mrbenis

I too would like to see something a bit more urban, perhaps as a much smaller expansion heavily focussed on a series of small cities where open-ended CQC is a dominant feature. It will also allow the game to diversify a lot with things we've seen in rainbow6 games like more silenced and short ranged burst/full auto submachine guns with varying strengths, breaching charges, shotguns and a much deeper focus on infantry level tactics and strategies. Unfortunately from what I've learned the engine is hamstrung by being a 32 bit software and to truly do any justice to a 2015+ city scale fighter it would absolutely by necessity have to upgrade.

I think the issue is a good deal more severe than that. Squads not assuming correct stances, paces, not obeying trigger discipline, not spotting enemies properly or having x-ray vision, expending ammo on targets they can't actually damage..... the list is very long. ARMA 3 plays like a beta to me. My memory is a little fuzzy but it seems like it has a good deal less vehicles and significantly fewer weapons than A2. While I don't expect each new release to outright just be MORE MORE MORE I do expect to offer content on a comparable level and in this case it doesn't. The shoddy AI is just one part of the issue.

ok I've been gone for a week and I come back to this http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j293/MrBenis/2013-07-25_00001_zps3b6dff6d.jpg (103 kB) WTF I thought I SOLVED this problem How the hell do I force steam to update me to the CORRECT version of this game? Why is gamespy such a shitty program, that's 20 years old and for some unknowable reason instead of using steams own matchmaking service they still use gamespy which I remember suffering through to play TUROK 2.

IMO BIS should voice record persian vocals for OPFOR troops similar to what BF2 did with its non-english vocals. This would add to the immersion greatly.

I think I had better stick with the stable version then - my internet is very poor. Between unnecessarily switching between the versions these last 3 days, I managed to chew over 3gb of data. The communication of the requirements when switching is very poor. Simply stating that its easy to switch between the two versions doesn't really inform you of the fact you may end up needing to download 1gb every time.

Hi guys just switched back from DEV build to the stable build, will switching back at some future date require another giant download or is it just an .exe swap?

bumping I don't have a fast internet connection and another 6gb download will take ages. Does a dev know the answer? Also why was this never communicated in the manual or anywhere else - it just says if you want to switch between the two versions etc but never said anything about having to download the whole thing again.

Hi guys had a similar issue to OP for a couple days now. Been playing DEV servers all day and now want to switch back to stable client versions. Am I going to have to re-download the whole game again?

Well so far the AI has been the most effective anti-cheating/anti-moron device I've ever seen.

You do realise that the game has incendiary rounds in it? Beyond that this is a game which depicts realistic battlefields and war-time scenarios on topographically correct landscapes against real-world combatants. I smell pandering. Don't defend them for removing something that was part of their original advertising campaign and then not telling anyone except for a short sentence hidden under a sub-folder. And don't pretend that showing off products at conventions isn't advertising either. By definition it is.

I'd like to see a system similar to dark souls where you can be competing agents with other players, or co-op for missions provided you meet in the same 'safe-house' or something. It should be a passive thing, with invading players basicly just getting more supplies or whatever because they sided with a different internal faction.

Never knew why people wanted to play an alpha anyway. If you're that desperate for a sneak preview you want to play beta versions. Alpha versions are normally pretty bad.. Not sure what I'm looking at. He doesn't actually say anything. Could just be PR spiel for all you know. One thing that comes to mind every now and then is the question of if the gaming audience, now that things like Dark Souls (or just harder games in general) are gaining momentum, will that make ARMA 3 more popular? DayZ has had little reverse flow of players back to the core game, but, if ARMA 3 was sold on the premise of being a genuinely hard to master shooter with heaps of depth that could be a simple and effective marketting angle. I'm not even sure that a delayed release of ARMA3 at this time would be a real problem.. if it had released early last year (or whatever, I don't remember) on time as promised.. would the market really be in the mood for it? If it means anything to anyone, btw, my local EB games chain has started taking pre-orders of ARMA 3, only in the last month or so. Consumer protections here in australia kinda imply that you can't sell something that doesn't exist so I'm picking arma 3 is getting much closer.

The future of the franchise isn't looking too good right about now. Why hasn't the alpha been released? The game looks playable enough based on 6+ month old video footage. If the alphas purpose is to get rid of bugs and stress test various MP functions then why not throw it out there already. How can you go public with gameplay footage and not be running alpha testing? Is this thing we've been waiting a year for actually an alpha at all any more? Did Bohemia create some kind of magical new shading renderer and are reprogramming 30% of the game from the bottom up hence the entire years delay? Is the game being privately beta tested right now? Yeah ok if they wanted to tell us they would have already butttttt I find it hard to believe the entire project has ground to a halt because two staff members (senior ones or otherwise) were arrested. Obligations towards the companies bank account would have kept the ball rolling.. oh no.. arma 3 is being dissected as part of the spying inquiry. It will probably never see the light of day in its current form.

I personally support anything that helps to convey a more balanced approach to warfare. For example Spec Ops the Line; you fire white phosphorus rounds onto civilians, killing them all. A great juxtaposition on the intent of the soldiers, who only wanted to get through that area without being annihilated. ARMA 3's single player campaign could benefit from this. I'm not saying to have some overarching cheesy message that war is evul or anything, but at least make people see some accountability for fighting in an area with a civilian population. Effectively.. causing 0 civvy deaths should be only for very skilled players. The average player won't be a certifiable war criminal by the end of the game, but they will be staring down court martial.

I think the alpha will (should) be released over the christmas period for a few reasons. Firstly the typical ARMA player will play it regardless of the time of year. Secondly the more dedicated players will alpha A3 instead of playing the other games of this period. Thirdly any negative press the alpha would generate would be suppressed due to a lack of interest from the consumer base at large. Fourth and finally the alpha is literally an alpha and shouldn't be getting some huge open release anyway, why is everyone chomping at the leash for this? Why are you so desperate to have something you may not even *want* to play? I've played in betas before, WAR, BF2142, DOW2 and some other forgettable titles and I have to say that without a doubt that the beta's were totally unrepresentative of the final product (typically they were dumbed down to suit inferior play styles *cough turtling cough*) that I can't even imagine why I would want to play an alpha. I for one refuse to be an un-paid QA tester. If you want me to play your game before it's officially released I'll only do so to determine the balance of the game, not find your bugs for you.

I think in addition to the points mentioned earlier, the biggest thing BI could do to improve their game would be to include some of the mods in official patches and provide the modders with some sort of official support liason. The hundreds and hundreds of utility mods out there only exist because talented programmers acted on a need realised or perceived by the community. Their efforts should be officially recognised, and in many cases, incorporated into the base game. The AI improvements are of particular worth, and could probably be sourced for ARMA3.

Having been a fairly serious BF2 player back 6 years ago, I have some insights to offer on what makes a durable multiplayer. 1. Provide smaller maps for up to 32/48 players. Call them flashpoints or whatever, they could be on 5x5km maps with fairly dense terrain features. 2. Provide very small maps for up to 24 players, make them in cities thus discouraging the use of tanks, and forbidding the use of aircraft. BF "IO" single-handedly resurrected BF2 when it started to get stale after the first couple of years, and remained one of the biggest played modes until the death of BF2 in ~2010. 5 years after launch. 3. Don't feel afraid of making a tier-ed unlock system, but consider making it a non-permanent thing ergo that unlocks are based on a per-match performance metric rather than some accrued long term player character development. ARMA2 certainly doesn't support long term player bio growth, and couldn't really function that way either unless it directly copied the class system from BF2. 4. Allow any introduced unlock system to be disabled. Serious long-term players don't care about unlocks and achievements and other skinner-box incentives, they play to have a high K:D ratio and to have close, brutal games. 5. Consider offering an official, global tournament at release. BF2 gained immense popularity at launch (some 1.1 million accounts) in my belief due to offering a $50,000 prize to the winning clan/team. 50 grand in the context of the games development is kinda small and more or less falls under marketting. 6. Always launch with mod tools. Your vision of the game doesn't suit everyone. There are people who want to play on your engine due to its unique qualities but don't like your interpretation. Don't be offended by it, just observe the trends. DayZ and ACE come to mind.

Speaking of Ultima online.. High fantasy game set on the arma2/3 engine?

So long as this mod doesn't set a dangerous surrealist precedent with ARMA3 I give it my full support. ARMA3 MUST stay a milsim first and foremost. If the first official expansion pack is the translation of dayZ over it then so be it but IMHO what makes that mod so appealing in the first place is that it takes high-realism survival. With some leeway given for being bitten by a zombie of course..

Hey guys just wondering if there was a list of differences between the ARMA 2 and 3 engines technical capabilities. I'm not asking for system requirements, I can work those out for myself. What I'd like to know is more like 'is the draw distance more optimised in the engine' and things like lighting engine versions, polygon count averages. I'm asking this because while polygon counts on their own aren't any indication of an improved engine beyond maybe streamlined code, things like higher shader versions or more sophisticated physics simulations are worthwhile looking at. At the moment I think ARMA3 is a graphically advanced arma2 with a similar degree of clunkiness in movement and environment interaction (beyond physics collisions between vehicles) I'm referring to the surrealism of your person looking stiff and out of place. I personally will be buying the most powerful hardware for this current era so just assume I'll have access to everything. In brief: what's different for me to look forward to?

And that's why I posted this thread, because I'm just not seeing that. I played ARMA2 nightly for over a year.. and this new iteration looks very similar. I'm glad that the gameplay has been expanded and I'm just curious about the technical improvements. Dwarden with your position are you able to make a quick 20 second video of say, lighting effects?

I've read through the OP of that thread twice but I was curious if there was a video displaying those things concisely possibly in comparison. I'm unsure if there is one and the videos I have seen weren't in very high detail.

There needs to be more tension in games... and I don't mean Halo/MW2 tension of EXPLOSIONS O SHI~~~ but more Silent hill 2/STALKER tension where you're only a few steps away from getting your rectum shafted. If they wanted realism and atmosphere, making the player and crew actually vulnerable would be a great first step. Also no HUD.

I update to 1.7 using the 1.0-1.7 full installer.. and then it tells me when I click on multiplayer that 1.7 is available for download, and all servers are grayed out. Any else dealing with this?