You've been misinformed. VBS2 is simulation, ArmA3 is a game.

Upvoted!!, if i could upvote it again i would. Ive Played Rainbow 6 and Ghost recon the original ones and WarfighterOne is completely right, both of those titles went to shit.Those games in there heyday were hailed for there originality and immersing aspects of simulation, now there just place holders for kiddies until there holiday season Juggernaut titles are released (HALO COD and Battlefield).As for ARMA 3 i see it as a last beacon of hope for a military simulation player as my self,Bohemia please keep it real figuratively and literately!

Unfortunately, my friend, your posting seems to be a prediction already.

It feels like, the last stand of the true ArmA players...

But, without any doubt, this company has decided to skim the target market.

I agree with you in many aspects, that the goal to satisfay the new target group (in their user names you can often even see their background, like "Killzone Kid" ...) will cause any expectation of a focus on simulation to be disappointed.

:(
Mike, I feel with you, but I tumbled myself already by using steam.

upvoted, for the sake of nostalgia...when people think or write shit like "...i'm talking about DayZ style of playing..."

If only certain people could just pull their heads out of their butts and started reading dev blogs and philosophy regarding ArmA3 we could all avoid name calling and stupid comments.

Can somebody...explain to me why they don't use the functions in VBS2 in Arma? I mean... I just found out about this and I'm thinking of buying this. Bohemia obviously knows whats real... so obviously there making the ArmA games unrealistic on purpose... Why?

We do, "Killzone Kid"...we do...and we understand!
And a lot of people are not amused.

Example?

Changelog:
"Added some delay between throwing 'nades"

WOT?

My Dear Joris, seriously?
Did you just wrote "'nades"???
And did you just "add" a quarter of a second as a delay?

Please, please do not feel forced to satisfy the DayZ-Kiddies.
Those are the first to abandon your "military sandbox" later!... Think twice.
Give them their game, give them Levelling, Premium Content, endless DLCs, let them buy different scopes and ammunition online, do it do it! They want it that way!
Make that money, they are willing to pay!

But please also return to BIs core competence.

Another "old man"...

upvoted. would like to vote more, if i could.

I don't want to have a "next sequel" of Flashpoint:Dragon Rising.

Focus should be on realism, not the stuff that everybody does (cod/bf/moh/cs/etc).

Don't let the fps-fanboys ruin our only hope into the one-and-only-all-including-simulator.

If you think about widening the target market, make a dlc with rediculous pricing and sell the "all weapons balanced" as "a feature" - I won't be buying that one for sure..

@KillZone Kid

Yes VBS is the real simulation, but everythings start with OFP, it was not balanced as it is now in A3. It's true, and we are a lot to think that, that the game is slightly moving to an Arcade game. OFP disociated the perf of all weapons like in real life, you had to do with it, like in real life...

It's a game OK but not like the others, and maybe devs said that VBS is the real simulation but everythings start with OFP, it was the first release of BIS.

Players who want balancing is just a joke for the spirit of the serie. We need to keep the simulation first, it's too easy to say that it's a game... And there's no reason to change for incoming people.

Wait for DayZ or play Wasteland but it's not the original spirit of the serie, which is a MILITARY SIMULATION.

/upvoted
Those DayZ children should stay away from the ArmA3 bug tracker. They have their own stand alone now, so they should remain in there. If the DayZ stand alone sucks it's because they were the ones who influenced the development in that direccion, we don't need them doing that to ArmA 3 as well.

Personally (and my opinions reflect my teams POV also) we play ARMA series
for the simulation.
We expected ARMA3 to fulfill our expectations for the ULTIMATE simulation platform..but things aren't going very well.
Anyone who will speak about VBS now..plz feel free to provide us for free 15 full copies and i 'll stop complaining.
I stated it before..but if ARMA3 drowns my expectations it's the last game BIS will take money from me. (at least)

I upvoted it, because I agree that balancing is harming the game, however the grenade throw is much better than it used to be. Sure it needs further work, but it's fine.

Don't get me wrong, some of the realism features in VBS2 are just awesome. But some things OP is suggesting...

" I've been reading the Feedback Tracker and some player's think that the game is "Imbalanced" and want BLUFOR and OPFOR to have balanced weapons. Please Don't listen to this, this will only make the game closer to a generic FPS. War is not about balance, it's about superiority."

How can you give one side all the good weapons and give another side all the crap and expect anyone to play for the other side? This is why you need balance, because no matter which side you are on you have a fighting chance. I feel so stupid right now because I have to explain these rudimentary facts of life.

ArmA is a simulation. Simply because VBS2 is a more detailed simulation doesn't make ArmA an arcade game. Look at the cost of VBS2 - clearly not made for public consumption.

Most people into ArmA want things real and authentic. That's why they buy the game instead of Battlefield.

It should be 100% realistic... and if you don't like that? Then simply turn down the difficulty!!

At least on PVP and special servers, but balancing is far from reality...

KillZone kid just STFU already, i tried to ignore your asinine comments but i couldn't any longer. The point of a simulation is to replicate aspects of reality, the pro's and con's included. Hence the word simulation. So go back to your arcade shooter "killzone" and leave us men to our own games.

Future warfare,all sides are pretty strong.Well BLUFOR strong in air(Better choppers),OPFOR strong at ground(Better vehicles),Green army is weaker side(yet),but for old gen resistance they're fine.
Diffirence between weapon - not actually makes disbalance,well except my ticket about NLAW and RPG(In configs NLAW should work up to 600 meter,but actual range is ~1km*(For player,AI uses it correct),also for realism sake - RPG shall shoot up to 700 meters).

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=12005

Well,I'm for balance,but not like COD,BF etc,where every weapon/vehicle 99% same.Balance is cool,but they should be assymetrical.Well one of reasons,why I don't play ArmA2 OA - heavy disbalance,even in infantry combat.If you wanna disbalance - you can create it in missions.Create a chopper,and village,full of AI infantry,and nobody will worry about it.But if such scenario will be PvP,well... ArmA3 would be forgotten soon.

I didn't vote,but Im just bump up your ticket.

It's why I said (ONLY) for PVP and special servers, but the main game has to be real, so no balancing...

In my opinion, all balancing should be done by the mission editor, if one side has better tanks you simply give them less tanks.

Look at in Afganistan, better armys with powerfull weapons who lost against poor men with less equipment and olders weapons.

There's no reason to balance all and particulary the weapons. It's the task of the mission-designer to virtually balanced it like said landmines.

After a PVP only and on special servers... But PVP is not the only reason to play the game.

Again OFP wasn't balanced, tried to replicate the reality and it was a succes.

OFP was a success because it replicated "the rudimentary facts of life" and thats why you (Killzone Kid) should feel stupid at this very moment.

KillZone Kid- "I feel so stupid right now because I have to explain these rudimentary facts of life."

Silly BIS, bothering with gamedesign, when all they had to do is copy reality.

I myself prefer the disadvantaged side for the exact reason that it is disadvantaged. It allows me to push myself into a more engaging situation, and ultimately achieve more satisfaction in myself, and in the game.

Part of being in a disadvantaged situation is that you learn to use your advantages more effectively than your opponent; and if all else fails, then you get to learn how good your basics are.

I Probably am not the only one like me.

If this feature was to be taken out, what would people like me have in the game?

From a gamer's perspective

LMAO @Vespa..indeed!

I appreciate the attention and extra money Bohemia received thanks to DayZ's popularity, but I'm disappointed by the fact they are willing to sacrifice ArmA3's identity just to please the newcomers, whom will eventually move on to other games anyway.
The reason why ArmA3 stands out is because it is unique, but balancing would turn it into just another generic, homogenized shooter, that is unable to hold the interest of newbies and alienates the older, loyal fan base which supported the series since OFP.
New guys, if you don't like the game stop playing it. BF4 and the new CoD comes out soon.

[@landmines "In my opinion, all balancing should be done by the mission editor, if one side has better tanks you simply give them less tanks."]

^^^my opinion too.

tactical limitations (firepower in this case) should always be a consideration, and not necessarily a hindrance against a larger, better equipped opposition.

unbalanced? fight smarter not harder

@bdfriend, calling grenades nades is hardly a point of damnation, stop with the drama it's annoying, and useless.

This thread is full of fuck and derp.

You`re getting upset about a developer saying "nade" instead of "M67 fragmentation grenade". Do you not have any actual issues to report?

And what is with this incessant community vs community bashing. Herp derp some other people are finding my game good, I need to get really upset about this and complain on the internet about it.

There are many people out there making good points, and making suggestions how to address the problems.

Instead, crying over nonsense. If you have a problem, speak it out, make a concise ticket, and say how it could be addressed. "Balancing" with this game is not about asset vs asset, but AI vs player. The devs have addressed this multiple times. For example, look at my complaint about the wrongly placed MG on the AMV (that was anal rivetcounting on my part). They addressed this promptly.

Or the firing rate of the GM6 was de-nerfed too (which now results in the AI using it as a machinegun rather than as a sniper rifle, but at least the players are happy). Broken AI? No problem, but at least the cyclic rate is correct.

I understand a lot of the problems people have, but what I do not understand is how one can also be so dispassionate about the underlying mechanics of the GAME, which can be completely broken by overly realistically implemented systems.

Srsly

EDIT: Also, grenade throwing was NOT fine in Arma 2, it was not fine in Arma, it was not fine in OFP. Now it is fine, because you can throw grenades with similar precision as you can in real life (almost). The only problem is the spamming, the ONLY problem. That can be addressed. Wishing back the stupid animation-locked don't-know-where-I-am-throwing-shit horror system from Arma 2 just makes me think you didn´t think your post through.

upvoted. but grenade throwing really was shitty in arma 2, a lot of people still seem to confuse reality with clunky controls.

Hey WarfighterONE,

i dont mind, what about the other comments above me are.
I Upvoted your Report becausse iam in the same Opinion.

ArmA III musst get realistic and not like any other FPS-Shit.

Off course, they can not make all as realistic as possible, thats not possible and that is completely ok for me. But they should try it as good they can.

Greetings from Germany and a Realistic-Simulation-Fan

Korbi

WarfigherOne, upvoted.

"In Arma, realism is a tool, not a goal."
https://twitter.com/KarelMoricky/status/321999777917177857

What even is this "Realism" everyone is talking about?

What exactly do you expect?

When devs say that they have to change a little the specs of weapon for balancing, this is not realistic at all.

I don't want to get into this conflict but I will say I found out that the "Game Balance Designer" was hired to balance the AI between the player.

In fact not only, because of players who want balancing in PVP too, so same specs for weapons from different faction, it's like a different design with the same specs...

indeed

100% Agree with OP. The open Alpha nearly killed this game with all the nonsense, and the really important spirit of the Game was nearly lost. Luckily the community is just about strong enough to stop the game descending into an "X-factor" popularity contest and to stay true to itself. This Game is a MILITARY GAME not an FPS.

...what

how has the open alpha nearly killed the game
and with what "nonsense"

how was the spirit of the game lost?

And why are you guys so disconnected from reality? Seriously, this post is giving me a toothache.

What exactly are you even complaining about? That the terrible grenade throwing from arma 2 was good?

That you are the white knight "True Arma Players" who are trying to "save the simulation" in vain, against a tide of twelve year old achievement hunters, and that BI is abandoning you?

I don´t mind constructive criticism, but you are just as bad here as the "xyz from cowadoody/baddulfield plz" posts. Complaints, Whining, and no feedback. If you want something changed, STATE CLEARLY what the problem is, and how you want it to be.

Now, what did we receive just the last two weeks:

ACE-style Ballistics for RPG-42
New Turret for the AMV-7 with MG where it is IRL, as well as Commander with CITV.
Corrected Helicopter speed and handling settings.
New AI settings to make them behave like people under fire, not terminators.

On top of the already existing things like the new loadout system (though the weight system is lacking right now, but I bet people will start complaining about that too if it gets realistically implemented, so nobody wins.), 3D scopes, Movement system, revamped penetration settings for all surfaces, AI being able to snipe, mines, etc, etc.

A lot of promises weren't kept, granted, but BI has a history of trying to do way too much with too little, so as someone who has been with the company's products since 01, no surprise here. And you maybe should consider that apart from rivet counting damage models and grenade throws, there is a whole game back there that needs to be finished, so be mindful of that.

Jeez.

Now please try to be constructive, and stop whining. This like 2010 all over again when they announced the future setting. MANY people were upset, and the mature ones voiced their opinion politely or didn´t voice it at all or through humour, and if they were really unhappy, they cut their losses and stuck with Arma 2. BI cannot do wonders, and with the release date fast approaching, we as testers need to check what we can seriously affect right now, and what is just wasted time and effort.

I for one -am- hoping to see AI work, a working armor penetration system for vehicles AND ballistic protection gear for soldiers, a proper health and aid system, working rangefinders and FCSs, but I also acknowledge that lots of these things will not be implemented at the release.

Then I consider what new things we ARE getting, and realize that Arma 3 is a much bigger step forward than Arma 2 was from Armed Assault. I daresay it is almost as big as A2 and OA combined (and OA and A3 are still in synergetic development, too.).

So there.

@InstaGoat

Yes, sure that A3 is real improvement for graphics and physics. 3D scopes for example is putted into A3 by the help of feedback tracker, it's here not only to fix bugs, but to ask for features and to say what isn't good in our eyes.

We are in 2013, OFP started in 2001, so let's go and move on, we just say that A3 with balancing is loosing the spirit of the serie, OFP wasn't balanced, and difference is rich.

It's not 2 teams fighting for the release, it's often the case in all the feedback tracker, but a place to comment. Maybe BIS doesn't heard enough on constructive treads, maybe it's a small team, but they have a lot stuff, sure, and anothers projects. But we are here for A3, not for the others games, we pay for it, it's not only a BIS game but a project lead with all the community to give the better feedback to improve the game.

The old players of OFP are here too to keep this spirit, and realism has to grow up like graphics and physics now since OFP. Balancing too much and simply balancing is not a good deal for a game which is designed to be a military simulator.

i would upvote another 1000 times if i could, id literally sit up all night and click that vote button +1

BI has done a great job with arma 3 i really do thank them.
i still think balancing is a load of crap...

The balancing is about AI versus player performance, not PvP. The devs have stated this before, it was mentioned here in comments twice.

You are complaining about something that's not even happening. Force disparity is already taking shape, and where it is not occuring it is because time and manpower lacking (also confirmed by the devs on the forums.).

Arma is a game that physically cannot be balanced. Even if they were to make carbon copy forces on every side, modders could easily break everything. There is no standard. This game is so open and so dynamic that you can't even found a mathematical basis for balance in the sense it is used in MMOs and conventional cardboard box shooters.

And I doubt BI's devs know so little about games design and game theory that they fail to see that conventional MP balancing for PVP/Tournament purposes is impossible. Some weapons are terribly alike, but this is much like real life, where physics and not the make of a gun make or break it on the battlefield.

A gun is a gun is a gun. The back-end is where it counts. And idk, but from looking at it right now, OFP doesn't seem terribly realistic to me. It understood itself as a game first and foremost. Even back during Armed Assault times, the leadership said that realism was not the sole object of the game, but rather a channel to produce a unique kind of gameplay. The primary realism of OFP was the deadliness of combat. Not the 3 round burst AK-74s, Vz.58s labelled as AK-CZs, the ten-hit-taking T-80s, Czech RPGs for the soviets, etc, etc. Same with Armed Assault. Even Arma 2 lived and thrived not because of extreme realism, but because of the (by then at base grossly outdated) gameplay core.

ACE addressed many of the perceived lackings in realism, and I think it is overdoing it in many situations for a game. You can´t put those features in because people do not expect to jump through hoops for ten weeks prior to finding out how to have fun in the game. Arma 2 was way too punishing in that regard too.

There needs to be a balance, and Arma 3 already is very realistic in many respects. In many, not enough for my tastes, but my tastes are not the tastes of the average joe who will pick this game up based on no research, off of the trailers and games magazine advertisements. The community will sort out the wheat from the chaff as far as newcomers go, and pick the addons and missions it desires I am sure. Some great addonmakers are already starting to do great work on the game.

So, this balancing thing you complain about, if BI is doing it, is so stupid as to be asinine. And again, I doubt they are trying to go for mmo/competition shooter style balancing, since they themselves have said this balancing is about making the AI perform more closely to what players can do.

The conclusion is that you are complaining about something that, in the form you complain about, doesn't even exist as a problem.

And the question about which features get picked and improved and which ones are checked and then discarded is a subject of BI's internal analysis pipeline regarding the tracker. No clue about how they do this, but I certainly hope it isn´t by votecount only, because some of the things with high votes have not as much gameplay impact as some other things, or community impact even, that are noted in the tracker.

so why arnt the most realistic elemants implemented?

fastrope.
weapon resting.
theres no blood. only a shade of red that can hardly be seen...
(i shot someone in the leg and no blood appeared.. in ofp,arma1,arma 2 the blood was more realistic in its own way...)
i agree the AI are trying to be better and i understand its a hard job.
but theres other aspects of the game that are being dropped that would make this game dominate every other military game out on the market.

I agree that realism is the balance. But I disagree that we should go for the Arma 2 get yourself killed grenade throw animation. It's almost good in Arma 3 but I think there needs to be way more delay between each throw. For the first one there's no need for delay because it needs to be aimed already and you have to think before you throw and in that time you could take the grenade in your hand in real life.

@tyl3r99

Isn't fastroping a confirmed feature?

this is a confusing thing.... i really thought it was but all i can see is BIS says its compatible with the engine.

not that they have decided to implement it.
and the fast roping ticket is only reviewed so at the moment not much hope .

@ST. Jimmy
If you've ever played Red Orchestra 2/Rising Storm then you would know what is possible in games and just think "what a piece of crap" the A3 grenade throw thingie is :)

(And RO2 has even inertia and weapon resting :))

this RO game sounds good...

Yes it's unusual for an arcade game but on some aspects it's more realitic, like for gore, a lack in A3 for a war game but it's another story...

arma 3 is like a comic book series when it comes to gore or blood effects. they may aswell take out the blood option all together

^ About blood and gore, blood is not usually clearly visible when shooting someone, unless of course you hit them in the head, etc.

In fact it may be hard to know if you even hit them.

Too much gore can mean less realism. Bullet makes a small hole when entering, and since the impact is under clothing, you won't actually see much of anything right away...

...exit wound is where the blood will be, it may be the same size as the entrance wound or significantly larger.

i can understand that but even in this case theres just not enough.

play arma 2 and shoot someone in the face and other body parts
play arma 3 and shoot someone in the face and other body parts

compare

be amazed

In my opinion on case of infantry combat there are 3 things that definitely have to be tweaked.
-The fact that you can use scopes together with night vision googles rather than actually having to use special night vision optics.
-The unlimited range of night vision googles, this should also be considered to fix on night vision scopes.
-The grenade throwing animation, currently the character only throws out the grenade without pulling the pin or anything like that.

@plutoto74 "When devs say that they have to change a little the specs of weapon for balancing" could you show me when they say this?

@MassDefibrillator

Sorry man but it's in the desert of feedback tracker...

I remember they were talking about changing a little the specs of the rounds like the init speed, for AI if I remember well. They wanted balancing the game, the factions to be more equal.

I will try to search but there's so much treads...

So 25 pages of "stop this balancing" feedback and no one seems to know what balancing they want to stop. just stop it :)

I'm stopping it. You can also make polls in the BI forums.

This ticket is useless per se.