Leg

Yeah the AI system is pretty much from OFP. I still liked OFP better just because of the simplistic style and the chalky atmosphere. Arma3 just bores the hell out of me, and the recycled AI system (ignoring any slight improvements it may have had) is just funny to note. It pretty much doesn't do anything that couldn't be done in Operation Flashpoint (OFP), aka the first game released on the RV engine. In fact, the pure simplicity of that game and the AI there made it almost enjoyable. The AI now are pretty much the same, but trying to recognize all these random complexities in the game which make them actually react dumber. I think the problem for the most part is the fact that most people who don't spend more than 600$ on their computers, it's like 60+ FPS singleplayer and 15-25 fps multiplayer. Needless to say, 20 fps is a nice average fps.. but a slideshow is like 10 fps. Even speaking for those who may have spent 2000$ on a grand gaming computer: on Arma they might still get like 20 fps on multiplayer just because the server/entities are overloaded. It doesn't matter if you know how to do shit and you spend 600$ and someone spends 2000$ for the same thing. The fact is that top gaming computers have performance issues because of the engine. 20fps is the bare minimum for a functional animation. 30fps is the standard. I'm not getting a 4.0ghz 1000$ CPU (proper) just so mine doesn't choke on MP and force me to like 20 fps. Getting 30 fps would be fucking amazing on a laggy server, but you realize this isn't even your computers problem and you shouldn't have to spend money to overcome coding difficulties on BI's part. I was happy about the optimizations at first, but I must get real with them, they have done barely anything. I get the same low fps on Ultra or Low and it's been like that for ages for most players. Pretending that they boosted performance a bit is just funny. There's many issues which simply make Arma completely boring. And on that note, "improved radio chatter" or updating the archaic AI chat system from the first engine should be the least of their concerns.

Yeah I've never seen the issue in Arma before where some people come in clearly, and others have an annoying sound skip/stuttering. For example, someone can say "Hello" clearly and it takes 2 seconds, but a person with stutter will say "Hello", it will stutter and say like "He.. ll.. o", and take about 4 seconds to finish. Thus bug has clearly been added in Arma3. If anything it'd be good to make a support ticket for it.

add anal stimulation to the sniper!

I disagree with everything you just said. The only exception maybe being DayZ, because it was still like 70% Arma2, 30% dumb items, mods, and zombies which had already been made, but brought together into one mod, and it had some luck to 'take off'. I found DayZ too boring to play. But also, I am quite bored with the Arma series. It seems like a brainless, garbled, waste of potential type of game at the moment. It needs so much done to it, and having been here for 10 years and seeing so many things simply ignored, and then the 'next iteration' simply being them upgrading to DX11 and upping the graphics a bit, adding in physics.. you get the idea. The core bugs, desync, everything that has been slightly optimized is 'still there'. It's so bad that people complain about every time they update the engine, even though it's arma3 and they have finally given some consideration to these so called optimizations. If some other game came that could have the same type of "size" on a map, I would gladly support them instead depending on "Arma" if it's truly better. But just relying on the size of the map being big and slapping mods into it is not enough. Players like you remind me of the typical boring Arma user, and if anything Arma needs more people like me who can invoke events, have fun, basically 'bring people in'.. People who just say 'oh it's too hard to make a mission' when it's easy as fuck, and say that Arma2 vanilla were the 'golden days', jeeze what a laugh. I've just been there, done that, and don't feel like I should have to like 'host' some group of people and be like their messiah to make them come to my server(s) or group(s). Do you think people who played since OFP and stopped thinking Arma was fun over time agree with your ideas, just because you started playing Arma2 shortly when it came out and liked it? (which by the way, was not long ago in comparison..) Arma3 has everything that Arma2 has and more. It's less clunky, better performing, and there are plenty of vanilla co-op missions too. You can even mod it if you want to complain so that it runs with Arma2's content completely; co-op problems solved, but guess you're too lazy. As I've stated countless times, the problem with MP is arma is the player base, and I don't blame people like me for staying far away from this game and feeling it is 'boring' from the start. I only feel the opposite because I've always felt like this game has some 'potential', and have experienced just about everything in terms of groups, mods, realism, events, etc..

If you think A2 coop was some kind of 'good ol days' that's funny. The game is really new compared to the original games, and its co-op was arguably the sloweest, worst, filled with the dumbest players I've ever seen, etc.. I think Arma3 improved it a lot, lots of better vanilla co-op and PvP, bringing in smarter gamers and players (at least somewhat) but it's still not perfect. If you think it lacks missions, grow up and make some yourself. It's extremely easy. It just comes down to players not knowing anything, being dumb, etc.. and being spoonfed everything they ever enjoyed. Also, it's bad to be playing and supporting the boring domination missions which emerged in Arma2's co-op, where you just dynamically have to 'take a town', fly there, kill everything, go to the next town, etc.. but there are actually a few good vanilla co-op servers I have played on that aren't really low quality, such as the normal Arma2's 7th-cav co-op servers, regular domination co-op, etc.. Zeus co-op is extremely fun whnever I catch a server playing it, because someone is essentially like the enemy's commander, and he can dynamically make the mission harder for you, but it's not really 'mainstream' i.e. packed with players in all servers. IT all comes down to preference. That's an interesting statistic as well, I wasn't so sure that so much time was spent on RPG servers in arma, although I find it funny to mess around/troll on those servers, it's odd when you meet someone who actually spends hours on there simulating driving a truck or something.. it still seems to be rather popular though.

to answer: Yes to explain: Arma 2 is worse in just about every way. It had a good 'lifespan' and lots of mods and players on it, but Arma3 only adds more and also runs smoother due to some optimizations to the engine. There's always been people who stay in older Armas and say they either a) can't run it or b) new game sucks, but statistically people who say b) are just whiners who can't run it and don't have it either way. A lot of people thus won't want to leave Arma2 just because they started playing it and many mods were made on it, and they find it difficult to jump to Arma3 due to differences, aside from the fact it's just an improved version of the same engine with more features. It will happen anyway, eventually. On my older computer, I didn't play Arma2 until a few years after, because I could only run OFP and Arma1, so I played those when I was younger, and I just said the same type of stuff depending on my mood. However, once I could run and was playing Arma2, no way I was going back. Same thing for Arma3. The movement style and improvements are too much, making Arma2 seem like a clunky mess; no way to go back once you're in it, even if you just play it once a month or so like I do. Arma2 people were still playing on gamespy servers until the day it died, besides being forewarned and given an alternative and time to switch. Afterwards they were confused 'why are there no servers?' That is the kind of quality and players mostly in Arma2. Have to spoon feed them due to lack of intelligence and being stubborn. Not saying it's not the same for Arma3 most of the time, but as always they should transition to the new engine. Arma is quite unique though due to many factors so it's hard to tell what direction it's actually taking. You are right in some ways. A lot of mods were created throughout Arma2's lifetime that are considered integral for most people, such as ACE, and their creators either left or don't seem that interested in Arma3, so more people have to make more mods. I would like to see an ACE type of mod for Arma3, which has a sort of all-encompassing realism aspect and improves everything to make the vanilla game more playable. However, it's kindof a boring experimental type of game to me. I don't really have fun or time playing any of them anymore, so it's up to the people who do I guess to make that decision.

Fixing desync and improving sniping overall. Hitting a desynced person or AI still counts, but it's still quite obnoxious. I don't remember having such desync problems even on the original OFP where having a sniper was considered ideal for any good player. Basically improve the flow of the game fundamentally by improving core issues, and this goes for not only the Marksman DLC but in general. I'm happy with a lot of the FPS optimizations, but you can learn a lot of issues just from playing the game for over an hour on some co-op or SC/pvp server, so that's never a good thing. For 1000M due to desync and lag, depending on the server, etc., can add on up to 2-3 seconds. So if it takes about 5 seconds to register the hit, that's at least twice as much as it should be. It's quite bothersome. Only a few well maintained/optimized servers have this problem improved with their players moving smoother than the standard, but not entirely removed.. It also depends how long the server has been running and other factors, however if you think about it the memory should be maintained properly in a way where a server, regardless of a mission with lots of scripts, should be able to react or manage its memory accordingly and not become a pile of junk and require a regular restart after an hour. It seems that is the 'norm' in Arma, and it causes drops in client (players on the server) fps, increases desync and ping, etc.. I've run game servers manually since I was 10 years old. Auto-restarts and scheduled restarts are nice, but just saying, optimizations are welcome for this game. Hopefully any major beta improvements become the official and it makes major improvements, because people won't always find/search for betas or tweaks to make the game run (so far only slightly) better just because they see its potential.

There's lots of things that can be improved, fixed, or added, but that is why there is a system. Of course, only 'realistic' requests would be accepted. They aren't going to do an overhaul of new content/features just because you posted some TLDR wall of text full of ideas of features. I'm content with Arma3 at the moment, it just needs a more fun playerbase perhaps, or some new gearing towards missions and people who want to play it for fun, yet have a bit of a challenge and master the game a bit (at least most of the time). For example, in OFP (and Arma3) I can snipe a moving target. People typically shoot so bad in Arma3, even if they play it way longer than me.. and thus I have no luck finding 'good players' who could move in and coordinate in an effective/fun way. Even if there was just 4-5 copies of me, I could probably do what a typical 30 player co-op server does in terms of 'clearing a town', and that is saying something really generically. I think the engine is fun, it's big, openworld, etc. but I typically get bored of it quickly and don't find any reason to stay; there's no reason to master being the best at PvP, the best sniper, best at anything. It just degrades the whole 'game' into being a simulator, which I suppose it is, but computer illiterate people playing the game just make you gag sometimes with their stupidity. The 'mainstream coop' system online is full of kids and it's rare to see a coop server with good pilots, at the very least having enough coordination to just have helicopters ferrying players near to the hostile zone, etc.. (preferably, better, with air support and organization). Most of the time, you end up dying multiple times due to friendly fire, bad pilots crashing, etc.. and from there, 75% of the time the AI is so laggy on the badly optimzed server (at least, not all of them, but some of them) that CQB is impossible, so I always just snipe them all from long range to avoid being shot from the air. The mainstream stuff is usually crap other than like King of the Hill which is a basic PvP type thing (although I'm glad it's there at least, it's usually the only thing I find worthwhile joining). I'm just not sure. I feel like I expect Arma to be fun, but it just isn't; hasn't been. I thought OFP was fun, playing it as a child, and I've grown up expecting Arma to be fun. I've experienced just about anything on this engine, interms of players, groups, missions, but now I'm coming to the conclusion: perhaps Arma's just 'not' fun, although I know for certain it's because of the players being bad/boring like 75% of the time. The best interaction I get on this game is from trolling on some roleplay (Altis Life) servers hah.. that's really the full truth. Well.. improve it any way you want. I'm not sure how you can fix a playerbase on a game like this, but as for content, anything is welcome!

No. That was for Arma2OA most likely. Arma3 was already using Steam anyway, whereas Arma2OA had a bunch of stubborn people staying on Gamespy until the last minute. Now that Gamespy is down (theoretically, not even sure if it is yet) they're going to be scrambling and saying things; either moving to Arma3 or desperately scrambling to the easily-available updates and information that makes Arma2 use only Steam for its servers. But no, it's only for Arma2. Arma3 was already adapted for steam.

It's nice that you lend him your engine and all but really, Dean Hall is just a modder; he was lucky you even licensed him the ability to use your engine and script away. Just like how Epic Games sometimes gives people license to use their Unreal Engine, mod it with the tools they provide, and noting a popular mod can sometimes becomes a new game like Killing Floor, DayZ was able to use the old RV engine and you've already moved on, but you shouldn't be forced or have to upgrade his stuff to use D3D10 or use the Arma3 enhancements. And don't you remember when DayZ Standalone's source code was leaked? ... Just shows this guy's lack of experience. DayZ was great and all, but it was like 75% ArmaII with the whole scope of the world and everything. The rest of DayZ was just zombies and mods (which already existed) all stuffed into a single mod. I think if Dean Hall wants Dynamic Shadows he should try to make a mod on Arma3 and see if it has the same success as his standalone one. Not trying to be pessimistic, or draw too much criticism, but I've always felt like that guy is just a pawn and he uses BI's engine as if it's his own. He promised many changes on DayZ SA, but he only knows scripting, so there's still hackers and everything is essentially exactly the same in terms of being the Take on Helicopters (Arma 2.5?) engine with some re-written scripts to add in the things like the food, water, zombies, weapons, etc.. That's why I'm glad. I found DayZ to be boring, you shouldn't have to help taht guy, he's already recieved your full source code for Arma 2.5 which has a good inventory system, clothing, etc.. and all the optimizations you made already on your new engine aren't his to just be 'upgraded to'. If anything, force him to give you a lot of the money he makes if you update his DayZ Standalone game. Just my opinion.

note: This is a request of a feature which is simple to implement and would fix a lot of mic problems, not a thread about something already in the game. Quite surprised as I haven't seen this request before. Make a 'duplex' option or some kind of voice playback that lets your hear yourself over voice when you're talking, at least in the Audio Settings page. It's funny that you can grab the audio, auto-adjust based on if it's too loud or too soft, but there's not even any option to hear yourself, to see if it's actually working or if it's just some fucked up humming sound in-game. The engine auto-selects your microphone as well, which is problematic if you can't even 'hear' what input it is using. At the moment, the only way to test your mic is working properly over VON (in-game mic system) is to go online and ask people if they can hear you. There's already an option to essentially adjust your microphone volume automatically, but it's a bit odd that there's no way to hear yourself talk during the setup. My mic was not working for a long time and I decided to use it, yet I wasn't able to tell it didn't work until someone told me my mic was making just a humming sound. Basically just put a playback option on the voice set up so that you can hear yourself, adjust volume yourself, etc.. because doing it with guesswork is harder. I'm really surprised they never added this before. The mic system seems so inferior just because it lacks basic features such as hearing yourself (at least during the set-up) or boost.

The problem seems to be no one likes to be on the receiving end of a bullet. A lot of people don't like to be killed by "only AI". However, these AI that people die to are usually modified to be weakened strains (or just weaker in general because the global skill setting for AI is set to like 'Regular' 90% of the time). Imagine what Elite would be like? It just means that you can't fuck up against AI, and to treat them as if they are real human enemies. They don't always have to be tweaked down (even though as stated, 90% of the time they are). The AI is very interchangeable and you can make them either really weak or really strong. I personally prefer a really strong AI on Elite or the hardest possible so that you know the AI will be a formidable enemy (most of the time they are just defending a town anyway). Rant thing: The problem with that is it's rare to see individuals who can handle the pressure. The vast majority of people might get offended and say there's no possible way you can do certain things in Arma, and say like "hur go play cod you troll". But then.. I turn around and shoot down a helicopter with an RPG or I go in solo and kill 10 elite AI (or sometimes even groups of players) without dying. I really like the run and gun style of play, and Arma has potential to be fun, but it's always going to be those cry babies who frankly can't handle it. The so called elitists who are professionals and realism lovers yet can't even handle playing with elite AI or taking risks. And if you question their badness at the game that they play much more than you anyways then good luck, you're suddenly labelled a troll or banned for breaking some profanity rule. Like, if you say players are shitty because they can't even revive people when they are like 10 meters away and the area is clear, for the most part people won't even sympathize with you. Instead they sympathize with the bad players who are dumb as hell and have terrible situational awareness and say you're a troll for saying they are bad.. really? The playerbase of this game is to blame for all the complaining and I'm never going to find some elite players or just normal players who can run around and play coop or PvP in the old style (at least, without being somewhat restrained or weaker than expected). If I had 4 copies of me I would be like bet-worthy more effective in a PvP match than like 15 regular Arma players. And trust me, I barely play Arma, but I just make sure when I do play that I don't mess up cuz that involves a lot of wasted time and walking. If you played deathmatch or older co-ops on Operation Flashpoint as a kid you might understand that style of play. Frankly, it's died out and I get bored of Arma yet return to play it every once in a while nonetheless. There's no players who say 'hey lets play against like 100 elite ai in a town and win'; instead just some whiners as usual. And they still die to regular AI and this issue still remains, even though it's completely related to how you mod it and prefer it. I like to be that type of guy who you can send into a town as a saboteur and then you'll just see the sparks fly. Anyway, I type like 100 wpm so my quick rant is over.. No one is going to stop complaining whether the AI is tweaked or not. The AI are pretty good at the moment, it just depends on how good you want to set them at. Yet most of the time people want them to be laughably bad so that any joe-shmoe can kill 8 of them, and yet want them to be 'challenging' at the same time, which is contradictory to one another, and yet people always end up shot and complaining either way.. weird.

Ok, there's no need to try to imitate being a smartie-pants when you obviously don't have what it takes. There's definitely no need to call people out on having 'shitty routers or firewall settings'. Such things are extremely trivial. @Mike Hamachi just makes it easier to play over lan using a sort of emulated network which lets you bypass annoying issues like port forwarding and firewalls so to speak. You can use it if you want and yes, hosting a Listen Server (you are the host/player) and using it to host alongside hamachi for like less than 10 people, as long as you're personally not getting strained on your own computer, should be absolutely fine. Hamachi isn't really a factor, it just makes it easier for everyone to set it up without running into firewall problems. It isn't worth hosting a dedicated server most of the time. A lot of people who buy dedicated servers for co-op end up with an empty server 70% of the time while they aren't using it either way, so even if you wanted to set it up then it's better to set it up yourself just to play with friends or have a sort of event, etc.. At least that is what I think.

The problem is that no one really wants to die, but if you're not on the receiving end you wouldn't mind any advantage(s) that you have (i.e. being an infantry soldier facing a tank, and being able to lock on with T from far away). I would much rather have a lock on AT rocket as long as the tank is further than 600M away and pending on if its moving, otherwise give me a manually aimed system.

People like you are few and far, but the vast majority will just complain that it's too hard afterwards even if they tweaked this. I personally agree with the easiness of using lock-on AT launchers though. Having a lock on launcher up close really makes it impossible to blow up an easy-hit target such as a vehicle moving through some buildings as well. Learning to use an RPG and manually aim it is invaluable in close quarters or even to shoot down slow moving aircraft.