marcai

In the same paragraph, you accuse me of being immature for poking fun at a preference for certain games, then use the term 'mainsream gamer' as a derogatory term to imply immaturity. I'll just let that sink in a second. Now as for the spinning and medical system, hell yeah I want those back. The thing is, to me they're relatively minor additions in the gameplay. One bullet tends to drop you, two or three if you're lucky. I agree that a more in-depth medical system is far cooler, but compared to, say, vehicle physics or infantry AI behaviour, I'd argue it's hardly *the* key feature for devs to focus on. Spinning around on the floor is an issue, but in a co-op game the chances of spinning 180 degrees perfectly and landing some shots on a target straight away are rather slim. Again, a feature I would prefer to be in, but one that I've yet to see having any major gameplay impact. Carrying capacity is being worked on, as you said, so I'll forget that for now. Overall -again, my opninion vs yours here, so rather fruitless- I'd not say they're game breakers. Things I want? Oh hell yes. Enough to make me take my ball and go home? Not at all. Somewhat related side note: As well as a wounding system, shooting at someone's gun/hands to disarm them would be awesome. If locational damage gets implemented at any point soon this would kick ass if possible.

2009: "I play Arma II. You've probably never heard of it" :cool: I've seen this argument everywhere and I just don't get it. "Nothing's changed since A2 apart from improving fluidity and visuals, but it's more mainstream than A2 so I won't play" just seems a silly argument, as one one hand people are saying nothing changed, whereas on the other they're stating that it's so different that they won't be playing it. Is a game being upopular a thing to enjoy for some? Is the draw of hipster-gaming that strong? The term 'accessible' is often demonised, but more often than not it's the removing of redundant features and improving interactivity. To use a gaming metaphor for the level of change, we're not talking Morrowind-to-Skyrim armour simplification here; more just the removal of Morrowind's infuriating weapon stats making you miss. Arma 3 is lacking a lot of the vehicle and weapon variation from A2, granted, but I'd hardly say that the changes are so gargantuan to warrant anyone to say it's a massive departure from the series. The functions that are missing from A3 were also missing in A2, and those that were in A2 but not A3 have been discussed at length on these very forums with input from the devs saying they will be working on it (Namely the wounding system). Of course, we are also overlooking the fact that A3 will likely have more content and a more stable gameplay experience at release than A2 by far, making it a rather objectively better platform to build off of than A2 was at release- meaning we have many years of mods and DLC to look forward to, to push the boundaries of what is and isn't possible in Arma further than we currently see. Naturally I won't change your opinion with this post, nor the opinion of others who are in the same frame of mind as you. My post is as much to you as anyone else reading to counter-point doom-and-gloom arguments that seem to be cropping up on the forums. Arma 3 has a lot of missed potential for features and improvement, I cannot dispute that, but it also ticks a lot of the boxes that it needed to. Imo A3 is a huge leap forward in terms of improving the visuals and removing some of the clunkier/slower features that have been the bane of the game's popularity without adding much to gameplay; even if not a huge leap forward in new content.

I've been having some issues recently with my joystick throttle in that it's rather temperamental in responding to my analogue input. The joysticks' pretty new and as far as I'm aware isn't faulty (I only really use it for Arma, so but my calibration screen shows no errors) and only started happening in the last couple of patches. Anyone else experienced anything similar?

It might seem strange to some, but this is the one that confuses me more than most. The Osprey has been a wreck at the end of the runway in Stratis since Alpha, but we suddenly find ourselves that Ospreys are not in the game at all. It doesn't annoy me or anything, it just seems that if you're going to put one as a wreck in the game, you should then at least see that vehicle somewhere, right? Was thisthe first, last and only one in the conflict? I agree with Varanon's post, though. I understand that BI need to release the game as soon as possible, and I honestly can't wait for Altis. In fact, I'm itching to dick around on it, and that alone will add so much to the current game. Looking down the features list, however, I can't help but think it looks a bit short. Most of the vehicles and weapons in the full release are already in the (arguably) limited Beta, and so it looks like there will be very little in the way of gameplay changes from here on out. Gameplay as it stands isn't bad- in fact I'm having a blast- I just hoped that there'd be a bit more to play with.

I think I have to agree that the sounds at 100m need to be more distinct, but colour me impressed.

I posted about it a few days ago, but it appears to be persisting.

This. If it's discrimination against epileptic people to say "If you have fits over flashes, you probably shouldn't play a war sim with gunfire and explosions", then call me discriminatory. It just seems such a ridiculous consideration given the genre we're talking about.

The most logical conclusion, I must agree.

Finding a lot of repeating sound bugs this dev patch. When opening the inventory I get a bit of super-speed tapdancing and hopping into an AH-9 caused every sound to repeat with reverb until it faded out- ie, I heard the missile fire, then again, and again, and again...

People dying because they opened a door 2m behind them whilst pulling out their sidearm, on the other hand...

Then I have to apologise, my pun-sensors have broken :p

For the record, I didn't. I assume you're being smart and implying I don't want the development process to have user input, at which point you'd be very wrong. I'm merely fed up of seeing threads of 20+ pages of people uselessly telling each other how wrong their definition of fun is. Arguing about someone else's personal taste is as fruitless an idea as trying to argue with the planet Jupiter about the size of its orbit. People having input is useful, as are opinions and ideas for game changes. Debating a stated point is useful, asking for an essay on 'what is fun' from someone is not, especially as that one person could well respond "I loved my anthromorphic erp server set in an alternate reality with no military input". Such discussions are rather aloof from the original topic of asking which features have and haven't been axed and why, and would be better served in a separate thread, in my humble opinion.

Subjective. Now let's not go down this dusty road for the millionth time, shall we?

Don't think BI can really win on this subject. On one hand they have a bunch of forum-goers lamenting the implementation of visual effects to show injury or character status, on the other they have old fans crying about how casual and mainstream the game is if it gets removed. Either way, someone will be upset. In my frank opinion, a slight blur after being shot repeatedly with military-grade ammunition is rather tame and apt. If there were to be an alternative method, perhaps cut down the FoV to the middle of the screen a la night vision- people who don't like blur don't have it, but still suffer a visual effect that totally removes their peripheral rather than blurring the screen entirely.

Not sure at all, but as the missiles are essentially 'full auto' I imagine even lingering for a few miliseconds too long will send two out. As I said, relatively minor issue really, much rather have it as it is now than always firing two.

A dev patch or two ago, and I'm really glad it was put back in. Only (slight) issue I've had is that a single tap on my joystick trigger occasionally fires two instead of one, but frankly that's a minor annoyance compared to having a far greater amount of airtime before having to re-arm.

For curiosity's sake.. how, exactly is it more mainstream? The gameplay is essentially A2 but with better animations, graphics and more water stuff. Is it the 'future' setting? I really don't quite get what would keep you on Arma 2 when A3 is released barring waiting for mods to be converted over. Also, why is said 'mainstream' target indicative of lower quality, rather than making the game less clunky?

I excitedly hopped into one of the new tracked APCs a couple of days ago to give them a test drive out of the airbase. I gunned it and flew for the offroad areas to give it whirl. I got stuck at the first mountainside as the damned thing didnt have enough power to actually climb it. When I finally found a hill I could get up, I slid down the other side to find it was a small ravine and I couldn't escape either side. I won't pretend to be an expert on military vehicles, but.. don't tracked vehicles have the power to go go up inclines at more than 5kmp/h?

Ah fair enough then. Was thinking it'd be a bit silly with them having enough military spending that each citizen had a tank each! :P

Done and done. http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=11783

If I were to list what I'd love to see on the islands (Quite a few inspired on these very forums) my wishlist would be: -Certain areas come with animals as standard, but with the ability to be removed. Esssentially pre-placed modules in sensible places that can be enabled or disabled by map makers. Mainly sheep and goats, you know, because Greece. -Herd animals reacting to players in a simple way. Walk near one, it walks away. Run at one or loud noises cause them to run as a flock in the other direction. Sheep herding minigame via helicopter is a top priority features BIS or I demand a refund! :P -Dogs barking or howling at the approach of a character and perhaps even attack if the character stays too long. Scriptable to only respond to OPFOR/ BLURFOR or Independent to simulate some form of guard dog. -More bird-life, or at least simulated via more birdsong and birds flying from trees when loud noises/running players come near. Can just be a visual effect that dissipates ater 10-30 seconds. -Evidence of recent human habitation. Some basic furniture inside buildings, beaches with loungers and rubbish left around from holidaymakers, small touches in the right places is all it takes. -Waves lapping onto shorelines, because.. you know, waves do that. Doesn't have to be a major feature that has much effect, would just be cool to see. -A couple more civillian vehicles. Busses, maybe a tourist pleasureboat, a small passenger plane. All of which would add to a richer environment if placed around, but also be good for hostage-taking missions and the like. -Ambient civillian life that can be enabled/disabled by the mission maker. Obviously I can imagine this one to be difficult as it would have to be sensible enough to not drive cars towards the raging battles or tank convoys, but towns with actual people walking around and appearing to be doing things would make cities feel so much more dynamic and alive. -More ambient sounds in general. -More ambient sounds when in vehicles. I listened to the Speed of Sound mod on the WIP forums a few days ago and even said there that I was impressed by the changes. The car sounds added more things like hearing stones ping off of the side of a car as you drive along, or the suspension occasionally squeaking, and it makes the car seem so much more.. real. OFC almost all of these are cosmetic changes which have next-to-no effect on gameplay, and so are more than likely things that would be bottom priority even if BIS were planning on doing any. It's a shame, but budgets and deadlines are a bitch, I suppose. Would be amazing for just a few of these to be included, however, as I think they would really add to the feel of the already rather striking islands.

I was assuming it was Aegean armed forces, which would've been more sensible imo than a 25 mile island having an advanced military. Name-dropping the area -but not the exact country- would imply logistical support from outside the island in the general area, but not the exact nation.

I have a rather simple proposal for making medics more important without implementing a full medical system: Non-medic characters can only heal if they are above, say, 40% health with a FAK which would heal 25-30% health, but up to the full 100%. A medic can heal up to 100% from any level of damage with a single FAK so long as they have their medkit. Without it,t hey can heal 50% with a FAK. This would imply that your soldier is trained enough to fix 'minor' damage without a medic, whilst still giving you the chance to actually play the game rather than get shot once in the leg at the start of the game, find it out of your league and having to drag yourself around for the rest. Also would encourage more teamwork between players lacking a medic as they may well need to share kits between them to get back to full health. Serious injuries (Less than 40% remaining) are just too difficult for the common soldier and require the specialist attention of a medic, and equally a medic will always be more efficient at healing than any other type of character. It's not the most elegant solution, but I could live honestly live happily with it.

Or the transports only being big enough for maybe 4-6 models.. :P It's hard to properly transfer them straight from the models to 'realistic' proportions, simply because the models are just that- static representations on a tabletop designed with a tabletop game in mind. In reality, all vehicles would be bigger in some ways and smaller in others, to make the less model-y and more RAWR 40K. The Firestorm over Kronos/ Kaurava mod resized them pretty well, imo.

I was going to suggest having a look at Skyrim's 'fix' for waves in the Dragonborn expansion, where the illusion of waves was given near the shore. I then Youtube'd a clip for a demonstration and remembered that it looked a bit... meh. Far too fast and warpy, but still worth a peek for giving a static water the appearance of motion without having to rework it in its entirety, which I'm sure is the far more likely outcome were this to be addressed.