better to have the weapon impact if I were aiming at the weapon than for the bullet to just pass through and hit nothing. It definitely would be weird if it actually hurt the player. Implementing a weapon damage system would be a large undertaking, and probably something BIS has considered and discarded long ago. Weapons don't even jam as it is, imagine the gameplay implications that have to be designed for if your weapon could simply be destroyed.

  11. Posted

    There's was a big outcry because they've never carried a kit laden bergen, webbing and rifle before. Not to mentioned the bloody heavy army issue helmets. People want to carry an arsenal of weapons and explosives to destroy a small country and wonder why they can't run across the terrain like Superman :D You have to give credit to BIS for fatigue system. As long as we're on the level playing field with the Ai I can see nothing wrong with the realism.

    Yes! I was just mentioning the outcry as proof that the fatigue system was definitely not toned down or made easier compared to Arma 2. I love what the fatigue system has done for the game's balance.

    OFP came before battlefield in 2001.

    Also, doesn't anyone remember how arcade-y the heli controls were in OFP? Your altitude automatically contoured to the elevation of the land as you flew. You could fly straight toward a mountain and the heli would automatically rise up to maintain altitude.

  12. Posted

    And he is entitled to it.

    Says who? Did the Steam page say it would have vehicles or weapons that it ended up not having? In what way is he entitled to more content? If he's entitled to that, why isn't anyone entitled to anything they please? Not being happy with how much content the game has doesn't mean you're entitled to more. I wish there was a large submarine in Arma 3. They talked about underwater combat and operations, why only one mini sub? Am I entitled to another submarine, just because it would fit in the game and I want it really badly?

  13. Posted

    run anywhere with any weight without consequence

    Huh? I could do this in Arma 2 easily, unless I had ACE mod running. The new fatigue system in Arma 3 is much less forgiving than Arma 2. Before the update there were little to no consequences, but after you really have to watch the weight of your kit as well as how much you're sprinting, and being at max fatigue makes you run very slow and makes aiming very difficult. There was a huge outcry from people because of how drastic the change was. Have you played Arma 3 recently?

  14. Posted

    I want to see the pricetag say "free" as I already paid for the game but only got a quarter of the content.

    A quarter of what content? The content in your imagination?

    If you think Arma 3 is the only game to ever have shown concepts that don't make it into the game, I'm dumbfounded.

    This thread is completely pointless and simply a rehash of many threads we've had before. Nothing valuable can come from it, other than a suggestion to download or start making mods.

  15. Posted

    If you're going to just ignore the bulk of my post and keep stubbornly repeating yourself, people aren't going to take you seriously.

    Game engines cannot be inherently "limited" when the developer has full control over it. Anything they could do better in a new engine could be done in the existing engine. I thought my post conveyed that point pretty well, but I'm not even sure if you read it all based on that reply.

    I'll answer your sarcastic question (which does not further the discussion at all, something you oddly don't appear to be interested in doing in your own thread), what will happen is they'll keep successfully improving the Arma series like they have been. Some people will continue to complain that things should be better, but the risks will remain the same until something major changes in this balance.

  16. Posted

    none of what you said actually changes the fact that the game needs a new engine.

    It also doesnt change the fact that publishers are not needed to make games anymore.

    also BIS has money

    Ignoring how incredibly black and white you are painting the picture, what if they fail?

    What if they spend years dedicating all their time to a new engine, and it fails to achieve what they wanted? What if it's worse than the current engine? They could easily end up with just as broken an engine as what we have now. Your posts keep treating the concept of a new engine as a magic fix that will solve all problems, as if code is automatically better if it's newer. I'm not just talking about it being difficult and time-consuming, I mean it could drive itself into the ground and they'll have nothing to show for their years of investment.

    Taking this kind of risk is not easy when they already have an engine that is good enough to keep them in business and keep most people happy enough to keep playing.

    How can they ensure this doesn't happen? Recreating the existing engine 1:1 would of course result in a clone, so they have to know what parts work and what parts do not. This is why it makes more sense to fix these parts in the existing engine than try to reinvent everything all at once. That's what they're doing with DayZ. They didn't start from scratch, they redeveloped as they went, with the end result being totally new.

  17. Posted

    did i said that BI should make arma on cryengine ? i only proved thats possible to have large terrains in cryengine, not more not less.

    You've just admitted that your comparison is totally pointless.

    It's now on the same level as me saying "hey look at this game engine I made in javascript, it can handle 1 million square kilometer terrains". If it doesn't provide what Arma's terrains provide, your comparison holds zero value. You wouldn't have brought it up in the first place if you really believed that, so it's clear you're just backpedaling.

  19. Posted

    I don't think it's so complicated: as secondary weapon is not meant the launcher, but the pistol.

    I meant the launcher slot. Replace the words in my post. If you can put a rifle in the launcher slot, it's not really a launcher slot anymore, and then it would seem weird that the primary can do less than the other slot.

    My point wasn't that it's too complicated. It's that it's more complicated than the current system. I don't have a problem with that, but I'm speaking about what BIS is likely to do. They prefer to simplify instead of the other direction.

    I get that it's extremely common in real life, that wasn't the discussion. This is about translating these concepts into game mechanics that are easy to understand. Otherwise we end up with complicated inventory systems like in BI's previous games.

  20. Posted

    When I hear about the Marksman DLC, I'm honestly dreaming about the possibility to carry 2 rifles. The second one instead of a laucher. It would be pretty epic !! Do you think it's possible BI would implement such a thing ?

    Maybe, but I think BI would tend to avoid making things a little confusing that way. "So the primary weapon slot can hold rifles, and the secondary can hold rifles and launchers? Why can't both slots hold both?" BI prefers to simplify existing systems instead of complicating them.

    I'm just glad for the ability to put guns in a backpack.

  21. Posted

    It's all about the hype these days. The hype, and the suspension. The only problem with those two things however, is major disaster if not executed correctly. Hopefully we can expect something either really really good from the expansion, a major amount of content and possible new features, or, little content, few features. We never know.

    I don't think it is all about hype, at least not intentionally. BIS have said many times that they're withholding info about new features until they can confirm for certain that they'll be able to pull them off. They've broken promises like this in the past, and want to avoid that happening again.

  22. Posted

    I donated some of my stuff too, so i guess i'm entitled to make that judgement.

    You're entitled to make your own judgement, and others are entitled to make theirs.

    If i don't get money from work that i did for whatever reason, why should anybody else?

    The reciprocal of that question could be asked too. People do things they want to do, and if others want to support it, they will.

  23. Posted

    the feeling/handling of vehicles feels much worse than in arma2

    Purely subjective, because I strongly disagree.

    also cpu only physx(i would understand if they would use the under utilized gpu but cpu only...)

    The physics simulation in Arma 3 is really quite basic, just a few rigid bodies and ragdolls. It's nothing that would be noticeably improved by moving it to GPU.

  25. Posted

    The fact that BE did ban him is technically proof that he's guilty. It's just as proof as using a calculator to verify that 2 + 2 = 4. It's a program, it takes inputs and gives outputs. How could you provide more proof? Show the program's source code? Anti-cheat programs are designed to give false negatives, not false positives (unlike anti-virus programs) because obviously false bans should be avoided at all costs. BE has nothing to gain from "secretly" banning innocent people for the hell of it; it could only hurt their reputation.

    But this thread is completely useless anyway.

×