PuFu has no involvement with GM.
#creator_dlc_discussion
tepid lance
muted narwhal
neither has RHS
as a modding group
with an emphasis on modding
i never said i was a developer for any C-DLC, nope, nor has anyone else
knotty ore
hes RHS dev
muted narwhal
i am a RHS developer yes
but RHS is not the developer for this CDLC
how hard can it ducking be?
mondkalb
and galcomt
tepid lance
Yep.
muted narwhal
yes
knotty ore
yes
muted narwhal
ninjaed everyone
tepid lance
It's a pure passion project that was taken the extra mile at the end.
muted narwhal
there is another channel for if you wanna talk about a specific CDLC btw #global_mobilization
knotty ore
knotty ore
xD
muted narwhal
i severely doubt you have the experience about the topic to doubt anything
yes
yes
surreal vault
so when does RHS become monetized
muted narwhal
nope
knotty ore
π
tepid lance
We did it over the past 3 years.
Originally starting in 2014 but taking a long hiatus due to content thievery getting out of hand within the life community.
muted narwhal
Maybe that's why it's littered with bugs
i was waiting on that one
knotty ore
btw @copper palm when have you seen a bug free game release anywhere?
tepid lance
We have 85 confirmed items on our list, some of them not bugs but small feature requests (Like gloves :D). Currently only 20 are left open. π
surreal vault
people will still rip the content
tepid lance
While that is still not fine, we now have Bohemia to handle the legal ramifications of that as well as a solid ground to persue damages.
Something that we would not have had, if we didn't join the CDLC programme.
knotty ore
Im just wondering why you are so specially bothered with it
knotty ore
have you reported the bugs you have found?
why not?
I bet you have the data to back that up
oh
so you have not bought it?
inside numbers?
knotty ore
yep
timid mountain
lol when you were delivered, did someone check your head for holes in it?
muted narwhal
@surreal vault pretty sure he means thievery vs ripping, as in some random life dude owning some patato server making a buck using your content. as long as there are dx opengl software than can extract that content, the content can be used or sold further, but this time it's up to BI legal team to deal with it
listen man
you are free not to buy it
or refund it
now please go bother someone else
you are free to do that as well
and you did
now, since you don't own it anymore, i think it is time to move on
muted narwhal
i don't know what you have been smoking, but do you mind sharing?
surreal vault
paint chips and printer paper
why did they release it now
I havenβt seen a deadline unless it was internal
muted narwhal
#global_mobilization channel is for you
pretty sure you might find an answer there rather than here, where it is more of a general discussion regarding all C-DLCs in general, not in particular
supposedly BI was in charge of Q.A.
ashen belfry
Pilot.Flux banned for trolling. Certainly not a BI dev.
surreal vault
epic
graceful willow
I'll buy GM if BI implements a solution to make it compatible with non-owners since I play only multiplayer
wraith sleet
I agree
tepid lance
Glad to hear that. We have a good resolution for this in mind and are looking at what can be done with the suggested ways on how to do it. π
stable raft
How about
we can see the equipment and weapons
but not use them or pick them up
@tepid lance
Like playing MP rirght now is jusst arma 3 soldiers with only pant's on
tepid lance
Yes, something like that. We're looking for a way to make it behave as any other DLC, minus the forced mandatory download.
wraith sleet
I would imagine that's the best way to do it
crimson pagoda
I see pics of the leopard 1 but cant find it in zeus any know if its there ?
crimson pagoda
i did
sinful grove
i mean i would like a standard DLC approach, other than the forced download
so such as helicopter or apex dlc, you can be a passenger in the vehicles, however not drive them or use turret positions
if spawned in as a GM character like a danish rifleman, you would get the watermarks as per usual but not kicked out of the slot
like apex, you cannot use the map
however if zeusing, you can obviously still spawn the assets and remote control them
as well as you can use the assets in the arsenal, even when in game, but getting dlc watermarks
narrow cradle
Yeah it's been discussed for the past two weeks or so, they're aware and trying to figure something out with BI.
sinful grove
i would love to see this turn out well
how is the bug squashing going for them? aparrently the campaign AI are broken
narrow cradle
Apparently they've fixed a lot of the bugs reported so far
But TBH AI bugs are largely on BI
(it's been an increasing nightmare to work with AI for our community missions too, I've mostly stopped making them for this reason)
teal ingot
Our community largely plays TvT for those exact reasons.
sinful grove
will there be a This is War theme for any of the creator dlc?
cedar chasm
not unless Vertexmacht or any other creators make one
valid dew
A future American civil war DLC would be interesting , set 10 to 20 years in the future
wraith plinth
Maybe with a map set in a mountainous region with some late open plains
And a city map to sort of mark polar opposites
A US Army faction in BLUFOR, rebels in OPFOR, and a U.S supporting militia in an FIA sort of position without OPFOR
spice timber
Females DLC? lmao
wraith plinth
Maybe like, an Armassentials dlc with all the stuff that wouldβve been cool to see in vanilla like fastroping and door breaching
raven urchin
Or shotguns
More sidearms
They add a judge but you cant even shoot it
I want my 4 10s
wraith plinth
Add that ridiculous .50 BMG pistol with like one round
In fact, what about a whole DLC based around all the stupid wacky military stuff from history
In fact, what about a whole DLC based around all the stupid wacky military stuff from history
New UGV: Soviet bomb dog
narrow cradle
You won't see anything that requires engine level changes, although some scripted features might be a thing
raven urchin
Ya urban terrain would be sick
With alot of indoor areas
Make SMGs actually worth a shit
wraith sleet
SMGs aren't going to be worth it because the engine removed the one thing that made them worthwhile with Arma 3- the guns clipping into walls and doors. Shacktac solved the clunkiness with the auto lower function and made it perfectly usable and predictable but without that the clunkiness of long weapons and going through doors and indoors just isn't going to be represented.
A2 did this more accurately, it led to lots of complaints about clunkiness but it captured the trade off well.
red saddle
"A2 did this more accurately, it led to lots of complaints about clunkiness but it captured the trade off well." afaik modders can configure how long/clunky the gun is. Maybe they all use too low values now?
wraith sleet
I was trying out a tactical position mod the other week that lowered the weapon like we had in A2 but it disappeared.
I want the urban fighting area, Fallujah used to be that for A2 but in A3 it isn't usable without modifications.
Quality and performance really need to be there though and I strongly suspect those are just mutually exclusive with the engine as it is.
red saddle
Played Fallujah 2 days ago. Was alright.
But totally forgot that A2 had automatic weapon lowering
wraith sleet
A2 didn't actually, it clipped the gun into the walls and doors and such and you got stuck and had to back off, depended on the length of the gun and suppressor. Shacktac made a mod to auto lower when you would otherwise get stuck.
Fallujah the AI can see through the walls and don't use the doors and path incorrectly go through the floors and walls and such.
wraith sleet
Fallujah can't be edited so it has simply been ported from A2 so it can't be fixed.
cedar chasm
In what way? Doesn't make any sense. Under APL?
wraith sleet
Kidal is the sort of Arma 3 replacement terrain really, similar concept (one big town in the centre)
You can read all about it in the Fallujah workshop entry but the author has forbidden changes.
But my point is a really big part of urban combat got removed Arma 2 to 3, which combined with much worse in town performance in Arma 3 comparatively means that urban combat has sort of taken a dive, both in terms of the value of SMGs and in the "urban" aspect since most are too small to end up in actual MOUT and CQB. So while I want it I also recognise Arma 3 isn't good for it.
cedar chasm
π€
wraith sleet
The AI issues within close range and in amoungst buildings now just makes the situation for a CDLC on it that much worse. I just don't think the game handles this well now at all.
cedar chasm
For as much as you say this. I experience the opposite.
narrow cradle
AI shooting through structures is amazingly annoying
red saddle
"Fallujah the AI can see through the walls" can't confirm
"and don't use the doors and path incorrectly go through the floors and walls and such" can't confirm either.
Played 2 days ago in zeus. AI didn't see through walls and used the doors and stairs correctly to get into buildings
Maybe you are using a different version of Fallujah? I just use the arma 2 version from armaholic, downloaded probably 4 years ago
dusk cargo
Most of all I like how they get into a static gun at the top of some walkable building
dusk cargo
I think this is not walkable. But I mean walkable like the big metal cargo tower. Soldier walks to the point located on the ground under the machinegun and teleports straight into it.
unborn notch
Oh yah thatβs what happens there too
high dune
Why does the Supporter edition of ArmA 3 not contain the Global Mobilization DLC?
arctic seal
because CDLC =! DLC
lucid depot
^ this
high dune
Okay. And how would I explain that to somebody who, for some reason, refuses to accept that the CDLC does not count as an DLC? π
red saddle
Just don't
high dune
okay...
rose gazelle
DLC is made by BI. CDLC is made by a 3rd party. Supporter edition includes DLC, no mention of CDLC. If someone refuses to understand that simple way of thinking, then they're beyond all help.
red saddle
I don't like that fact. But I understand it
tepid lance
There is no way to determine how much revenue from the Supporter edition should be paid out to the CDLC creators.
red saddle
Just take the safe route.
1 cent per supporter edition buyer π
tepid lance
Might as well since CDLCs are not realistic for profit projects.
frail vine
Just give CDLC devs IOU's
ashen belfry
As a supporters edition customer , I never expected to get this for free
wraith sleet
now, im interest how all of this affects future CDLC, i mean if you followed GM discord, you will notice that BI are some ********* who messed up some stuff regarding informations and they are more or less to blame for the "rushed" release of GM. Honestly i havent expected that BI are THAT sort of A***** company.
I mean when other 3rd party creators see the whole mess, with downvoting, with lies (GM is ported arma 2 content, GM has no zeus support etc... you can read them in the reviews), with the bashing, with BI who just took the money and were the key of the rushed release... maybe 3rd party devs will avoid this CDLC program, or those who have already applied will stop..
dunno if this will have a positive or negative effect for future projects and CDLC itself
pastel wraith
@wraith sleet I think most of the lies and review bombing is from the high price compared everything bar Apex and the at launch issues some people are genuinely experiencing, that being said CDLC was a bit of a weird way for GM to exist, if CDLC was more like Jets with B01, that would probably quiet down most of the people harping at it
steady nest
@pastel wraith I would note however that the scope of GM content versus Jets is quite different, e.g. the latter is a 'here's premium assets to complement and highlight our engine changes' with no terrain and Showcase: Fighter Jets as the sole mission content
pastel wraith
And thats the good thing, Jets fit in to the ecosystem of A3, its premium content was built around engine uprgrades, and held worth in custom missions from the community, and generally made the Aerial Warfare component of A3 much better than it was before. GM from the outside, doesnt share that click in the same way, it feels much more like a set of tailored assets specifically for its campaign.
steady nest
Whichever however makes sense considering the scope of Creator DLC and timing (well after Bohemia had 'called it a day' on engine changes of the sort that accompanied its prior DLCs)
pastel wraith
Which is the answer for why wider community opinion of CDLC at the moment is worse than expected
steady nest
Problem being that by that measure any Creator DLC would run into what you're describing -- the assets can't be 'themed to highlight our engine changes' nor can they accompany corresponding revisions of base game content, because it's been almost a year since Bohemia shut the door on such
steady nest
'expanding upon the content already there' implies 2035 though, since that was all of Bohemia's first-party-and-Jets content other than stuff deemed 'legacy' like the Mk14 of Marksmen or the AKM/AKS-74U/RPG-7 of Apex
pastel wraith
which would fit better into the A3 ecosystem, rather than how GM fits
wraith sleet
also, 50% of the money for BI is too much. They do not create any content for any CDLC. They just sitting their asses in the office, farting on their chairs and mess up the CDLC like they did with GM, destroying their reputation and receive 50% wtf is this shit
75% for CDLC devs would be much better
its a fact and not an opinion. Check GM discord, devs told the public how and why they are responsible for this mess. And yes, BI doesnt create any content for any CDLC. Fact. So no point why they should get 50%. especially after what they did with GM (again, GM devs told what happened)
narrow cradle
He means the 50% is something that they negotiated
A lot of us have wanted non 2035 content for Arma, though
So our community is quite happy to have a mod/expansion like GM
Only thing that would make life easier will be if the content licensing model is more similar to Apex, and GM devs and BI seem to be exploring that
Finally I would be cautious about claiming that GM devs blamed BI for XYZ
molten shard
Iβm fine with how the dlc works now but an apex model would spark joy
I 50% want it to shut up alot of the review bombers lole
narrow cradle
Since I explicitly remember them saying that BI did not set a release date
So claiming that
"i mean if you followed GM discord, you will notice that BI are some * who messed up some stuff regarding informations and they are more or less to blame for the "rushed" release of GM."
Is partly untrue
But yeah the blame for not staging the content on Dev branch seems to be on BI
ebon linden
Pay2Test π
narrow cradle
I do think that how BI has been handling this + community reaction might not encourage more attempts at cdlc
But idk
Maybe people are hoping that the shitstorm dies and BI gets its act together?
I also wonder what BI was promising in exchange for 50% of the cut, and whether they've been delivering on that π€
tribal folio
50% of a real cut in the first place?
(Excluding steambuys)
oblique fable
more like 25% cut in the end π
prisma mountain
In brutal honest truth. I think the winner of any CDLC and the one that will receive the most support would be the one that is the most unique.
Like I'm kinda hoping for a sci-fi based DLC. Something that is out of the norm, and still fits into A3. People will only want to buy the same assets over and over.
AKs, M113s, M-16s, ect. All pretty much span all current known DLC ideas
narrow cradle
Well I have zero interest in sci fi Arma, and our community will absolutely not adopt such CDLC.
I doubt we're the only ones
molten shard
sci-fi arma really isn't popular
there's been a few attempts but nothing picks up too massively
narrow cradle
@tribal folio nah 50-50 split with BI. Steam of course takes the 30% first, so vextermacht gets 35% in the end from steam sales.
tribal folio
Which is what I described? I included an excludey bit.
narrow cradle
I thought you were asking if it was 50-50 overall or after steam's cut π
tribal folio
If you get GM from the BI store, steam doesn't actually get a cut (or so I've heard)
narrow cradle
Yeah that is what I know too
prisma mountain
Think Sci-fi isn't as popular as it never truly been pushed to a quality as other mods.
Needs to be it's own setting, not based off of a current established IP.
narrow cradle
I'm not convinced that the Arma engine is suitable for it either
prisma mountain
More then suitable
Only limit really is laser style weapons. But with HEAT munitions you can get pretty fast projectiles with fixed damage outputs
But again, I believe it's more has to do with original concepts rather then feeding on a IP. Halo mod for example, I find almost no interest in.
ebon linden
they should call it Futura
steady nest
And to think that's what was originally supposed to happen instead of Arma 3...
@narrow cradle Admittedly I imagine that quickly getting out (and, ya know, how it working well) the patch that Mondkalb said was promised to be looked at by BI on Monday should help
narrow cradle
yeah.
steady nest
although a change to an Apex-at-launch structure will be interesting... no help for mission makers wrt Weferlingen and 'accidental lockout' due to inadvertently-placing a GM scenery object but Bohemia already faced that criticism back in the day with Tanoa
and that won't help as far as 'cutting down on how many RPG-7s I have to account for' because Bohemia currently proscribes any CDLC developer from mod or DLC dependencies, they must work even if only the base game is present
steady nest
Like I said -- Bohemia already 'got away' with locking out Apex terrain objects so even if they did that here...
narrow cradle
wouldn't say they got away, they changed it within a few months
and i remember quite a lot of pressure to do so
steady nest
Admittedly I would say so if it took said however-many months
narrow cradle
but right now doing so would be inconsistent
although, of course, it would be less inconsistent than what we have now with the CDLC model π
steady nest
iirc there was something said about making the entire GM DLC package still a 'you must pay to get all assets working' thing as per all first-party DLCs but 'you can optionally download the assets at full visual quality (the whole 4K thing aside) despite not being able to use the weapons/vehicles without scripting', with this being the first time the download was optional?
narrow cradle
yup
steady nest
Gotcha... in hindsight I'd also add that for some GM is more assets-heavy than even Apex so optional download or none-without-buying makes sense -- afaik it is a noticeably larger download than any first-party DLC's assets would total up to (in terms of affecting the base game download size for anyone who didn't have any of the first-party DLCs or GM)
narrow cradle
yeah, i think it does, but it's probably going to be better for GM if it follows an optional download/apex model thing instead of all-or-nothing
Simply because it'll see more adoption
of course as it stands people that like the content will probably get it regardless, but the apex model makes it easier for community adoption
steady nest
Isn't there something like this for servers as-is?
narrow cradle
what do you mean?
steady nest
Not having to have two Steam accounts to buy GM to support running GM
narrow cradle
you don't need to buy arma to run the dedicated server anyway
but yeah GM content for the dedicated server is available for free
steady nest
And that's for whether or not you're trying to use Weferlingen and/or run Vertexmacht's co-op/adversarial scenarios, or just trying to use the guns/gear/vehicles as per Bohemia's first-party DLCs in a community scenario on a separate terrain
steady nest
I mean server side, since the whole argument has been about client side
narrow cradle
oh. on server side there's no issue, the files are there, if you own the DLC you can play missions that use GM assets
if you don't then you can't
(basically the same way tanoa is handled for non-owners)
(or any other mod really)
steady nest
A-ha, so I imagine that the idea here is to make more assets available (well, more than "none") that you won't get kicked from the server for not having bought the DLC?
narrow cradle
yeah. so like the first party /apex model but optional
but BI has concerns (as outlined in the last SITREP) that need to be resolved
Vextermacht seem to be on board with a solution like that, so far.
steady nest
Ahhh, concerns on Bohemia's end for why they didn't do this at first and instead made everything GM all-or-nothing (which Vertexmacht acceded to) before we can get this method? I imagine that some of it is "Vertexmacht may be onboard, but what of later creators?"
steady nest
I'd imagined that part of it was 'Vertexmacht retains some degree of IP rights, whereas the first-party assets and Jets work from Bravo Zero One were ours to do with as we pleased'
And I do notice that when it came to the Vertexmacht team updating at their own pace that hey, literally a week after launch and Bohemia's going to be looking at a patch
plus we have to anticipate that cross-compatibility among future Creator DLC cannot always be guaranteed. I imagine that this is because enforcing cross-compatibility might well disqualify some Creator DLC pitches that would otherwise be accepted on their own, versus Bohemia doing so with their own assets/content...?
narrow cradle
yup
Vextermacht made an explicit effort to be vanilla compatible
others might try funky things (like the RHS armour model)
steady nest
and Bohemia has specifically remarked on the latter in said SITREP (some future DLC might adjust core functionality or require their own scripted functionality (as a Total Conversion) that cannot be supported throughout the platform)
steady nest
@prisma mountain Were you thinking of 'Bohemia didn't push the boundaries of the setting as hard as they could/should'?
prisma mountain
@steady nest No, not really. I for one liked the future(now modern) warfare aspect. What I'm referring to is that every DLC that has been rumored or discussed seems to focus on the same basic assets in service spanning several decades. Its great way to get away from the tropical island setting of vanilla. But how many people are going to want to buy the next DLC that has m-16s, AKs, and the same line up of vehicles? What about the 3rd? How many variants and styles of the m113 APC can we have ect?
No matter what CDLC will always be compared to what is currently on the free mod market. I'm mostly saying that if a CDLC creator really wants to shine, they will need to think outside the box a bit in their overall total conversion theme.
narrow cradle
@molten shard that's assuming a DLC owner tries to obtain the weapon via virtual arsenal
if the assets are used in the mission then it will kick or prevent joining
narrow cradle
invisible i think
spawning a vehicle via debug on the server led to an invisible vehicle
narrow cradle
@wraith sleet honestly price and download size isn't an issue for us. Apex was more expensive, but we adopted that in the end.
We're mod-free because frankly none of us want to commit to maintaining a mod pack, checking for compatibility, etc. Just don't have the time for that. Plus that means expecting new or returning players to download gigabytes of content first.
GM is a bit weird in the sense that it's published through BI and is the kind of content we've been starved for ever since A3 released. And Vextermacht has deliberately ensured it's compatible with the base game. That lowers the overhead for us. But it also functions like a mod for now, which means we can't give players a taste of the assets involved without locking out anyone that doesn't have it. Apex was a bit different in that we would run a mission on Tanoa towards the end but could still use the weapons and vehicles on other maps without alienating players who didn't own Apex. This diversified our missions significantly. Ditto with other DLCs.
Our first session after Apex released had just over 50 people turn up. The average those days used to be 30. We've never had as many players since. So price can be a barrier, but if people think there's quality to be had then they'll buy it or at the very least check out what's in store.
Oh, and Apex being on Dev and RC allowed us to integrate into F3 before it launched, so we were ready. At the moment we have nothing ready for GM, which means we're still figuring out what to do with it. Not to mention, we're still waiting to see if BI decides to implement the Apex model for it, since then we can add the assets to our F3 template. Otherwise we'll probably just modify assign gear, or make a separate template for GM. It's a bit unknown at the moment.
As for adoption at the moment, out of 47 of my friends on steam that own Arma (spread across 4 communities, both with and without mods), 19 have bought GM already and 2 have it on their wishlist.
For comparison, 42 own Apex and one person has it on their wishlist (after 3 years)
waxen lynx
@wraith sleet that statistics cant be right tho
there have been various events with 10++ players
prisma mountain
I think the pricing is pretty fair, and will only be more of a value as the GM devs add a few more assets in. Really any arguments of pricing is exact same as when Apex and the other DLCs. Split communities, pay to win(Marksmen DLC), Too little content, ect.
I agree with SK in the idea that I think most groups are not quiet sure what to do with it.
teal ingot
Public servers are a terrible judgement for anything imo.
prisma mountain
I think your forgetting that lots of groups host "ops" which means 2-3 hours of populated mode.
Also, amount of play =/= sales in the first 30 days π
teal ingot
All of my sessions have been private. I don't know what point your trying to prove and it doesn't matter. Just don't misrepresent data that hasn't even been collected.
prisma mountain
I think what he is getting at is why do you consider server pops to determine if something is making sales or not?
I think it's more what does BI and GM devs think a success.
If you sell 20,000 units. It doesn't matter if they play it a hour or play it for 10 years. 20,000 units is still money. Sure you can look at the long term sales of a established community. But when has DLC truly been about that?
Ow I don't disagree that MP is not the GM strongpoint. But Apex never was tell mission makers made something of it.
But those are all persistent servers. With persistent game modes.
Is there a Exile version out yet? A King of the Hill?
dusk cargo
Takes time to setup new assets for some well known game mode, I guess we should wait for a month or so
prisma mountain
Ravage mod is about the only mod I know that has updated with the GM assets. Liberation sounds like a 3rd party will need to make a template.
I'm sure Exile is all over it. Considering the map is pretty good for such a game mode.
dusk cargo
Having dev teams access the new assets before the GM release would have sped things up I think
prisma mountain
Yes, 1000%
Think they should go a step further and do a dev build access.
I would host it, but I been trying to peel my community away from Zeus.
Or maybe BI to host one or two?
delicate pumice
@wraith sleet relies on MP (SP with the way AI are is terrible imo). Or is this a case of the "hidden majority" using SP? I suspect Arma does have an enormous number of SP/Editor only players. there are many mods to improve AI but none to improve the choppy MP framerate.
prisma mountain
It was pretty much just like Apex back in release. Lots of people just fiddling with stuff, figuring what to do with it.
delicate pumice
why count servers?
still, i don't see that it's relevant to what ppl are playing
waxen lynx
GM had no MP focus, no ability to allow game modes to port their work prior to release, etc
however the main issues besides that is lack of DLC filter - not even for official servers, takes ages to get servers
plus the DLC approach (so far at least)
also the quick play is broken basically
would have been another way to funnel people onto GM servers
BI has to do a lot better for sure to make future CDLC a MP success and overall
(in regards to game modes: Domination was also ported now, and a few others or are WIP)
personally i find most frustrating the state of AI that BI left it in (engagement, pathfinding, vehicles, convoy, etc)
makes it very hard to make SP/COOP content work reasonable in the first place,
and to have it work for the average player (not familiar with the kinks of RV engine)
well and of course physx
worst decision ever, next to breaking the non physx simulation
this has hurt the modding community by far the most
delicate pumice
Let it all out Q π
narrow cradle
Yeah it's been funny in a tragic way to see mondkalb pull his hair over the AI and PhysX issues
You'd think BI would support their own partners in creating official content
But no
waxen lynx
@delicate pumice this is my line even before A3 was released
after all i was meant to make A3 Rearmed for BI but it got shelfed for those reasons
just imagine all vehicles from A2/OA had been working since A3 alpha
would have left only porting of characters - and we made those almost working without too
instead had to salvage what was left as AiA - was not allowed to release a full download (only the conversion) until A3MP dumped it disregarding the license
and took several years for CUP to make the package (outside terrains) usable
plus many big mods dying in the transition to A3, or taking years to get to A3 with a largely reduced set
but yeah telling the story over and over again wont help either way. so thats true
what people just dont realize BI is 99% focused on their own goals
and modding is just by-product
delicate pumice
You're singing to the choir, BI moves in mysterious ways. In spite of which, A3 still seems in rude health for a 6 year old game, so they're doing something right.
waxen lynx
BI didnt shut down modding
thats something over the industry indeed
however it would have killed their company if they did. so not much of a fact to mention
also its probably forgotten that modding in OFP started as the community/people hacked it open
its not like BI had this planned, or a modding strategy
however Ondrej and Marek (and a few others) did realize it was useful to support that
sadly OFP:Elite and A1 disaster made them refocus all their efforts on their own goals again
ponds is the eternal hope that BI would do something after all i guess ..
tepid lance
But as everyone knows. GM's dev team is pants-on-head amateur mod team that everyone can out-do in a day in their basement.
π€·
delicate pumice
I feel for you. Where players are concerned you must know that a section are always going to moan (try not to take it to heart) but it does seem like BI should have done much, much more to support your work (for their 35%).
tepid lance
Can I ask why you think it is too high?
BI charged 12$ for 3 tanks, and 12$ for 3 jets.
dusk cargo
This sounds horrible if this is true, BI didn't provide tools, BI didn't provide dev branch, BI didn't provide engine updates - for 50% of the share :/
tepid lance
Please do not follow the illusion that anyone is doing CDLC as a for-profit endeavour. It is the exact opposite of commercially viable.
Making zeus missions is on my to to do list for today.
The TvT missions use BI's vehicle respawn module which apparently have some issues on their own.
So I'll have to provide something else for the public server.
Oh btw, that we're getting public servers even was a last minute thing.
vital dome
BI is just a joke
mild solstice
I'm pretty sure I remember reading in the third party DLC pitch that they would not do engine changes...
tepid lance
They made no specific mention of it.
Also, during the process we were repeatedly ensured the issues raised would be looked at.
@wraith sleet There are currently three Official GM public servers.
molten ice
I am sorry to hear about your troubles in regards to BI's end, and the reviews, I do like the concept and potential of the DLC
river hill
Very nice Map , good Work make fun with Exile Mod
wraith sleet
Two things came out of my community last week on it, the price was too high and they don't like the "terms" under which it is released and supported. As I stated before the release this has predictably resulted in zero sales where there was before after announcement strong interest from 4. We moved on it isn't being discussed anymore.
red saddle
"As I stated before the release this has predictably resulted in zero sales" mondkalb said sales expectations were exceeded last week. So that doesn't sound like there were zero sales
raw apex
@tepid lance I bought the DLC twice..
Once on steam, being an idiot. Then on the BI store for a friend.
red saddle
I'm pretty sure I remember reading in the third party DLC pitch that they would not do engine changes... yes me too, but ofc don't know if there was anything about that in the contract
wraith sleet
@tepid lance is there any way to get the DLC without BI gets a revenue? do you have some sort of keys or anything ? For example, i send you 20 euros via paypal and you send me some sort of key to activate it
dense wraith
asking on BIs own discord feels like a high tariff manoeuvre too
narrow cradle
Frankly seeing how BI's handled this has made me significantly more cautious about buying a potential supporters edition for A4
Or even after that
tepid lance
Well there was no way for BI to see that CDLCs were a thing 6 years after the release of supporters editions.
narrow cradle
No not because of that
I didn't buy A3 supporters
I thought I could trust BI enough to support them up front with A4
This hasn't left a great impression
As a mission maker I'm used to having to work around buggy BI stuff. But seeing you folks treated the same has been disheartening.
So yeah when they can release A4 with the quality and quantity of content that GM has, with fixed AI and PhysX, then I'll consider a purchase.
wraith sleet
I hope BI will help you make gm compatible with vanilla servers.
I spend my time relaunching the game to navigate between gm and vanilla servers
wraith sleet
BI really hasn't treated its customers well with A3, the bugs are a real problem. Almost all of my modding is working around bugs BI introduced after the game was released and most of it is in the AI. I have spent the afternoon once again trying to work around the broken path finding and walking through floors for fortified troops. It is a little disheartening to see this play out as it has but I think it was inevitable once the core team for the game and engine left.
Until the strategy changes for creators DLC they just wont be selling us any. As one of them said "Good job Bohemia, you have managed to sell me no DLC of a game I have 9000 hours in"
stable raft
BI:introduce a third party DLC and team
BI:GM is made and teaser is made
BI:release GM rushing it
BI:get's bad reviews
BI: the devs did it
@tepid lance
a pretty accurate representation
wraith sleet
BI failed with DayZ
BI failed with fixing arma 3
BI failed with the CDLC programm
BI destroyed GM
tepid lance
BI didn't destroy GM. If they did, we'd just disappear from any communications and run.
Instead, we may actually be pants-on-head retarded by continuing anyway.
Next up are some helicopters, after all.
wraith sleet
or let me be more clear what i mean: they are part of the negative reviews you get for things its not your fault
tepid lance
So far how I see it regarding the negative reviews:
- We thought we'd have chosen a safe mission territory by playing into the origins of the engine: Mechanized warfare. Later on we realized how retarded the AI has gotten and couldn't even follow the player in a tank platoon anymore
- Campaign was definitely broken, so that hate is deserved to a large degree. I think a week of early access/devbranch would have resolved it. (Which is what we did this weekend and preparing a new patch to sort it out
- Deduct 25% rating anyway because of "paid mods" hate
Yup
wraith sleet
you get lots of negative reviews because of the CDLC programm itself, because it splits the community, but its not your fault, yet they blame you or write negative in your GM steam page instead of arma 3 page
tepid lance
Personally that part doesn't faze me, because it's nothing we could do about anyway. The DLC policy and such are a given, and we chose to go with it anyway because we wanted the large buildup of GM from the years to finally become available. Taking the heat for that is nothing we think about. We've got stable careers and have no intention of creating any company/existance around this CDLC.
What I don't understand is the massive complaints of people about "low quality home-made amateur modding" and lack of aircraft. It never said anywhere that they were included at release, yet they downvote anyway as if we promised them those.
Terrain + Assets in total are about 5GB of the installation
stable raft
I like the DLC and will alway's do.
All I hope for atleast is that There's more than A T-55 for the East Germans.
untold oracle
because people hear "modding community" and immediately go "this should be a mod, so it must be lower-quality"
steady nest
To say nothing of the originality of a 'Cold War gone hot' mod-or-CDLC that isn't 'US vs. Russia'
untold oracle
like it wasn't proven enough yet that modding quality can be higher than vanilla...
bright beacon
I think the reviews that are butthurt about the lack of US and russian units are funny
wraith sleet
Consumer reviews of anything are always random and all over the place.But in aggregate compared to over reviews they are fairly accurate comparatively.
tepid lance
Yeh.. well some people are special. Either way we're continuing and have a patch ready next week. It's about 50:50 parts bug fixes and quality of life stuff.
wraith sleet
you have a changelog @tepid lance ?
tepid lance
It will be published along with the patch.
wraith sleet
From what I saw from the video reveals quality varies. Some of the vehicle internals didn't look great and the building external/interior didn't either. Some of it is really high quality and some of it isn't.
arctic seal
Re low Q:
Now guess who is complaining about it? Kids with toasters who try to run the game in ultra on a i3 and a gtx 550 most likely...
steady nest
Quiksilver: As far as I see it re: air transport, Mondkalb and GalComT had to choose between 'launch with only West German helicopters, launch with none, or continue to wait on Stefan-or-roll-their-own (re: East German helos) and possibly not meet the chosen release window'... get criticized for either of the first two, only the third would be criticism-free but only because most people who hadn't run into GM before would never know
stable raft
Meh, I like arma the way it is
arctic seal
And that's still good
stable raft
I like the graphics too.
tepid lance
The CH-53 and BO-105 are essentially done, we're looking at including those at earliest possible time.
steady nest
105M and 105P aka PAH-1? (For the curious, an antecedent to the eventual Eurocopter Tiger called PAH-2 -- some of you may remember this from the Wargame series -- was ordered after 1983 so I imagine that that's out of GM - CWG's scope so long as Mondkalb and GalComT stick strictly to circa-1983)
tepid lance
We didn't add them into release simply because of "wheres my east helo" hate.
We'll do the 105 properly, so it will be VBH, PAH-1 and maybe also the civilian long-cabin.
But all this remains to be seen, as that work needs to be finished first.
molten shard
alot of people make all these crazy accusations and then add at the end of their review say like "havent really played with the dlc myself"
isn't that the least someone can ask before making a review lole
atleast that's what i've seen on reddit
tepid lance
I've seen a lot of "Heard it has terrible graphics and horrible configs from a friend, but didn't check myself".
delicate pumice
I can only assume the crit of the artwork is mainly down to the era of the uniforms and their simplicity compared to all the seams, patterns, pockets, reinforcing yada yada in modern gear. LIke the plain trousers of the police do look a little incomplete but there's really no way to make featureless fabric look great.
molten shard
some of the accusation comes from hearsay and jumping on a bandwagon
tepid lance
Heard complaints about "WHERE ARE MY WEAPONS? WHY DOES EVERYONE HAVE THE SAME RIFLE IN WEST GERMANY; LAZY DEVELOPERS!"
arctic seal
Y U HAVE NO RAIL FUR VANILLA SCOPE
tepid lance
Or stuff like "Cant even turn out as gunner in this tank. Cheap work!"
Thats scary. Largest coop goes to 22 players π
Ahh,
thats Liberation then
untold oracle
unfortunately ace+tfar so i cant join
those are free you know π
tepid lance
Can I pay in exposure?
steady nest
audiocustoms: Imagine if Mondkalb and GalComT had instead given H&K claw mounts to everyone... and only H&K claw mounts
arctic seal
@tepid lance
you can pay in nudes
cunning nacelle
Quality of GM assets obviously possible with monetization. That is the possibility of high quality paid mods, which I don't think anyone can argue against. But every implementation of it has been just awful. Leave it to BI to follow in the failures of so many companies, despite their pretty successful previous policies. Kudos to Mond and the rest of the team.
tepid lance
Domination was ported, too. So modes and missions are starting to pop up.
wraith sleet
Quite a lot of that campaign in regards vehicles probably worked a couple of years ago, I can see how you get to the point where it isn't the Creators fault that the game got so broken re vehicles that it doesn't work now. But it does also tell us BI did zero QA and didn't bother to help fix the issues at all
steady nest
Maybe someone really, really liked the terrain? π
tepid lance
There's a ton of camo patterns for the vehicles to make it work well on Altis.
We have reskins for the content into AAF and Takistan as well, but they were on hold so we could patch it.
rancid sparrow
just wanna say i love the GM dlc
i noticed in some custom workshop missions that it lists various factions, presumably from GM dlc that are not in yet
IIRC sweden, austria, US, russia
does that mean they are planned?
Dont know if that means theres game files or categories for them or what
tepid lance
When we set up the factions for GM we just did all of nato and warsaw pact, as well as other entities in europe. It was literally just a single line of extra config.
rancid sparrow
yeah i figured that was probably the case
explains why it shows up as a selectable faction in certain missions
Are you guys planning on doing some of them? Would be cool continuing with the red storm rising/cold war theater
kinda like a spiritual successor to OFP
hell id even buy them lol
tepid lance
Uncertain at this point. First we'd like to flesh out the existing nations.
waxen lynx
The data gathered is anonymous and will only be used towards the purposes of this thesis, as such not sold or handed out to any third parties. This survey, should take about 2-3 mins to fill in. If you feel comfortable filling out the survey for this game and would like to fill them in, we would greatly appreciate it!ο»Ώ
Thank you for taking the time to fill this in!```sounds a bit sneaky but interesting regardless
he should redo in a year or so only about CDLCs π
strange lichen
@wraith sleet i think you posted numbers of our server, we had 50+ players during the week π However numbers have fallen during the weekend.
raw apex
I bought all DLC and Additional at release. So I don't have any actual experience with Watermarks, however, If I didn't buy a DLC and had the watermark. It wouldn't make me buy it, but understand the privilege of being able to play with friends, who have actually bought the DLC. One note that I will add is that the Watermark should be permanent, at the side. (which it is) but NOT as a stock photo watermark. That stops you playing the game you bought in the first place. The functionality of being able to be a passenger and not having the DLC is also a great +1, and would probably have me buy the DLC just to support the creator AND being able to drive. I've seen my friend drive it, I've been inside, I've seen the texture quality. This leaves me to feel that I would be more likely to buy it, if I was around the content it provides and the mere access to it, is worth the price.
small raft
hey this has been asked a lot I'm sure, but are there any plans to bring Weferlingen map assets to vanilla, same how Tanoa had its map assets put into vanilla?
the buildings are SUPER high quality and would allow for greater terrain making detail
narrow cradle
I think that's dependent on if and how they implement the Apex model for content licensing
Which is currently still being investigated
Having structures and map assets be freely available would indeed be nice, would be easier for other terrain mods to base themselves of it too
cerulean remnant
I highly doubt that they plan on putting the map assets into vanilla but I do agree that would be nice.
narrow cradle
"putting into vanilla" I would assume involves the optional download bit
teal ingot
BI is eating their cake and having it too
So don't expect GM to make any of it's way into the base game
small raft
would be nice tho
GM buildings are super well made
spacious enough for infantry combat, and practically made too, unlike a lot of buildings on altis that're just a few wide open rooms
which works for infantry combat, sure, but it'd suck living in any of the houses on altis tbh
GM buildings have offices with room numbers, actual bathroom areas, detailed textures, and different floors and wallpapers for rooms in the same houses, I can appreciate the effort put into it all
my favorite building is like the modular shop
that was really smart
narrow cradle
not to mention, vanilla modules like the terrain object editor don't support GM buildings
small raft
how so? using edit terrain object to lock doors or damage buildings work, and using hide terrain objects works to hide entire towns
just tested
the only thing I didn't particularly like was how you can only set the damage state for the whole building, instead of different portions of it as can be done with vanilla buildings
i.e. you focus your fire on half of the building, half of it collapses, that works with vanilla buildings, but not GM buildings evidently, unless that option specifically doesn't show up in the module for some reason
wraith sleet
Need to update pistol animations, they are bad, uncocked hammer, and slide is not synced to animation
The rest weapons are amazing though
teal ingot
they didn't even get time on the dev branch
narrow cradle
@small raft yeah the damage states. BI has hard-coded it to two values. GM has 8 or more I think.
So the BI module can't support it unless they update it and make it dynamic
small raft
yeah I figured it was an issue with the module @narrow cradle
you can still lock doors and whatnot though which is good, kinda wish there were as many damage state options as there were door options as you suggested
tough wedge
So lemme understand. This DLC is just one of a series coming after the end of the official dlc releases right?
steady nest
Dunno if it'll be a series -- after all, dunno the identities or release dates of possible others
tough wedge
Well, TBH it is a great idea! I don't like the 80s at all, even tho I am an 86 metalhead (which are known for being so 80s nostalgic) so I haven't got it, otherwise I would get any WWII, or modern / near future content
steady nest
"it" being...?
tough wedge
It the DLC of courseπ
steady nest
Ahhh this specific one π there's a separate channel for it and I imagine more will be added once they're announced, this channel is for 'Creator DLC in general'
tough wedge
Ahaha yeah and I am talking about Creator DLCs in general π but seeing a "creator dlc discussion" separate from "global mobilization" made me think that this must be one of a series of different creator DLCs
Mine was a quick note on the fact that the idea was great but I wasn't interested in that kind of time range and content ;)
The workshop is stuffed with total conversions and such, from different wars and epochs, that I won't give up hoping for a more modern collocation, or a WWII one :)
steady nest
It's entirely possible that someone's doing a WWII, modern/near-future, or 'forget about explaining it let's just do far-future' Creator DLC... but if the trend holds then we won't hear about them until they're about to be released, and they may not come from people who you know for having done those already, due to Bohemia's wording about how Creator DLCs should not be 'replacing free mods'
tough wedge
Well, won't mind that much, it would be nice just to know "yes there will be more" :) yeah I read it, and that's the only way to avoid drive community creators mad, it's admirable! Let's just hope they go on with the project because it seems like it succeeded in it's goal of expanding the gameplay and still fund some future Bohemia projects. If I was sure that funds from this Creator DLC were entirely (at least the Bohemia share, not talking about Global Mobilization's) going into an ArmA4 project, I would buy 4π π
steady nest
Ehhhh, 'expanding the gameplay' is... depends on how you define that I suppose, but that's due to the rules of the Creator DLC program and not a knock on any specific third-party developer
tough wedge
Well, in ARMA you can expand it as much as you would like because of the wonderfully active modding community...but mods are a thing, a "mod turned into a dlc with the supervision of the Devs" is something more structured to last and to avoid conflicting with other built in parts of the core game ;)
It must be a long tedious and stressing process for both sides, but you end up with a content Wich is basically a proper DLC but Community made, instead of a mod with no supervision and help from BI. This is seriously helpful in bugfixing, QoL, and in the assets integration within the game, as previously stated, non conflicting (or at least it shouldn't) with all what's official in the Arma 3 game
steady nest
Regarding the 'expanding the gameplay' bit: from October 31st, 2017, Bohemia's armored_sheep: Arma Premium DLC protection was not designed to handle scripted features. I would recomend to think about such package that will include at least some key content that can be protected. https://forums.bohemia.net/forums/topic/211491-arma-3-third-party-dlc-pitch-discussion/?do=findComment&comment=3246004
teal ingot
Bohemia has shown no interest in making accommodations for CDLC developers.
bold rover
ashen belfry
@teal ingot Have BI not shown any interest in making accommodations for your CDLC pitch? Or is this just another sour grapes post? I mean, there has only been one CDLC released, and any other which may be in the pipeline (not to forget GM) are under a non-disclosure agreement.
wraith sleet
There's a few things that seem to be suggesting that said by GM devs
Reddit has a rather dramatic, possibly out of context "BI turning their backs on GM" thread with a screenshot of a statement from a GM dev
tepid siren
From what the GM devs posted it definitely seems like they arenβt willing to accommodate CDLC
In the end it is up to BI to decide how these DLCs will function and if they meet a certain standard. The GM devs did a great job and provided some great content
hollow sorrel
i love the new map and DLC !!! what a work...i hope there will be coming some exile/wasteland servers !! cant wait !!
teal ingot
@ashen belfry GM devs posts, I'm not a Dev.
undone lichen
-mod
steady nest
Well now: Also asset substitute files are now available to enable terrain makers to build their own worlds using GM assets! https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Global_Mobilization_Weferlingen#Substitute_Files - Mondkalb over in #global_mobilization
mystic spruce
GM is very frustraiting for me. I bought the DLC but due to Bohemias creator dlc policy there is almost nobody playing it. So at this point i payed 20β¬ for nothing. GM should be handled like Apex. If not i believe nobody will buy the next creator dlc's.
ashen belfry
Should have, would have, could have.... But it wasn't, just like it was announced that it wasn't.
haughty stream
It's mostly Milsim/private communities using it @mystic spruce
Few servers up as well
ashen belfry
My children don't get mad when I say "be careful, its hot" because I've said beforehand that it was going to be hot. They didn't suddenly expect it to be cold.
I bought multiple copies as did many in my group and we donated it to others who either couldn't afford it or who participated in a contest.
red saddle
I knew beforehand that I won't be able to use the DLC, just like we discussed in this channel literally dozens of times. Still bought it
ashen belfry
And its pretty damn enjoyable too.
mystic spruce
Is it so hard to be objective in answering? Sry guys, but answers like that are completely unnecessary especially for moderators.
tight lodge
You're in the wrong place if you expect good answers, sorry bud.
ashen belfry
I'm quite objective, what you cant do is expect the opposite of what has been stated multiple times.
steady nest
For anyone unaware, Bohemia pretty much announced that all-or-nothing would be the case over a year ago when revealing the third-party DLC plan in late 2017
ashen belfry
I expected the water to be dry... I'm disappointed and wont recommend it...
red saddle
I don't see anything non-objective in there.
BI announced even a year ago when they first talked about the third party DLC initiative that it will be exactly how they made it to be now.
If that's not objective then I don't know anything that would be.
mystic spruce
To start, I found no indicator for that change in policy on the steam store page. Maybe I overlooked it? I'm pretty sure that FM's passive aggressive answers are anything but objective.
lucid depot
That's not a change in policy DLC =/= CDLC
ashen belfry
Theres nothing passive aggressive about it at all, its factual
oh the snow is so cold, I expected it to be hot...
see what i mean?
mystic spruce
Thats just childish and unprofessional.
ashen belfry
At no point was it said it was going to be otherwise, so where you got your idea is anyones guess, but it is not based in fact.
So, in essence, what you are doing is spreading unnecessary falsehoods
mystic spruce
I wrote that i found no indicator about that fact on the steam store page. I'm not reading the forum.
ashen belfry
Had, you said "you know what, I was wrong and completely got that wrong somehow" we'd have understood.
lucid depot
Arma 3 Creator DLC is optional to install and load. To play Arma 3 with this DLC enabled, please visit the DLC section in the Arma 3 Launcher, make sure "Global Mobilization" is owned and loaded, and then launch the game by clicking on the PLAY button.
It's written at the end of the Steam page. Seems pretty clear for me that you need to own it to be able to play with it.
mystic spruce
In steam, any DLC is optional. The difference is that, if i wont download Apex i am still able to play on servers using that content exept servers with the to apex related map(tanoa). So for me thats not that clear.
ashen belfry
make sure "Global Mobilization" is owned and loaded
"OWNED" being the operative word
waxen lynx
@mystic spruce ignore the talk here for now
GM and BI are working to get A3 DLC like model out
so just some patience and dont waste your time here
and yes BI did a poor job in communicating the change
plus it was a mistake to have this have happened
sleek geode
Yeah. And if you are bothered by something as a customer, make sure to voice your opinion.
waxen lynx
and its worked on to be rectified
molten ice
I think it is a bit wrong to say that BI communicated it poorly, considering the fact they told us twice this was the way it was going to be
both a year ago and shortly before the release of GM
ashen belfry
I would even go so far as to possibly blame it on those whose English isn't the best (comprehension)
Β―_(γ)_/Β―
narrow cradle
Yeah ever since it was first announced, it was an all or nothing optional thing. And ever since it was announced, roughly the same concerns have been raised about the whole thing.
But I think the assumption was that it would be small scale content on the level of jets and tanks - a couple of assets for a relatively small amount of money. People mostly thought they'd ignore it, unless they wanted things for SP.
The surprise was a full expansion scale project of really high quality, and with content that many of us have craved since 2013. That reignited the debate about the all-or-nothing policy, and it also showed that fears of the community being split etc were not misplaced.
Luckily it seems BI are willing to reconsider and work on some solution, whether or not this will actually happen and what it means for future DLCs is something only time will tell.
waxen lynx
@molten ice you are mixing topics
CDLCs are separate downloads yes
but not (necessarily) paid only versions
waxen lynx
A3 DLCs system
people misread and assume way too much in general
one of the main reasons BI became so careful and hesitant with their communication
yet this also results in lack of clarifications from BI and thus people making and spreading wrong assumptions
muted narwhal
due to some lack of communication, people normally assumed this cdlc system applies to further ones as well
that was expected
what some here donβt get
is that an apex system
means more sales
for both developers and BI
would it be possible to have a 3rd party dlc
behave differently than anything else for one reason or a other
? yeah sure. is the current system ideal? nope
another thing, some expected it to behave just the same, just because
steady nest
some expected it to behave just the same, just because that would appear to be a big source of the dilemma... though SK's theory that 'it only became a problem when the first CDLC revealed turned out to actually be good instead of ignorable' is interesting
waxen lynx
some people may remember .. there used to be times with demos
so any approach that lets people try before you buy is useful
and with anything that has a MP component you need some approach not to force every to buy
narrow cradle
Nah @steady nest it didn't only become a problem when people saw the scale of it, I remember these concerns raised from the start. It just died down after a while, partly because BI didn't say much, which I think led people to think it will be small scale stuff.
I'm sure the original announcement and discussion threads are floating around somewhere
steady nest
@narrow cradle It went for ten pages
narrow cradle
yeah π
sleek geode
Some views on the matter:
As a single player:
I am bothered by that the released SP content had significant bugs. Most of the issues were according to vertex guys fixed rather fast. This tells me that the issue lies with QA. QA did not catch these bugs. There was no devbranch release where the community could have helped with QA. There are also underlying issues with AI that cannot be fixed by guys at vertex. Issues like friendly APC running over own dismounts. Vehicles getting stuck in terrain. AI infantry lying in the middle of the road bunched up. They have to be fixed or at least brought to an acceptable level by BI. All CDLC is supposed to have a single-player aspect to them. These issues are the sort of thing I wold expect to receive attention in the form of a platform updates that supports all the upcoming CDLC.
As a community manager/event organiser:
What bothers me in the release as a MP player and organiser is that the CDLC model splits our community and adds more work to server setup. In the old model, we could assign the dlc things to distinct roles that we would mark as DLC roles. For example, people with no GM could have played with roles from the RHS russians or British mod etc. Those who did not have the DLC could still participate in our community's activities, albeit in a limited manner. They would also be exposed to the content and the content would actually see use. I would argue that this increases the tail of the product. More purchases along the lifetime of the product. And more life to the overall platform.
And currently we cant even have GM on the server since those without it cannot connect even if nothing from GM is used in a mission. So we have to do specific setup changes often to play it. This also limits how often it gets used.
As an overall customer:
ARMA3 is a lifestyle game to me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsC37YyPHd0
If BI wants to have a graceful end of life for arma3 then a few things need to happen:
- Keep communicating about plans/failures/successes
My interest in furthering the community hinders on this. And if future CDLC/other content on part of BI are indeed going to feature insufficient QA and no platform fixes then please tell me that and I will adjust my plans for involvement in this community to fit that knowledge. If you leave me guessing and I guess wrong then this will likely lead to ill will towards ARMA as a series and BI as a supplier.
- Please do not make things harder for dwindling A3 community as it is already.
This includes other things also, but primarily; Don't split us please. In the days of arma3 dwindling and a lot of communities dwindling this is unacceptable. https://steamcharts.com/app/107410#1y
muted narwhal
@waxen lynx 100% agreed. what needs to be pretty clear though, is that while there might be a chance to get cdlc published similar to apex, the islands will remain, just like tanoa, something that needs to be owned in order to be used.
@sleek geode
a. QA - that is something that BI needs to sort out yes. Part of it might be sorted by providing an optional steam code similar to legacy versions / RC code so that community could test it out directly as you said.
b. SP aspect - i didn't read that anywhere. Also SP aspect doesn't necessary mean it has to have a SP campaign similar to GM one, could as well be a couple of independent missions.
c. the MP part is something that i thing everyone (developer, BI and community) agrees that is not ideal in its current form.
- i won't expect that sort of transparency, it never was something BI was good about
- the no platform fixes and engine updates is something that was already communicated by BI when they announced the pitch, or in fact there would be no lack of connections between one the other
- i am curious to see if this stuff can be solved by BI, and how, regarding GM cDLC
narrow cradle
@sleek geode well said!
sleek geode
misspost
valid zealot
I doubt this part
And currently we cant even have GM on the server since those without it cannot connect even if nothing from GM is used in a mission. So we have to do specific setup changes often to play it. This also limits how often it gets used.
My server runs GM and I have people playing on it that do not own GM or have it mounted. Just yesterday I was testing a mission on my server while I had GM not mounted as client.
waxen lynx
yep thats not correct
the opposite seems more problematic
GM players create due to arsenal GM assets in non GM missions
however BI should have signed the CDLC with its own bikey
would have allowed better server management
muted narwhal
you mean via virtual arsenal?
waxen lynx
most missions these days use arsenal at ammo crates to allow people to equip
vivid lynx
@valid zealot issue occurs only with verify signatures
valid zealot
I see. Yeah you need the pbos with verifying signatures are enabled...
waxen lynx
as the default is to add in anything loaded, and its checked locally, it will add stuff GM stuff if someone has it active
valid zealot
my server does not have that as it is mostly a testing server
vivid lynx
Yep, can be avoided by launching server with GM as server mod
valid zealot
that is a weird work around tbh
waxen lynx
by default arsenal should add only author = "Bohemia Interactive";
or have a server side handling
sleek geode
1. i won't expect that sort of transparency, it never was something BI was good about
- the no platform fixes and engine updates is something that was already communicated by BI when they announced the pitch, or in fact there would be no lack of connections between one the other
Yes. They did communicate it. And now we know that there is significant CDLC SP content and even COOP content that suffers from the AI issues mentioned earlier. In this light BI needs to tell us:
-
We have too much technical dept in AI that so and so is impossible and we cant do shit. CDLC content makers and all the playerbase needs to just deal with it.
-
Or they tell us that they will look into it and try to even provide workarounds or guide us and CDLC makers in best usage cases.
-
Or they actually bring it to a workable level.
And platform updates are also a thing outside CDLC. This is what I meant by "future other content on part of BI". Is this the platform is going to be until end of life?
We as customers must demand things. We must demand before,during and after if need be. If BI has always been bad at something then that means we have always been bad at demanding change regarding the said thing.
b. SP aspect - i didn't read that anywhere. Also SP aspect doesn't necessary mean it has to have a SP campaign similar to GM one, could as well be a couple of independent missions.
From the FAQ it reads:
Why is it not possible for Creator DLC to exist of only multiplayer content?
Due to the technological limitations of not being able to apply our Content Licensing system to multiplayer content (like scenarios), there is unfortunately no way for us to check if the user owns such content or not.
And from what I understand from Vertex is that they did not particularly like working on SP content. This leads me to think that they did what was expected of them and maybe a little more?
But of course the content can be something besides a campaign and can be more or less. I am thinking the amount of SP content is expected by BI to scale according to the scale of the package and price?
@valid zealot I dont know what is intentional at this point and what is by accident. FAQ reads that you should not be able to connect to the server. And overall the bigger issues is the fact that we cant really provide any solutions via mods to those without the dlc.
narrow cradle
@sleek geode yeah the FAQ is confusing, but it works like any other mod
(we tried too, and we run a mostly vanilla server otherwise)
muted narwhal
- We have too much technical dept in AI that so and so is impossible and we cant do shit. CDLC content makers and all the playerbase needs to just deal with it.
- Or they tell us that they will look into it and try to even provide workarounds or guide us and CDLC makers in best usage cases.
- Or they actually bring it to a workable level.
And platform updates are also a thing outside CDLC. This is what I meant by "future other content on part of BI". Is this the platform is going to be until end of life?```
i won't be searching for the exact dev blog on the subject, but there is one where things area pretty clearly explained - the vast majority of developers for A3 already moved on to other projects. There will be no more deep changes to the platform.
The AI issues is not something that is specific for a particular CDLC, they behave just as good/bad with vanilla and official DLC contentso yes, most likely, this is how A3 will remain until the end of life. i wouldn't expect more out of it
Due to the technological limitations of not being able to apply our Content Licensing system to multiplayer content (like scenarios), there is unfortunately no way for us to check if the user owns such content or not.```
nope, it means i cannot take the existing KOTH and try and pitch it as a DLC. It needs to have the SP component, which is in fact its contentit was explained before that things like MP missions and gamemods cannot be sold as c-DLCs on their own
waxen lynx
as far as i understand it you cannot pitch a pure MP mission/game mode
sleek geode
Yes. Now I understand that part of the FAQ more clearly. Thank you.
waxen lynx
as BI cannot protect this via EBO
however a mixed set is fine (new assets+MP). SP part is not required
sleek geode
If we take these to mean that already existing platform issues wont be touched then alright. BI QA should not allow any CDLC to ship with issues stemming from a platform feature that they have no intention of fixing or even alleviating.
muted narwhal
@sleek geode i assume you are talking about the SP component (as in campaign for GM in this particular case)
again, i think the entire QA could be vastly improved by allowing it to be tested on a separate game branch
sleek geode
Yes, in the case of GM they should not have let GM pass QA with the AI issues. They should have directed Vertex to a work around them/delay release/Scrap offending parts.
muted narwhal
i think the issue in itself is resource based
as BI pulled most resources from A3 and moved them to other projects
such QA is impossible to be done exclusively behind closed doors
waxen lynx
well public dev branch testing has proven help a great deal
so this should have been done prior to release
muted narwhal
precisely
waxen lynx
there is really no good reason not to
muted narwhal
that is how BI does its own QA for its content, at least partly
sleek geode
Of course its is exactly a resource problem. But the decisions to sell stuff with significant issues is unacceptable due to having miss resourced.
muted narwhal
ideally, the changes that need to happen for other upcoming cDLC are in relations to
a. publishing mode - similar to other DLCs / (especially APEX) - which i understand is 100% possible
b. QA - involving a public test release
anything in relation to platform changes to accommodate new cDLC content is not on the table (example - naval warfare)
muted narwhal
of course it is in EBO format
fringe python
then yes, I'd say, even a public test would be beneficial
it'd be great marketing aswell
two birds in one stone
muted narwhal
it is sort of expected to some degree that the first release of this sort to have some problems, since it has never been done before
sleek geode
"anything in relation to platform changes to accommodate new cDLC content is not on the table (example - naval warfare)"
So this was not asked. I for example am refering to fixing issues already present in the features the platform has. And if not possible then working around them.
muted narwhal
now i would expect some changes in regards to future ones, as well as this one, if possible
@sleek geode for example am refering to fixing issues already present in the features the platform has such as? can you be more precise about that
sleek geode
Such as dismounting vehicles not running over dismounts.
muted narwhal
is this issue exclusive to GM cDLC? i would say it isn't, it happens with vanilla official content just as well
can this be mitigated in a controlled SP scenario / campaign? yes, it can be sort of scripted to overcome the limitation
sleek geode
Yes. It is a part of the platform so it is going to be an issue in every CDLC with this kind of content. Hence BI should spend resources to make it disappear. Can it be sorted out by scripts? Yes, but so can almost everything? Can it be sorted for most of the cases in engine? Maybe? Should we demand it as a paying customer? absolutely! Why are you so against demanding things from BI? Where would you like BI to spend their resources?
muted narwhal
It's gonna be the same issue with every cDLCs, correct, just like it is an issue with their own official content and their DLCs (tanks DLCs for instance, have not solved the issues in relation to AI)
why would you expect or demand BI to do anything about these
6years after A3 was released
when they already said that they pulled most if not all developers from this particular platform
sleek geode
""Why are you so against demanding things from BI?""
muted narwhal
demand is an overstatement to begin with
i am not against it, i am objectively certain that is not gonna happen
simple as that
and that has nothing to do with cDLCs
again, the mentioned issues are A3 issues, not cDLCs issues
sleek geode
They affect new dlc they are selling. Its not ok to pull support and keep selling.
And if you are not against this, then why are we discussing ?
If we dont talk about issues they are 100% certain to not get any attention.
muted narwhal
because you seem to be living into an alternate world
they pulled platform support
that was announced from the start
it isn't news
molten shard
The door on arma 3 is closed
sleek geode
""they pulled platform support"" Where is it stated? Where have they stated that the platform is no longer being supported?
molten shard
Theyβre not going backwards to fix it
muted narwhal
You seem to fail to understand the purpose of these cDLCs to begin with
a. this is an opportunity for mod makers to get some sort of return on their investment
b. it is content that BI has no resources to make on its own anymore - it will keep A3 afloat until a future product is ready
c. you cannot allow 3rd party content to be made and then demand support and changes to be made by that 3rd party if and when you drasticly change something, which is bound to break shit down the line
regarding C - that happened quite a few times already during A3 lifespan
where a lot of mod makers had to spent countless hours
molten shard
βHey I know you guys are busy working on new projects but can you come back to try and extend the life of a 6 year old title you have no interest in supportingβ
muted narwhal
to adjust their content to the changes BI did
it's not about interest, i don't think
it is about a freaking bussines decission
and some limitations of the engine, some that cannot be overcomed (easily or at all)
And if you are not against this, then why are we discussing ?
i am discussing it, because you seem be going in circle about certain things
sleek geode
And just to make clear. you are arguing with me because you think that I should just lay down and let it go? That is you primary goal? For me to accept this business decision?
muted narwhal
yes, some bugs that are cDLC specific should have been cought in the QA safenet
safe ether
Did Bohemia Interactive say they're not working on A3 anymore?
muted narwhal
yes
safe ether
Do you have a link or post of that?
I'm curious to see what their last words are, I thought cDLC was just a side thing
muted narwhal
but a lot of these bugs are not cDLC specific, these are platform wide, which you seem to fail to understand
you are arguing with me because you think that I should just lay down and let it go? That is you primary goal? For me to accept this business decision?
lol - see the channel you are typing in first
you are free to use the existing https://feedback.bistudio.com/tag/arma_3/ to post any bugs related to A3
again, it has NOTHING to do with cDLC
afaik, there will be some future patch down the line, post the existing 1.92 version
but that is in relation to Old Man thing
and it unlikely to include anything but some bug fixes bar the new content, but no platform updates, or any sort of big changes
For me to accept this business decision?
you are free not to accept anything, just saying that there is nothing you can do about it either
arctic seal
β
sleek geode
Since you are not working for BI I see no incentive for you to argue against me other than your own satisfaction in pushing your view that we should let things slide. To reiterate why I push this issue is:
- BI is selling new DLC
- Its done in a lacking way
- BI appears to not support the new releases, in fixes, enough QA etc.
- This is not OK for me as a customer and in my view will hurt the dwindling player-base.
I push this issue since that is how things change in companies.
mild solstice
He did work on some content for BI DLC in the past though
muted narwhal
@sleek geode i am not arguing to push my view on anything. i already said i agree with the fact that BI QA on cDLC is lacking, that the type of publishing is not ideal, especially when they have a pretty damn good alternative (their own DLCs)
i am not agreeing with the fact that you associate platform wide issues with a specific cDLC
it's like expecting the next cDLC to have spotlights that are actually casting a shadow
sleek geode
Like i said. Either QA needs to cut thos from the content or it needs to be fixed on an engine level. The fact is CDLC utilizes that buged part of the platform.
muted narwhal
and if they don't, the issue is cDLC specific, not a ducking A3 engine limitation
sleek geode
"it's like expecting the next cDLC to have spotlights that are actually casting a shadow"
What?
muted narwhal
@sleek geode cut what? tanks and apcs?
What?
no light sources besides sun and mood cats shadows in A3. not spotlights, not flashlights etc
sleek geode
Yes. If interactions with vehicles are no supported, and no fixes cannot be provided for the feature in the platform, then cut them or workaround or etc. Do not sell faulty parts.
muted narwhal
omg
so they should also cut all tanks from their own tank DLC as well
following the same logic
sleek geode
I agree that tanks DLC should have worked on driving issues yes.
muted narwhal
they should also remove all bridges from the francise
because AI can have issues with them at times
sleek geode
Or make them work?
muted narwhal
they already said the development on this francise
is pretty much closed
can you get that?
sleek geode
It does not make ok to release broken content.
muted narwhal
omg
as i said, going in circles
it is not ducking broken content
i can play with GM content without AI just fine
it isn't broken
sleek geode
I had a different experience.
muted narwhal
so if i am to play a PvP game
where there is no AI whatsoever
i shouldn't be allowed to
because some other bloke that uses AI
has issues with it
sleek geode
Why are you strawmaning me?
muted narwhal
as in the same issues he is having
with any other offcial or 3rd party content (vanilla, official DLC, any mods)
with no relation to a particular cDLC?
because your logic is illogic
sleek geode
This is getting way out of hand. I concede to your relentless assault. My logic is faulty and your agenda is supreme.
muted narwhal
i have no agenda
i gain nothing from any cDLC
i am not part of BI, and i have no cDLC in development
but you and people like yourself
are the ducking reason for GM getting slammed on Steam in terms of reviews
because you cannot make the difference between platform bugs
and GM cDLC bugs
again, if you want a specific bug fixed
get to work on that official feedback tracker
@wraith sleet what?
molten ice
what about the ponds is broken? (other than the currents)
chrome crown
Thats funny
hide tank under water?
π€
I admit i havnt played the DLC so far, only tested stuff out of lacking time
no boats is a pity
muted narwhal
@wraith sleet yes, and that is something i 100% agree. doing things outside the engine capability
narrow cradle
@sleek geode you have to keep in mind that GM has been WIP for a long time, even before CDLC was announced, or the driving was refactored, etc. It's impossible for mission makers to pre-empt in what way BI decides to break the game. I literally know of script commands that work in a mission created with the 2D editor but break when imported to EDEN. Similarly there's stuff in the vanilla game that keeps breaking randomly without explanation when it comes to driving, flying, waypoints and anything else the AI has to do.
They've fixed a bunch of stuff in the campaign, hopefully that makes it a better experience. Patch might come next week.
muted narwhal
i do not agree with removing stuff such as tanks and apcs
because AI cannot use it
or they can, but with limitations
also, associating AI issues with GM cDLC exclusively
is ducking absurd
narrow cradle
AI driving is a god damn dice roll at the moment
muted narwhal
also agreed, but sooner or later
narrow cradle
it's really painful
muted narwhal
someone will use some cDLC content with AI as driver/gunner etc
AI in general have issues
driving more than other stuff
if we are talking about the campaign in specific terms
narrow cradle
I've had AI inexplicably pathfind into a tree or the middle of a road or refuse to land at a spot
and get different resutls with each run
aaaaagh
muted narwhal
i already said, there are scripted workarounds
but eventually someone will use cDLC content with AI in a less controlled environment (zeus for instance)
and that isn't a specific cDLC bug
no matter how much you wanna paint it that way
nope
it's similar to any other official or 3rd party content
not better, nor worse
narrow cradle
i read they have issues crossing the border but that could just be the normal misinformation floating around
supple jacinth
If BI provided QA they are in some degree also responsible
ashen belfry
And the rivers in the terrain, are not usable by boats, due to the edges of the water objects Challenge accepted (will test Saturday)
waxen lynx
in the end its a matter of prio (aka money)
if the CDLCs would sell extremely well, BI would allocate more resources
they also havent abandoned RV completely
there are engine work in related to Warlords, obviously to Old Mans if you look at the scripting commands, or data fixes
they still do fix crashes from time to time
and there is some limited cooperation with 3rd party to integrate engine changes (which imo should be expanded first and foremost)
best case BI would open source parts of the engine and let community programmers submit patches (in the version control sense - aka can be both fixes and improvements/additions)
wraith sleet
I think its important to state something about the AI - its balance was adjusted with each of the DLC releases after Apex to make the DLC function. We saw substantial adjustments in vision ranges and other aspects, all of which were released alongside the DLC, which made that particular DLC function at the cost of others. Right now we have the tac ops balance which has brought infantry vision way down to 315m at the highest because it suited those missions. CDLC's are not going to be able to correct the hacks applied by BI to make the DLC function in the past leaving the AI in the worst state it has been since launch
The vehicles were changed to make the tanks DLC work for example, which as we know doesn't work and is worse than what came before it but, it was the promise of better vehicle DLC at least. If BI just rolled the AI back that would be an improvement!
CDLCs are not going to be able to apply the same tricks since much of this is in engine. But I can also see if you have been in development for years then the recent fudging and breaking of the AI can and will break stuff you have done and tested fully in the meantime. It is sort of the Creators fault but it mostly lays at BIs feet, one has to wonder what it is they are doing to deserve that 50% of the cash.
timid mountain
sssssh arma ai is listening.. if you talk about it, it gets worse on purpose π
brisk pewter
First mission. AI driving M1113. That was the most violent spinning Iβve ever seen
Never again f
wraith sleet
There is definitely "Karma" in seeing 2-3 year old bugs causing a bunch of negative feedback in reviews and ruining aspects of the CDLC campaign, because it has been ruining our missions too.
dusk cargo
The AI driving forum thread is sad
steady nest
@brisk pewter Guessing that you meant the CDLC's M113 variant?
steady nest
I would recommend giving it a go whenever Vertexmacht announces the first patch release, it's supposed to have been in testing since Monday
indigo totem
In the first campaign mission, right as we regrouped in the M113 the driver was broken and literally wouldnt stop spinning in a circle
I probably have to redo the mission
steady nest
That's my thinking, whenever the patch arrives redo the mission and see if this changes... or report on their Discord and see if anyone mentions that the fix was implemented already
indigo totem
Right after you take that one town in the first mission, you get an order to regroup in the M113
After getting in the AI just turned right for eternity
tepid lance
That particular part has been a constant nuisance. We reworked it multiple times before the release until it passed QA, but apparently there is still some cases where the AI just completely goes out.
In the upcoming patch that part has been reworked to no longer rely on the M113 driver. Also other items were streamlined.
tranquil stag
Everytime we get to the APC after the first town instead of spinning the driver moves 30ft then kills the engine
I've restarted the mission completely 5-6 times did it everytime with out fail
steady nest
As I mentioned over in #global_mobilization ACRE2 announced that they're now compatible they now have an optional compatibility PBO with the Weferlingen terrain, so the current 'all or nothing' access to GM - CWG hasn't prevented people from supplementing it
median lintel
I'm sorry, I don't follow. It's an optional PBO to be compatible with the map*. Is that what you're referring to?
steady nest
It was, yes
devout turtle
I had my first go on the campaign last night, and apart from the AI driver running me over as i knelt in the road using stolen binoculars, he was fine π taught me a lesson about not trusting AI with your back... I remember devildoggamer doing his first Jets DLC vid, and he positioned himself right next to the sentinel's wheels, logged into it and announced lustily "let's take this bad boy for a spin!" and i thought, "oh poop" as he ran himself over... Arma is full of fun and games. A game of this magnitude and scope is always exciting and interesting and fun, but at the cost of some crazy-ass moments. I liked how in the GM campaign when the AI driver ran down the entire squad, they all got up again and carried on. Good QA work there to protect the mission from the faulty AI!
We just have to do what we can to manage with the limitations we all have.
It will never ever be perfect
It will always be ArmA
red saddle
Arma*
devout turtle
oh they changed it?
red saddle
long ago yes
devout turtle
ah dang
devout turtle
hmmm, but they even use a capital at the end in all the imagery in that blog. how confusing
anyway we digress
I bloody love the game, and all its faults.
wraith sleet
The problem with the AI is also new in the sense it is all post Apex problems and the series of AI tweaks done since. So it might always be Arma doing Arma things but these are new things introduced and haven't always been there.
red saddle
the german wikipedia page is wrong too, the english isn't
devout turtle
yep, things change. people complain. that bit doesn't change π
sometimes something gets better, sometimes it gives in some ways but takes in others. All game design is a compromise. People rarely see the impact of the compromises in a balanced way, as they only have half the story.
I do agree that comprehensive QA is a good way to avoid compromises damaging the user experience in a fundamental way.
But also in defence of the CDLC program, and any other DLCs for Arma, it's better that creators create, and don't get too worried about the limitations, otherwise every serving would be flaccid and tasteless.
and safe
anyone who has managed a large mod or a game development knows when you fix A you break B, or when you resource X you under-resource Y. Managing that balancing act well is what makes a good developer win an audience.
and damn, it's hard
sinful cape
it's worse because it's pretty much a second job for us
patent surge
i like the new dlc but 2 things i don't like is that there is no aircraft, and also some of the vehicles have stuff on them that you can't use like the recovery vehicle and etc
or the sirens and lights for polizei vehicles
molten ice
best to keep discussions about GM to #global_mobilization
zinc bluff
Just going to weigh in on the whole Arma name discussion, the correct spelling is Arma π so not ARMA 3, ArmA 3, but Arma 3
narrow cradle
Not even Armed Assault 3?
zinc bluff
Just Arma 3
knotty ore
ArMa 1+2
red saddle
"Not even Armed Assault 3?" that's exactly the point that it isn't Armed Assault
narrow cradle
Was joke :p
manic cove
Arma 2++
narrow cradle
Arma ++2
cunning nacelle
Arm4
hearty arrow
@cunning nacelle i'm sure that will be problem due to Arm Holdings π {tho they tend to use ARMv? but used ARM1,ARM2,ARM3,ARM6 in past alongside}
delicate pumice
And yet the logo still uses ArmA. It's still Armed Assault to me, phooey to your George Lucas revisionism.
boreal scroll
Bah, it's Operation Flashpoint 4
knotty ore
no Operation Flashpoint 2
stable raft
Arma+++3
devout turtle
Well I'm proud to announce the UnZung DLC.
You can even play as king kong
i'm sure it will be as popular as the CUP lootbox dlc
or the mario brothers sith planet finding dory dlc.
molten shard
Id buy it
west river
Whoβs got a good Omaha beach mission? I still have yet to run one..
narrow cradle
Wrong channel. Ask in #arma3_questions or #general_chat_arma . Although I suspect you're talking about IFA3, in which case find the WW2 discord in #channel_invites_list
red saddle
I think the cup thing wasn't linked yet
https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/94832760677470208/577574800092823562/cupwlbdlc.png
devout turtle
yeah i want my silver desert eagle with acog scope and 45 round drum
with some cool flashing punk pink and black tiger stripes on the slide
and can it play dixie car horn as a shooting sound?
and make me run faster?
i'd buy $80 in loot boxes to get that. king kong wouldn't stand a chance
narrow cradle
wait a minute
does BI plan to sign all CDLC with vanilla keys??
teal ingot
It seems so
toxic anchor
Are there any updates on the way how CDLC are being handled? Just saw on twitter, that there are solutions in testing, but have never heard anything since.
tired wave
@toxic anchor im sure there will be news posted in the official channels when there is some.
toxic anchor
Alright :) could've been that I just didn't notice
undone lichen
looks at watch
teal ingot
You'll be checking for a while :P
undone lichen
yep...
iron crypt
is this a new dlc?
steady nest
This channel is for Creator DLCs in general
boreal scroll
@devout turtle You better not be joking. I want that DLC ;)
cedar chasm
#350 for it all
boreal scroll
Seriously, I was one of the two people who liked Trespasser and that's what it made me think of. Although all it really has in common is jungle and dinosaurs...
devout turtle
Riding a t rex into battle against biplanes flown by zombies? Hell yeah
hollow sorrel
Is there someone that can help me with the grass on the new dlc map werfelingen ?
At this moment the grass is going max arround 70 meters..after that its flat as a paper. We are trying too extend the grass sight too ,lets say 500 meters or so. But my buddy doenst getting it fixed.
I need some help from a pro grin
It is for a pvp wasteland server
vocal pawn
I've been following your discussion of this on the GM Discord. First, this is a scripting or modding issue that's not really appropriate for this channel. Second, it's been explained multiple times that this is either technically impossible or prohibitively performance-intensive.
knotty ore
already answered on Terrain_Makers. @hollow sorrel you should always keep your question on one channel.
hollow sorrel
Yes got itπ
lone smelt
This going to be part of the community creator stuff or will it be put out by Bohemia? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Hk2tKetCsA
lone smelt
alrighty
tepid lance
Arma 3 Expansion Teaser
Says right there in the title. π
valid dew
i thought they said no more exp?
arctic seal
You thought wrong
teal ingot
no more expansions from their studio*
they're farming it out to people who are far more interested/invested in Arma
narrow cradle
not sure if this is about CDLC or the upcoming first party expansion from their amsterdam studio
teal ingot
It's not CDLC.
This is an expansion from the Netherlands and one other studio that Bohemia has.
teal ingot
Oh yeah sorry my bad lol
But yeah no, it's not CDLC
It's an expansion of some sort.
narrow cradle
mineral asked in th CDLC channel so was wondering what the question was about
narrow cradle
Haha
wraith sleet
I'm very skeptical of aliens.
This is like Karts DLC but much bigger.
And if the alien shit is baked into the map then I'm going to be so disappointed.
wraith sleet
I know.
But this server has far too many channels for me to give enough of a fuck to find the right one.
narrow cradle
the right one is literally #general_chat_arma
And if the alien shit is baked into the map then I'm going to be so disappointed.
it's not, read the site and store pages
molten ice
besides, if you are not going to bother to make sure you are posting the right channel, you wont last long here
narrow cradle
I return to mission making after months and straight away run in to issues with AI and the editor, one of which seems random across users. So who again was claiming BI is consistent? Unless they meant consistently buggy π
alpine night
what were they smoking when they thought adding aliens to the game was a good idea?
narrow cradle
unrelated to CDLC, also it doesn't matter, the alien stuff will be an optional download (no clue why), and a lot of people seem to like it so π€·π½
shadow jewel
why make it optional though
craggy basin
lol
alpine night
not sims
craggy basin
the optional part of it makes it unnapealing to buy because of the lack of people who get it
also i feel like the CDLC kinda flopped mainly because of that
craggy basin
i know, that's the problem
narrow cradle
the non-alien bits will be for everyone
alpine night
but why add aliens to a mil sim?
craggy basin
and that
narrow cradle
because they wanted to ?
alpine night
are they on crack?
narrow cradle
also #general_chat_arma
shadow jewel
how is this not related to the creator dlc
craggy basin
the main selling point of the DLC is the aliens, if we can't use that. i don't see the point
shadow jewel
oh wait
teal ingot
Aliens is an expansion, Bohemia Official.
please do not talk in this channel about unrelated topics. thanks
pseudo flare
Alien stuff is not baked into the map
molten ice
please do not talk in this channel about the expansion, it is not CDLC, while this channel is about CDLC
arctic seal
@hearty arrow
what's the best channel to discuss the upcoming expansion? would it be helpful to have a dedicated channel for it?
waxen lynx
#discord_server is probably best to suggest it
south pewter
Are BI looking for anything in particular when it comes to submissions of CDLC?
ebon sedge
@south pewter I recommend checking out the Third-Party Developer section of the CDLC page https://arma3.com/dlc/creator
tardy fog
People moaning about Aliens
Complain not realistic
Playing a milsim with almost completely fictionalised equipment and factions
Bring on Contact
arctic seal
π€
hearty arrow
playing game .... moaning about realism ... π
yet if you could produce simulation on par with reality, it would be proof that this reality is simulation too π€£
pseudo flare
Must be realistic down to the atomic level
hearty arrow
you mean string level
jade granite
What are you on about the world is made of polygons?
narrow cradle
also Contact is not CDLC
red saddle
@wraith sleet this channel is about creator DLCs. Contact is not a CDLC as has been said SOO many times already
wraith sleet
New in Arma 3 what dlc stands for?
narrow cradle
"downloadable content"
verbal surge
creator, contact... almost the sameπ
boreal scroll
Contact DLC = CDLC ? π
pseudo flare
For gods sake no
narrow cradle
Downloadable Contact
hearty arrow
Crazily Delicious Livonia Cookies πͺ
stable raft
Additional CDLC Contacts to the west
undone lichen
what a friendly gaming community
red saddle
@undone lichen just FYI your comments are close to trolling/spamming.
undone lichen
I posted one comment but whatever
undone lichen
Last post was last tuesday,(four days ago, so not a couple) and this one was in response to making fun of people for not liking the DLC.
copper anvil
This discord server seems to be full of people criticizing others.