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

  1. Posted

    all the fan boys join the army if you want to get tired, some of us just want to have fun :P

    Sigh, I'm tired of this argument being made.

    If you think anything realistic in Arma is only there for realism's sake, you're wrong. Realistic fatigue is there to enhance and diversify the gameplay.

    We want to have fun too. Does your idea of fun involve there being no reason at all to not grab a Zafir with 6 boxes of ammo and a Titan launcher with 3 missiles? That is boring as hell, because everyone does it, and if you aren't doing it, you're at a clear disadvantage, with no advantage to carrying light.

    The fatigue system is what creates those advantages and disadvantages. You could still try to carry that kind of equipment, and you would have an advantage in firepower, but you'd be disadvantaged in your maneuverability. That is called good gameplay. That's what makes Arma fun.

    What good are all the lighter weapons in the game if nobody has any reason to use them? Half of the game's arsenal is made useless when cutting fatigue out of the equation. There's literally no reason to not choose a machinegun over any AR or SMG, and no reason to choose any launcher besides the Titan. Yawn. How is it fun if your enemy carrying a Zafir + Titan can run just as fast and maneuver just as well as you when you decide to take an SMG and a few nades? How is it not fun for you to have the advantage of speed in that situation? Why would you want your choice of gear to not have any gameplay implications? Why even have gear choice at all? Why play Arma?

    Being able to sprint to every objective with all the gear you could ever need turns the game into a chore. You don't have to make any decisions whatsoever, it dumbs the game down so much that I honestly do not understand why you're playing Arma in the first place.

  2. Posted

    I have a feeling that majority of people who disagree with fatigue have yet to try out:

    a: lowering weapon (2x Ctr)

    b:alternate between jogging and walking (which you do when you spot black flash on the sides) (S + W)

    c: pressing C while weapon down to alternative between combat paces

    d:use sprint in combat (shift)

    e:drop ruck if you are stopping to rest

    f:taking into account what do you carry

    g:take into count where do you travel (uphill exhaust you/downhill regain you)

    Good post.

    Survive, Adapt, Win

  4. Posted

    My suggestion would be for the affected addon makers to team up and launch a Kickstarter (or similar) in order to raise money to hire legal representation. Bohemia should then anonymously contribute a few thousand dollars in to said fund.

    This is the most ridiculous idea yet. You're saying Bohemia Interactive should give thousands of dollars to somebody they do not know so that they can launch a copyright lawsuit? I don't even see anyone in here saying that they are prepared to launch a lawsuit but don't have the money. This is just a recipe for disaster. Since BIS cannot fight for copyrights they don't hold, you're saying they should just give out thousands of dollars to the holders so they can. And you reason that BIS is obligated to do this because the Arma series relies on community content, and BIS must have a lot of sales money to just throw around. How can you think this sounds like a reasonable plan?

  6. Posted

    That makes me so sick...

    Anyway, I have a question for Matt - eventhough it's not really on topic :

    I remember reading somewhere that BI sent, some time ago, a cease and desist letter to the DayZ Origins devs; I'd like to know on what basis this action had been taken?

    I'm not familiar with Origins, but it seems it is quite alike the present situation, isn't it?

    It's not quite similar because that was a very cut and dry case of using a trademark term that BIS did not allow. The proof was immediately apparent in the name itself, so there wasn't any hesitation.

    OI! Let's not start to bark at the wrong tree, the evidence so far, while it sure is angering, isn't beyond reasonable doubt, which is what is needed to take legal action against these thieves.

    Hear hear. It's not very encouraging to see the only BIS employee responding to this thread being more or less attacked for stating what BIS needs in order for the petition's goal to be carried out.

  7. Posted

    I'm laughing that there is "no proof".

    Where'd you get that quote? I didn't say or imply there was no proof. I was asking you if you were saying proof didn't matter, because you responded to a post saying there needs to be proof with what looked like laughing at the idea of needing proof ("Need proof...heheh..."). I didn't understand your meaning, which is why I asked. Then you proceeded to ask what the point of BIS's licenses were if people could break them, as if the guy you were responding to didn't agree that if there was proof, action should be taken.

  8. Posted

    Need proof...heheh...ahhhh...what a world we live in when licenses that say "do not redistribute" don't matter, what is the point to having a licenses if they mean nothing?

    BI spent all that time working out these licenses and explaining them and for...what exactly?

    Are you saying proof doesn't matter? How would you feel if someone claimed something you made was actually stolen from them, and BIS took action against you without proof?

  9. Posted

    I completely agree, but that doesn't equate to, "Don't buy the content, have some full screen overlay, in-gameplay adware."

    This is only a problem with shared assets where players have no choice but to use those assets to join in with the server missions.

    "Any squad members who don't own the DLC and don't want adware forced upon them get in the Hummingbird, any squad members who don't mind adware or own the DLC, get in the Huron."

    See the problem?

    It's not forced if they choose to get in a DLC chopper, or choose to play a mission that requires this action. If a DLC chopper isn't free, then why should a player be able to fully enjoy a mission based around one? If he could fully enjoy the mission, that's removing incentive to purchase. Whereas if the mission has an option to use the DLC chopper or a vanilla chopper, the only part they're missing out on is what they didn't pay for. Either way, I don't see the problem. It's down to the mission designer and server admin to make their own judgments on how enjoyable they want their mission or server to be for non-DLC owners. You cannot say players are forced to see ads if you're talking about choosing to play missions that require the use of DLC content. You wouldn't be using the word "forced" at all if players simply couldn't join servers that had DLC content, which is how most games do it.

    You didn't mention it, but I do think that showing ads when joining/leaving a DLC mission even without using the DLC content yourself is a bit overkill. They should at least not have countdown timers.

  12. Posted · Edited by vegeta897

    I think you will get more people complaining about in game advertising then blurry textures. We cant find one thread on here about some one not liking the blurry textures, but we already a thread about someone not liking in game Ad's, I predict a lot more. So what does that say about the users in game experience? I know which I 'd prefer.

    Did you read all of my post? Specifically the part where I said it was important that users not be content with the limitations imposed by using premium content for free. Nobody complaining about the blurry textures means it's not enough of a drawback to entice people to actually purchase the DLC. The ads, however, are not something that can just be ignored. People are complaining about them because they're trying to use things they didn't pay for. That's business... The only real reason they have to complain is that they're comparing it to the old model which just way too generous and was a bum deal for BIS. If this were any other game's DLC, would people be complaining about not being able to play a map that was part of a DLC they didn't own? BIS at least lets you get a taste of the content as well as play with people that own it, but there must be a drawback otherwise people won't care to spend money.

    This is starting to remind me of the people who complain about the price of the DLC. It's like, BIS takes the common DLC model (you can't do anything unless you pay) and makes parts of it free, and suddenly logic goes out the window. Being able to join servers that are running DLC and fight against, fight along, and ride passenger in vehicles that you didn't pay for are all way better than simply being locked out entirely, ads or not. This is just basic logic. The only way it is worse is in comparison to their old DLC model, which no other game company has adopted, and for good reason.

    Also, yes the thread pettka posted was not a good example, but there's still mountains of evidence that you've just conveniently ignored. I know you're not trying to call me and others in this thread liars... ;)

  13. Posted · Edited by vegeta897

    People knew well what the deal was with the lo res textures etc of Arma2 DLC, that excuse from BI is pure BS.

    I had to explain it to most of my friends who reacted to these textures during our play sessions, and I used to see posts all the time asking how to increase model quality or admitting ignorance about the low quality models on the r/dayz subreddit. If you haven't seen posts like this, that's nice, but this is not something BIS has fabricated.

    They had a perfect system previously, probably the best DLC system I have seen yet. I guess they just got greedy. Role on the Steam sales thankyou very much.

    It wasn't perfect. That's why they wanted to change it. Maintaining two sets of models was a deployment nightmare. And too many people did not even care about the low res textures and would use the assets with no incentive to purchase them . Again, I have seen evidence of this both in my friends and on reddit, as well as posts from the original thread that discussed the pros and cons of the new DLC concept. You may have been happy with the system (I was okay with it too) but it was not good for BIS. That doesn't make them greedy. How could it? They're still charging similar prices for similar content, except now they're actually giving features from the DLC to everyone for free. They've replaced ugly textures that didn't effectively convey the concept of premium content with notifications that do. Even someone who doesn't own the content can potentially have a better experience because they can fight alongside DLC owners without entering the vehicles and not have to see blurry messes, but full quality models, without even paying.

    Edit: Curse you, ninja pettka.

  14. Posted

    Gosh darn it vegeta beautiful post.
    Vegeta, Completely agree with your view.
    Excellent post vegeta!

    Appreciate the support guys, I honestly felt kind of sheepish afterwards for typing so much.

    Well, honestly it isn't a very good sign when you must defend a DLC by saying you're only buying it to support the studio. Anyway, i supported the studio by the supporter edition, but i can't say i have much interest in this DLC while being curious about the next one.

    It's not a good sign for BIS's public image, that much is evident looking at facebook comments and any other reactions that share the sentiment of it being overpriced or under-value. But I think it's just a necessary hurdle for deploying a new strategy that gamers just haven't seen before. We shouldn't be scared of these kinds of reactions. After all, as much as they want to complain, they're getting and enjoying the free features anyway :P

    Just like the whole early access trend still has lots of people who don't quite grasp the concept, and will complain about various aspects that come with the territory of game development (game breaking bugs, missed dates, no dates, perceived taking too long). But for those that do understand, it's a great way for them to support the developers by getting involved in the process and helping to shape the game that is to be.

  15. Posted · Edited by vegeta897

    Supporting someone or something is great and all, but in BIs case they're still a company that is selling you something. And when you buy something you expect to get value for the amount you're paying (which is what this topic is actually about, not all this supporting or not supporting) So when you get down to it and look at what you're paying compared to what you're getting the value is way off. The content that you're paying for are 2 new helicopters and 1 that got ported from TOH, some showcases and challenges that most people ignore/don't even know exist or may do(attempt) once and be done with it a handful of miscellaneous junk that majority of the players will never use. Does that sound like value for your money? Where are the actual helicopters this DLC is suppose to be about?

    You may see this as a warped view as well(i could get why) but again, if the features are FREE then i'm not paying for them, but everyone else seems to be saying that i am because it needs to be payed for. But what about all the people that aren't paying but are still getting those features? So they really are telling me to pay on behalf of other people because, well someone needs to. Ignoring things like this is having a warped view imo. Supporting a company is great, and i'v played almost 650 hours of arma3, but that doesn't mean i can't expect to still get my monies worth from something they're selling me.

    You can't take the supporting out the equation. It's what makes the DLC possible. They are charging an amount that they feel will net them enough sales that will pay for the work they've put into the DLC and more to continue making DLC and the expansion. Since they put paid work into stuff you aren't paying for, that has to be compensated for somehow. Ignoring it and just focusing on the money and only what you gain after paying is just ignoring the whole picture. You can't make valid arguments on the subject without it.

    You are paying for those free features. Not to access them, but for their development. Just as buying the game paid for not only the game's development but BIS's other endeavors. What makes you think you are in control of what BIS does with your money? Can you choose to have your $15 go only to the employees that created the helicopters? The view that you're paying for other people is true in some ways, but also ignoring a key concept: collectiveness. Everyone benefits collectively from everyone's collective support. A game improving is different from a factory producing more candy bars. It costs money to create each candy bar, and the cost is recouped by the sale of that one candy bar to an individual. But BIS doesn't need to reprogram firing from vehicles for each player. They make it once and it's there. The feature had one single cost to develop, and the player base as a whole contribute to paying for it. Not everyone has to pay to achieve this, and that's why it's possible for them to release parts for free. But there must remain at least something to give to people who did pay, and that's the incentive.

    But nobody is forcing you to buy anything you don't want to. BIS doesn't expect each and every person to support them to make free features possible, they expect the community as a whole to buy enough to justify it. If you aren't comfortable with the idea of someone who didn't buy the DLC getting a better game alongside you who paid for it, simply don't buy it. I just think that's a silly point of view to have. It's like saying people being able to play a game demo is unfair because the demo wouldn't exist if people didn't pay for the game's development by buying it. What are you losing by other people gaining the same free things you are? BIS could have gone down the classic road of keeping all DLC-related content behind the price of the DLC, but there are several reasons they chose not to do that, and that was a discussion that has already happened, and doesn't belong here. So if part of their work is to be given out free, the other part has to compensate in price. If BIS didn't develop those free features at all, and were just charging $15 for some new helicopters, it would be too steep. The value would not match the work that went into it.

    Lowering the price of this DLC would mean BIS did more work than they could justify because they wouldn't make enough money from it. Then the game dies. They can no longer justify adding to the game because it's a money sink. Increasing the work by adding more choppers for the same price gives the same result.

    Enjoying the choppers plus the free features and continued support and expansion of the game is getting your money's worth, regardless of someone else's ability to enjoy part of that for free. Because your money's worth is what made the entire DLC possible, not just the choppers. A lot of people (enough, apparently) are comfortable with the concept of not getting instant gratification for every dollar they spend. They understand it's an investment of sorts into the game's future, and a justification to BIS for its present. If everybody viewed the DLC as simply paying $15 for 2 helicopters, ignoring the free features that cost money to develop, and ignoring the cost of supporting a game post-release, the game would have no future, unless they chose to never give out features for free again.

    Edit: Sorry for the rambling, I've realized half way that I don't care about trying to convince you anymore.

    TLDR: If you aren't comfortable with the concept, I probably can't change your mind. I suppose you didn't like the idea of the Supporter Edition either. Because that was paying 35 dollars more than someone else for extra stuff that definitely was not worth 35 dollars. But I and others paid it because we knew it would result in a better game. We didn't mind that that better game was also available to the people who only paid $30, or even less in a sale some day. Speaking of sales, your view would seem to be against that concept as well, wouldn't it? If I bought the game on release and paid $50, but someone else bought the game a few years later for only $15, how is that fair? They got the same game as me but paid way less. It's fair because the game's development was collectively funded by all its sales. BIS did not produce a better game just for me for my money, or a worse game for someone who paid less. BIS produced a game, everyone paid to make it happen. Having extras given to people who pay for things like DLC are incentives to make this happen.

  16. Posted

    ROFLOL - this looks un-tested to me, you're more accurate in a vehicle doing 100kmph over uneven ground than lying prone and motionless.

    I think you missed my point entirely. I was talking about the design decision to include gryoscopic compensation as a human naturally would do without thinking about it. Accuracy is another matter, but your exaggerations aren't helping. If you have real feedback to give, there are proper ways of doing it. It's obvious that a prone and unfatigued player would be able to hit targets more accurately than one in a vehicle going that fast over bumpy terrain. Why are you trying to sabotage the integrity of your own thread? I gave you a sincere and real reply and you respond to that with this?

  17. Posted

    I do think there should be some swaying when the vehicle takes sharp turns, but as for automatically stabilizing, isn't that kind of a thing humans do naturally anyway?

    I'm sure they did lots of implementation tests when they were creating this feature. They probably found that not having that kind of gyroscopic stabilization was too disorienting or difficult for players, ie simply not fun.

  18. Posted

    Oh and vegeta i did read your post and i'm not surprised thats the only thing you could come up with as a response.

    That wasn't the only thing I "came up with". I gave you an entire paragraph, and you've now only responded to a simple rhetorical, dismissing everything I said. I asked if you read my post because you seemed to get a message from it that simply was not there (that we owe BIS anything). I didn't intend to insult your intelligence, but there's apparently a misunderstanding here, because nothing I talked about touched on the concept of us owing BIS anything.

    Please read my reply again and respond to what I'm actually saying, or don't respond at all:

    When did I say we owed the company anything? It's like you didn't even read my post. They owe us when we support them. By buying the DLC, they don't only give you helicopters, but continue to expand upon the game. They need sales in order to do this. Things like basic bug fixes are obviously owed regardless of DLC, but I'm talking about things added to the game that were not there or announced when it released, and we've gotten plenty of those already and continue to get them. You supported the developer by buying the game and you got a game. If you weren't happy with the game you got when you paid, that's too bad, but you can't expect them to work for free to live up to your expectations.

  19. Posted

    I really don't think it has taken over the identity of the game. If it did, then I would begin to agree about segregation being necessary. Most people that I mention Arma to have heard of it and know it's some kind of milsim game. It has had this reputation long before Altis Life was a thing, and it's not going to fade away that quickly.

    I wasn't saying preserving the public face of the game was the primary motivation, but you did bring up the topic of what the milsim community would gain. I was specifically addressing that. Of course it would be great for Life fans if BIS made a game for them. And it wouldn't be a detriment as a standalone. But you're calling it a detriment in its current for (as part of Arma 3) because you think it's taking over the game's identity. I was just saying it would be great if PC gamers grew more accustomed to the idea that a PC game can be transformed away from its original audience through the power of the community. Being accustomed to that idea would mean understanding what Arma 3's original identity is (which is obvious to anyone who simply goes to arma3.com or looks into it beyond whatever Altis Life youtube video they came across)

  20. Posted

    So this: http://i.imgur.com/Jsy2gyg.png is how BI decided to handle the situation? Wow. So basically, if your work is stolen (even if by immature little children) then it is your duty to resolve this between yourselves? And if the accused party decides not to comply with your wishes, then tough luck.

    If I stole a pen from you, would you complain at the store you bought it from? Would you tell the store to do something about it? How about the factory it was made in? I didn't think so.

    I'm sorry but, no developer with half a brain would dare get legally involved in these kinds of disputes. If you have a problem with your work being stolen, you are responsible for taking action. Why would you need BIS on your side when you have the law on your side? You can take action. How would it help if BIS was involved? They didn't create the content or steal it. There are 2 parties involved here, and they are not one of them. BIS would simply be risking legal trouble by attempting to get involved in what is absolutely a legal issue. Like I said, no developer with basic legal sense would attempt to get involved in a legal situation between players.

  21. Posted · Edited by vegeta897

    The milsim community, very simply, gains their game back.

    Oh god!

    frantically checks steam library

    JlqrtIJ.png

    Phew, there it is.

    This post is in jest, I know what you meant. While I do not believe Altis Life or any other game mode or mod detracts from the experience of existing players, it could theoretically give people who don't know what Arma is the wrong idea about the game. However, I think trying to preserve the public face of the game by segregating the results of it being such an open platform is not such a good thing. An experienced PC gamer that is familiar with the concept of highly moddable games would be able to tell what Arma really is, and I think we should strive to achieve this kind of awareness in PC gamers in general.

  22. Posted

    We do not owe the company anything, i find posts like the one above pretty funny. We should be able to want a better game without paying for new DLC every few months, its a shame BI like so many game companies have taken the route of DLC and grabbing every bit of cash they can out of people.

    If you want to buy it fine but the "supporting the developer" stuff is absolute rubbish, did i not support the developer when i bought this and many of their other games or do i have to buy all the DLC and everything else to prove it?

    When did I say we owed the company anything? It's like you didn't even read my post. They owe us when we support them. By buying the DLC, they don't only give you helicopters, but continue to expand upon the game. They need sales in order to do this. Things like basic bug fixes are obviously owed regardless of DLC, but I'm talking about things added to the game that were not there or announced when it released, and we've gotten plenty of those already and continue to get them. You supported the developer by buying the game and you got a game. If you weren't happy with the game you got when you paid, that's too bad, but you can't expect them to work for free to live up to your expectations.

    You should know better, you've been here long enough. The links in 90% of the modding community members signitures moot your statement that the game is improved by our support.

    Dunno if this is dry humor or not, but if you think Arma 3 would be in its current state of continuing feature and content growth without support by the community, you're just naive. How do you think a business works?

    A business model that relies on 'donations' is ridiculous. They are a corporate entity, the dlc is not value for money, I can have everything that someone who pays £10 gets, minus 2 helis for free. If you're going to sell something then it's better be value for money or 'your're gonna have a bad time.'

    Donations? In what universe does paying a company for their work equate to a donation? Why does making part of a DLC free to everyone convert its purchase into a donation suddenly? It's fine if you don't want to pay that money. But like I said, you're not just paying to get 2 helicopters. BIS creating and selling DLC is not just them selling a product in a vaccum. Selling DLC is a method of sustaining a business model that involves working on the game (more than just bug fixes) well after it's released. They don't need everyone to buy the DLC for it to work, but the more that do, the more they can put into the game.

    Then why give away 90% of the DLC that others are paying for for free?[/b

    This is sort of straying from the topic, but I could list a couple reasons. For one, some of these features are things the Arma community in general would not be happy having to pay for. Things like shooting from vehicles, that if they were implemented before DLC was a thing, they would not have been part of a DLC. As you said, it's the kind of thing that should have been in "since the start". Second, it's a great way to entice buyers. "Enjoy shooting from vehicles and sling loading? Well, we have more helicopters that you can do those things with."

    Just to be clear, i do agree with some of the things you said vegeta897 (to a certain degree) in the end someone does need to be paid for the work that they did. But if you then go and make pretty much everything free for everyone, then the only things that everyone doesn't get is what you're really paying for. And that's my issue with this whole thing. Otherwise they're expecting me(and others, you) to go and pay for other people, which is not what my money is suppose to go to.

    A good point, but again I feel it's a warped way of viewing things. Any money you give to the developers is support, and any support is going to result in a better game for everybody, no matter who paid for what. You can't not benefit other people when you buy BIS's games. People who bought DayZ helped Arma 3 players and vice versa (both in budget and staff hiring). The money made from DLC is not just to fund the work that was done on that DLC. You're giving your money to a company that makes awesome things, you can't choose what and where your money goes to within the company. It's not like they say "okay we made $50,000 from selling this DLC, let's divide it up among the people that worked on it". So to view buying the DLC as paying for the benefit of people that didn't buy it is a distorted view, in my opinion. Everyone buying anything from BIS benefits everyone.

  23. Posted

    This is a response to everyone who views the DLC as "15 dollars for 2 choppers".

    It's funny how BIS changing up the DLC formula has so many people confused about how things work.

    People seem to think that making the features free means that the features required little to no work to implement, or have no actual value. I do not understand this logic. The same amount of work went into this DLC whether they had chosen to charge for all of it or just the choppers. The amount of work that went into all of the DLC, free or not free, is what determines its value. And the amount of work needs to be justified by making money from it to pay the employees for their work. No matter what parts of the DLC BIS decides to give away, that basic formula is unchanged. But so many people seem to have forgotten that. This new "features are free" model has thrown these people for a loop, and logic has gone out the window.

    Giving BIS money in exchange for access to the rest of the DLC is not the same thing as walking into a convenience store and buying a candy bar. This is about supporting an indie developer so they can justify making DLC, expansions, and free updates in the first place. The game is directly improved by your support. Buying a lot of candy bars, however, doesn't make them taste better. It's just a product you pay to eat. Viewing the DLC as paying for 2 candy bars and ignoring the rest of the equation is just choosing to ignore the whole picture. If you like the features that you were given for free, you can ensure that more is to come by supporting the developer. The reward for your purchase goes beyond the immediate.

    Not caring about supporting the developer but also being angry about the price of improving your experience (or the state of the game in general) are directly contradictory positions. Either you want a better game or you do not. The game can only improve if BIS works on it, and they can only work on it if they stay in business. Do not let free features warp that reality. Employees were paid to make those features, just as the ones who created the choppers were.

  24. Posted

    Someone, somewhere at BI knows exactly what is and isn't possible for improving AI...

    Why would you think it is so black and white? Anything is possible since they can change the engine however they want. The feasibility is the question, and this is a gradient that isn't so easy to commit to a position on (which is what you're asking for). They don't want to say no to possibilities, and saying yes when they're not absolutely sure is a huge risk.

×