Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by Fulcrum90

  1. It's like trying to stop a train with bare hands. As far as I know, the physical game has already been made in the factories and even distributed ( some guy on another post claim that he already has a physical copy ).

    BTW the devs had already stated that they will keep working on the dev branch and the campaign will be released ( for free ) in the next months with some additional stuff. So, for all the matters even if the game is released, it would be like if it's still be like a extended beta until we get all the content that was supposed to be on release.

    And even after that BI is famous to keep fixing the game and even sometimes delivering some things for free...

    I would be happy if someone from BIS finally adressed all the unhappy fans. Maybe announcing some kind of roadmap for additional content. (Doesnt have to be free, Im willing to accept that we only paid for improved gamplay + graphics).

    But at the moment it looks like "at some point" we will get the campaign, propably the F-35 will be reintegrated...And then what?

  2. I dont care about the development process, but as a customer who already paid money I have the right to critizise the endproduct. And the endproduct is severly lacking right now.

    It just breaks immersion for me when every faction has the same vehicles, or when I see bullshit like the MLRS turret on a Merkava chassis, that still has the retainers where the original MLRS turret rests on the drivers cabin. But the "Merkava MLRS" has no drivers cabin . So its really proof that BIS just copied and pasted shit together. And that is 1. Not the quality Im used from BIS 2. Not the quality I want to see in an immersive combat simulator.

  3. Jesus Christ, people expect A3 to have 100 vehicles and 200 weapons... BI is not an insanely huge company and the project had some big issues. Do you even understand that a 60€ game like COD has barely 10% of the content A3 offers? COD has no vehicles, small maps, barely any detail. Just because A3 is open world people expect it to have every little tiny detail that exists in real life:

    -"BI please, why is the sun not in a correct position during the 2nd August in the editor. Broken game"

    -"Why do we only have 4 APC's?! WTF BI? WORST COMPANY EVER"

    -"AI can't properly load 1 launcher into a backpack. WTF are you doing BI?"

    Do you guys even understand how much more detail BI has to put in this game compared to most AAA games on the market? What's the biggest thing COD devs have to worry about? Fish AI?! Give BI a break.

    Btw. A3 is only 30€ right now.

    Yes exactly, thats what we want 100 vehicles and 200 weapons, thats what everyone writes.

    You cant even read the posts above you -_-

  4. diversity ! is missing . the same weapon stations on all sides . the same 30 mm turret on red and green , the same titan launcher by all- the same stationary mg by all- the same MBT chassis an mbt AA and Arty on blue - the same MBT chassis for mbt aa arty on red . the same turret from arty and aa on blue and red ..... more ? the same boats on all sides - the same the same the same ..... this is the main point from the disaster

    Exactly. Im already very disappointed that ArmA 3 will have the fewest vehicles of any ArmA release, but I could accept that if we had diversity.

    But lazy copy & pasting of turrets and other vehicle parts to create new ones? No, that is unacceptable. Every ArmA release had clearly distinguishable factions, which was a huge factor of immersion.

    Imagine Operation Flashpoint, with no T-80 or T-72 tanks. Instead Soviet Abrams! Oh I can hear the fanboys screaming "BUT ITS THE FUTURE!!!!". Yeah come on. Even in 2030 thats not going to happen.

  5. think about like this...all work is done in engine and nothing on content except a few items...people would just start porting over A2 stuff and mods like I44 (which is being done) so there would be plenty of things to play with along with and engine that is 4x more powerful (scaling )

    all the content in the world will matter for naught if my FPS tanks my CPU hit %100 while GPU drops usage drops because core 0 on my system of server is overloaded. engine first content later.

    ---------- Post added at 15:22 ---------- Previous post was at 15:20 ----------

    ^^this, cart was put before the horse :(

    And with WHO would you play if everyone had different addons?

    Oh and:

    Quality models can be made "easily" by modders. Engine fixes, core AI fixes and gameplay changes not.

    Sorry, but you have NO idea. That might have been true during OFP times, but a high quality model with high quality textures (Yes thats not easy to pull off as well). We are the tons of "high quality addons" for ArmA 2? Hm? Compared to OFP there arent many.

  6. I guess I am the minority here, who cares mostly about vision of improved gameplay mechanics with each game release rather than the quantity and variability of content. I would kill for BIS devs concentrating ONLY on gameplay mechanics and engine fixes for several years and leaving content development behind. That would be the best thing to ever happen with this series. Shame it is not going to happen as I watch this discussion...

    And with what would you play? One soldier, one gun and one jeep? Wow, thats what made OFP so special... -_-

    Thing is, they actually did already improve the gameplay. I love how smooth and immersive the controls feel like, nothing compared to OFP, ArmA 1 + 2. But sorry, I cant accept an empty game were every side uses the same vehicles. Future or not, Israeli Merkava tanks used by both sides with different turrets? Oh come on.

    I know they had to relocate resources because of Dayz, but why dont they just work on it another six months?

  7. Neither, just someone more informed than you.

    Oh really? Hm lets see what information you come up with.

    Not really comparable situations here. The parallels you draw are not the same at all. There are probably....

    "Not really" and "probably". Awww...Well that was a dud ;)

    Nothing beats sentences that start with "There are probably"...

    By the way, I'm one of those 4200 currently playing, and I still complain.

    Nice. Two insults in one sentence. Very efficient.

    Thank you! I also play it by the way. And I am very disappointed. As is my clan. My buddies were pretty much flabbergasted when I told them it will be released next week with no additonal content :(

  8. I wonder if the whole 2030 scenario had something to do with the lack of content. That way they had to "invent" vehicles from the ground up.

    Maybe after two modern ArmAs it could have been time for another Cold War ArmA. I liked the Soviet stuff.

    The reality check here is that BI owes you [the "community" as a whole] nothing.

    You buy your game, you get your game. It doesn't have things in it you think it should have? Well tough titties my friend, you are not the Co-Creative Director at BI, so you have NO say in what content should be there or not.

    THAT is the reality of it.

    Either you are the biggest fanboy ever or just incredibly naive O_o

    Does Xbox One ring any bells? You know, when Microsoft had to listen to its customers because otherwise they would have experienced a serious sales drop? And that was one of the biggest corporations in the world, who even without changes would still have sold a fuckton of units. Bohemia is not big, the ArmA series always had a comparable small amount of fans. And now around 50% of those fans are not happy. Yeah....

  9. There is no reason to play A3 if you feel overly disappointed and negative about it at the moment.

    For those who feel bad: A2 is still a great game, have fun with it (and all the good stuff it has) for few months more.

    You are just like that Microsoft PR guy during the Xbox One shitstorm.

    "What you are not happy with DRM and Always On? No problem! Just keep the Xbox360!!!"

    "What you are not happy with only on plane and no diversity in vehicles? Just keep playing ArmA 2!!!"

    Yeah it doesnt work that way. People will look for other games, and may be hesistant to buy DLCs and ArmA 4.

  10. I am disappointed and very happy about ArmA 3...Sounds strange, but thats the way I feel.

    I am very happy about the graphics and gameplay. FINALLY ArmA no longer has that strange detached feeling when controlling your soldier, instead the controls are smooth and direct.

    Also the other gamplay mechanics, walking, shooting, driving, flying, everything feels so immersive.

    However to fully enjoy all these things we need "toys" to play with, we need something to shoot, drive and fly with. And there I am very disappointed in ArmA III. It just all feels so unfinished. Never before had an ArmA game fewer vehicles, and those we have are very interchangeable. Altis looks great, but its a desert island. What happend to the big forests of past games?

    Tankfully I only bought the 30$ version. Ill wait what happens, maybe the community will release a big addon pack, maybe BIS will release some DLCs. But until then I wont bother with ArmA III.

  11. i never seen so much butthurt in an arma game before. It probably has to do with DayZ bringing all the assholes over and now little kids are crying about content.

    While the mature people are happy with an empty game? O_o

    No sir. You are the butthurt one.

  12. Since there is no content cut, your argument is invalid.

    I was referring to the complaints YOU mentioned. And those were (apparently) directed at ArmA 2 stuff in OA...So your argument is the invalid one. :D

    I would rather BI not waste time adding non-essential items, is all.

    Well of course they are not essential. However I I and several posters made it clear that SAMs are kind of a major factor in modern warfare. This whole thread isnt really an "Addon Request" thread, I just wanted to point out how weird it is that such an essential military asset is absent. Turn on the TV, and they are just discussing what to bomb in Syra: Chemical plants, command & control centers, airports and SAM sites. Chemical plants are kind of unique targets to Syria, but the other three appear in like every modern war ever.

    +1 It would give mission makers some more options, after all SAM batteries tend to be the first target in every invasion for spec ops. And for that they don't need to work in-game.

    But they are obviously no priority


  13. and since you asked "why?", I'm trying to give you an idea of what those decisions might be based on. They seem somewhat more likely than BIS simply not being aware that SAMs exist, and not making one through the sheer bliss of ignorance.

    That sentence makes no sense. You seem to like elaborate sentence structure and fancy wording, but please, we have to read it.

    Anyways, just as with DM my point stands:

    And??? I really dont see your points. You would rather have BIS cut content then reading some complaints??? O_o

  14. No, he really didn't.

    BI added all the Arma 2 content into A2:OA "as is", and all they were met with was complaints that the tanks didnt have thermal, the soldiers couldnt use backpacks, etc etc.

    It would be similar here. I hate to think how many "I placed the SAM site, but cant get it to work" threads there would be...

    Note: I do agree tho, as a dumb object, it would be nice eyecandy.

    And??? I really dont see your points. You would rather have BIS cut content then reading some complaints??? O_o

  15. Because BIS knows their customers would expect such an object to be functional. Same as when they showed pics of that big submarine in the early Arma 3 screenshots: The first question people asked was whether it would be drivable, then when BIS said it would not be people cried a little bit and asked "why not?" - now the tears have dried, it doesn't seem to be included at all. Some of the core appeal of this franchise has always been that if there's a vehicle or weapon system in front of you, you should be able to use it, or be killed by it.

    If BIS bowed to subsequent expectations to make a functional SAM, some overzealous young buck would inevitably make it available to one side in some glorious mission containing "ALL THE THINGZ!!!" just for the sake of awesome, without giving a adequate thought to proper gameplay design and balance. Subsequently we'd have a forum full of threads lamenting how "the SAM is overpowered", "SAM makes jets useless", "Side X and Y need a SAM to balance side Z's SAM". Future patches might see said SAM sight "nerfed" to some extent - in which case the advocates of realism or just generally having powerful SAM systems available to mission editors in order to control air-cover in certain regions of the map, would start rising up in fury.

    Rinse, repeat - developer buys a crate of pilsner and reassesses his choice in career.:D

    Not to mention that BIS themselves may have no interest in including any "SAM hunter" missions in their campaign and have though up alternative mission objectives - therefore cannot justify time+money spent developing assets that they themselves will make little to no use of in telling their game's story. Subsequently the logical choice is not to make one and never have to deal with any of the above BS at all. One could just as simply ask why BIS do not have any AVLBs, stand-off missiles, landing craft or any other such strategic assets/mission props - there's nothing particularly special about SAMs in this regard.

    Yeah I dont see the problem. You basically just constructed 100 problems without anything to back your claims up. So far the thread was full of people agreeing with me and liking the idea of a SAM site as a mission object.

    Also you cant compare AVLBs, stand-off missile and landing craft to SAMs. SAMs play a major role in EVERY conflict, as said multiple times, they are THE target for airstrikes. Landing crafts? When were they used the last time? Bay of pigs maybe?

  16. Well they sure are not needed as yet when there's one jet that can only do 700km/h in level flight.

    Yeah you are actually kind of right....Though I asumed we had more jets than that. But that makes even less sense! As I said, Altis is an island, and no jets? No transport aircraft?

    But thats getting of topic. Also my main point was SAM sites not as a weapon to be used against jets, but as a mission objective. I want to target SAMs by night with my special forces teams, Im sick of using some random junk or these pathetic Stinger launchers as a stand-in.

    By the way, the SA-2 addon from "Gulf War Crisis" is open source. Come on BIS, slap some fancy textures on it, then ask the Swedish guys very nicely for their Hawk! :D

  17. It is true there were no SAM sites which was problem mostly in missions like Warfare/CTI but we managed to get along with it using AA vehicles with gunner only or static defence system which in ARMA2 consisted of seat that had attached 2 Stinger/Igla missiles to it.

    Exactly, whenever we made a mission on our CTI server one of the targets was "take out that SAM site". And then we just put some junk at it as a replacement. Also, Altis is an island, an island at war and no SAMs and AAA? That doesnt make any sense. I dont understand why BIS doesnt just put together a simple, non functional object. Just take a missile on put it on a launch pad, maybe a radar station to go with it. Like in this 10 year old OFP addon:


  18. way to overreact. no one here has been rude. if you can't handle opinions expressed in any other way than in a soft motherly tone, maybe you shouldn't be on the internet.


    So far I have seen much criticism, but hardly any of it was "hate" or "butthurt". Instead these two words get immediatly thrown by fanboys who cant accept that not everything BIS does is happy-happy joy-joy.

    Lag on Altis, only one plane, copy & paste vehicle parts, only a few vehicles and objects even comapared to Operation Flashpoint...Combined with the release NEXT WEEK people are actually allowed to be somewhat upset.

  19. Well we only have one jet for starters...

    Buuut, most SAMs have a minimum range of around 5km and coverage up to 400km in the case of large Russian SAM systems so they don't scale particularly well into the fairly limited space we have in Arma terrains. In any case, with a 400km range the ingame islands could probably fall under the SAM coverage from sites outside of the map area anyway - e.g some mainland area adjacent to the island's location rather than on the islands themselves.

    SHORAD systems scale into the game much better against the game's low-flying CAS assets.

    Well the SA-2 Guideline which is like the AK-47 of SAMs has indeed "up to" 400km....But minimal 7km, which is already makes more sense.

    But Im not really talking about actually using them...As DM has pointed out:

    Arma 2 had at least the 76n6 clamshell search radar and associated gubbins: https://dev-heaven.net/attachments/7745/arma2oa_2010-08-29_11-48-01-32.jpg

    ArmA II had a non-functional radar as a target and mission object. Thats also my line of argument, why not include a SA-2 site as an object? Again, SAMs are together with bridges and command & control centers THE military target in any bombing. Just watch the news about Syria, or any bombing at all. For me having no SAM sites to include is really a bit like having no tanks or machineguns. (Well of course its not the same, but I just want to point out that for me SAMs are just inextricably tied to modern warfare)

  20. Hello

    One thing that always struck me as odd was the lack of SAM sites in the ArmA series. Surface-to-Air Missile batteries are one the most prominent targets in any real-life conflict, no matter if Vietnam or Syria.

    However in ArmA they were never present. I know especially in Operation Flashpoint the scale of combat was much smaller and therefore long-range weapons like SAMs wouldnt have made much sense (we got the Shilka instead), but since ArmA 2 and especially ArmA 3 I find it curious that such an obvious military factor gets left out.