6 DLC Suggestions (incl. USMC) POLL

[gossamersolid 155]

The BLUFOR players have had it to easy for too long, why anyone would want more USA or outdated enemy is beyond me. Plenty of Insurgent style enemies to take on already

Step up to the plate and show how good a virtual soldier you are and use some serious tactics and take on a real ARMY like proper equipped modern Russian (independant) or PLA (OPFOR).

USA vs PLA or Russia

PLA vs USA or Russia

Russia vs USA or PLA

;)

And watch the ARMA 2 multiplayer and singleplayer community grow bigger. Lots of Russians and PLA likers everywhere

Not much people like playing MP on the disadvantaged side, it gets boring and shrinks the community

I have done my time playing BLUFOR

I would be 1st to buy a Russian expansion with a campaign or PLA expansion with campaign

Id'e rather buy both

Probably why PvP is so unpopular in this game. Bluefor has more content and often has higher tech. Look at the amount of weapons for both sides as well, it's quite rediculous how much more bluefor has.

[Zipper5 74]

Nah, PvP is unpopular because most servers have decided to switch to playing large, easily-monitored coops these days. ;)

Sure, the balance issue doesn't help, but it's definitely not the main reason.

[gossamersolid 155]

Nah, PvP is unpopular because most servers have decided to switch to playing large, easily-monitored coops these days. ;)

Sure, the balance issue doesn't help, but it's definitely not the main reason.

Yeah Servers switched to large co-ops because the PvP sucks in the game due to balance issues lol. Without like 10 mods the Russians have a huge disadvantage.

[ryguy 10]

Yeah Servers switched to large co-ops because the PvP sucks in the game due to balance issues lol. Without like 10 mods the Russians have a huge disadvantage.

Haha, sorry but no, that's complete bullshit if you don't mind me saying (zipper5 is right). Games like CTF and AAS fix this by taking away FLIR, air, and radar assets. They also limit the guns. When it comes down to this the only real advantage that the US has is FLIR and, in certain circumstances, air power.

The only time PvP has been more popular than Co-op was in the very early beginning days or ArmA 2.

[Laqueesha 474]

Yeah, the BAF Units stand head and shoulders above the Arma 2 USMC units, which I think are simply outdated now. Same goes for the Russian faction. I´ve contacted the mods about adding the Russians to my poll, too, so people can vote for them too. Should´ve thought of this earlier.

There was a Russian user on the forum a while back that said that the Russian units in ArmA II were outdated.

[sudden 13]

There was a Russian user on the forum a while back that said that the Russian units in ArmA II were outdated.

Arma II Russian faction has outdated uniform. It is digital camo that is used now, not obsolete "Flora". But at the same time in a funny way Arma II Russians are too updated with AK107s which are made only for export. Russians Army still use AK74M.

Voted for Russians, of course! :bounce3:

[Macadam Cow 1]

PLA all the way. It's been about 10 years we're playing Russia vs USA, please give us some fresh air !

Or even better, no more new units but gameplay and AI enhancement !

Edited December 27, 2010 by Macadam Cow

[DRACUS 18]

Pla ...:bounce3:

[vasmkd 12]

Russian Expansion 1st because they would be easier to update and then finally release a PLA expansion.

With a few DLC goodies in between.

[ArmAriffic 10]

PLA as OPFOR, game is too un-balanced with like 7 BLUFOR's

[vilas 477]

Russians are made wrong in game, real Russians are in addons, not BIS made (with fantastic RPK for example)

i would vote NO for any Russian things from BIS

in OFP they made wrong Russian equipment (RPG NH 75 Czech only weapon, BMP ambulance Czech only vehicle, flamethrower as guided ATGM, Skorpion pistol instead of Stechkin etc.)

in Arma1 AKS74U had silencer from 7.62 (not saying that 5.45 subsonic ammo is so weak... not even used , thats why they have SP ammo)

SVD is in safe position, not able to fire etc.

in Arma2 Russians are also wrong and not real (Ak 107 instead of 74M, RPG18 instead of 26, SU34 instead of 24, T90 and T72 with DSHKM but lack of T80 and NSVT, wrong vest on soldier, completly wrong fictional RPK, RPG without scope) etc.

when BIS touches Russians - it is like making fantasy game

i have no idea do they made real or not real USMC , but in Arma1 they made Marmy mix of Marines and Army equipment , better if they make engine, islands, campaigns than equipment like rifles (this RPK in Arma2 is complete epic fail, it has receiver from AK and not existing drum magazine, RPK uses 45 rnd curved plastic banana magazine)

[ast65 10]

How come BIS gets all the Russian stuff completely wrong :eek: ?

[roberthammer 582]

How come BIS gets all the Russian stuff completely wrong :eek: ?

Maybe the BIS come lazy and used already old modeled stuff from their own source - like the Game 2 if you look at those pics you will see the models used in ArmA2/VBS2

http://ofpforever.com/avonladyofpfaq/images/ofp2e3_3.jpg

Edited December 27, 2010 by RobertHammer

[vilas 477]

Maybe the BIS come lazy and used allready old modeled stuff from their source - like the Game 2 if you look at those pics you will see the models used in ArmA2

yes, Arma1 BMP, T72, AK, is in Arma2 without any change (only in look, shaders)

BIS do fantastic air vehicles (or i havent noticed big mistakes) , but in land vehicles they make many mistakes , in rifles much more mistakes

game 2 are those screens of 2005/2006 of upcoming OFP 2 from BIS (with US in woodland, Russians in sphera helmets and BTR90 from Arm2, is this what you talk about ? cause looks like BTR90 was made back then judging on screens, so even then they made wrong , cause on screens was BTR90 not BTR70 or 80 for OFP2)

would be nice to get air vehicles, islands, new things DLCs, but for sake, not another fictional AK with phased out launcher

[stupidwhitekid75 11]

Vilas, I think it's kind of funny how you bash on BI for what they've done with the game. You have to understand, it is THEIR game, they can do whatever they want with it. Without them or the game you wouldn't even be able to mod anything for it. And if they want Russians to use AK-107's, then they can. It's not for you to decide, nor is it real world, hence why "armaversum" is used frequently. You go around basically telling people that some (not all) of the work they've done is bad because it's not 100% realistic or the way you want it and point them towards addons made by the community which are also not always done correctly, kept up to date, bug free, or completely realistic. Chill out and let people pick what they want. If they'd like to pay $10 for content then that is their choice to do so, no one is holding a gun to anyones head here.

[vilas 477]

and this what you said is total evidence how different is philosophy of nowaday community from OFPish

in OFP some things were unacceptable for prople back then (but as i see you came here in Sep 2010, probably after Operation Arrowhead) not knowing all issues people "fought for realism" in past and had "realism uber alles" in moding it (especially east europe side which loved OFP as nothing other)

bashing for not realism in case of mil-sim is right :]

Arma is suppose to be mil-sim, not WM, CoD etc.

if BIS would make realistic DLC of Russia , maybe it would be nice , but realistic , not like AK107 and SCAR and AK74-RPK fictional drum

Edited December 27, 2010 by vilas

[roberthammer 582]

Scar is realistic ,but not much used in basic US army ;)

Edited December 27, 2010 by RobertHammer

[vilas 477]

yes, that's what i meant

they could do US army armed with M1919A4, FN2000 and MicroUZI and Russians armed in Ak47, laser AT launcher and Luger 08 pistol, but will it be still "mil-sim" ?

[stupidwhitekid75 11]

Okay? Because I joined in 2010 doesn't mean I haven't been around for awhile. I've browsed the forums and played the games for years, I just never decided to make an account until recently. ArmA IS a mil-sim game. COD is purely for entrainment, and shouldn't even be compared to ArmA in most cases. Would US + Russians armed with the above be a mil-sim? Technically, YES! Why? As long as it is played as one, in terms of tactics, objectives, organization..etc. then it is one. Are the units represented properly? No they are not, but that doesn't keep you from conducting a military simulation.

It's like in a game of paintball or airsoft if you're familiar with either sport at all, they come in various forms but one that they share happens to be in the "mil-sim" category. Airsofters use models of real world guns, but hardly do they represent any kind of real world military. However, they are able to operate effectively and in a militaristic way, incorporating tactics and procedure that would be found in the military. Paintball would be an even more extreme case when looking at it in the mil-sim prospective, as players often don't have anything that resembles a real world firearm (let alone actual military force) other than a barrel, trigger, and projectile that is fired out of it.

ArmA isn't either of those, but it is VERY similar and much more accurate (although not anywhere near dead on) to the real world. The game is called ArmA for a reason, it was created to not represent one sole country/faction (even though it may appear as the US is, take a deeper look into a lot of the storylines of each game and you'll realize they play a minor part in a much bigger picture) and has created it's own universe and therefore can take any course it chooses. The variation and difference/lack of real world similarities in the weapons in game (like AK107's for Russians or SCAR's for US Army) is logical to keep sales up. BI needs to make money, they need to have some kind of variation that will draw more players in. Besides, I paid $40 for the original ArmA which consisted of nothing but M4's and M16's...and then there was ArmA 2, which ALSO consisted of M4's and M16's...please tell me why with OA's release that I would want to pay yet again for another set of M4's and M16's? The new weapons keep things interesting. Either way, if ArmA's US Army wants to purchase SCAR's and field them in the ArmA world, then they can. The game is not called "US Army: Military Simulator". If that were the case then your argument might be a little more valid.

[vilas 477]

please tell me why with OA's release that I would want to pay yet again for another set of M4's and M16's?

cause US use it is enough reason

[Laqueesha 474]

Let's just have U.S. Army units with pink and purple ACUs with bunny rabbit slippers instead of combat boots and Santa sleighs instead of HMMWVs, because after all, it is their game. :rolleyes:

[gossamersolid 155]

cause US use it is enough reason

Like another person said, it's the armaversum as in it's an alternate reality in which BIS can dictate what is used.

Sure I'd love to see newer launchers for the Opfor for sure, but just because a few details are not correct, doesn't mean we should write off the chance of Opfor content.

That's being very selfish Vilas. You don't realize that a lot of people like the DLC because we can easily incorporate it into our missions without having an addon requirement. I'd LOVE to incorporate your custom Russian/Polish/etc content into my warfare mission, but without addon syncronization ingame, it's not possible.

If addon sync does come out eventually, then I would love to use your stuff, but right now I can only use your addons in single player.

[xeno 231]

You don't realize that a lot of people like the DLC because we can easily incorporate it into our missions without having an addon requirement.

I, like many others that I know, avoid servers that use DLC content simply because we don't have DLC and the lite version textures are too ugly.

DLC is not a solution for MP addon problems at all.

Xeno

[enad 11]

Okay? Because I joined in 2010 doesn't mean I haven't been around for awhile. I've browsed the forums and played the games for years, I just never decided to make an account until recently. ArmA IS a mil-sim game. COD is purely for entrainment, and shouldn't even be compared to ArmA in most cases. Would US + Russians armed with the above be a mil-sim? Technically, YES! Why? As long as it is played as one, in terms of tactics, objectives, organization..etc. then it is one. Are the units represented properly? No they are not, but that doesn't keep you from conducting a military simulation.

It's like in a game of paintball or airsoft if you're familiar with either sport at all, they come in various forms but one that they share happens to be in the "mil-sim" category. Airsofters use models of real world guns, but hardly do they represent any kind of real world military. However, they are able to operate effectively and in a militaristic way, incorporating tactics and procedure that would be found in the military. Paintball would be an even more extreme case when looking at it in the mil-sim prospective, as players often don't have anything that resembles a real world firearm (let alone actual military force) other than a barrel, trigger, and projectile that is fired out of it.

ArmA isn't either of those, but it is VERY similar and much more accurate (although not anywhere near dead on) to the real world. The game is called ArmA for a reason, it was created to not represent one sole country/faction (even though it may appear as the US is, take a deeper look into a lot of the storylines of each game and you'll realize they play a minor part in a much bigger picture) and has created it's own universe and therefore can take any course it chooses. The variation and difference/lack of real world similarities in the weapons in game (like AK107's for Russians or SCAR's for US Army) is logical to keep sales up. BI needs to make money, they need to have some kind of variation that will draw more players in. Besides, I paid $40 for the original ArmA which consisted of nothing but M4's and M16's...and then there was ArmA 2, which ALSO consisted of M4's and M16's...please tell me why with OA's release that I would want to pay yet again for another set of M4's and M16's? The new weapons keep things interesting. Either way, if ArmA's US Army wants to purchase SCAR's and field them in the ArmA world, then they can. The game is not called "US Army: Military Simulator". If that were the case then your argument might be a little more valid.

+1 some one needed to put an end to vilas' useless rants.

Vilas, while some of the things you say I agree with, but you need to STOP saying everything or everyone that is not 1000% accurate is "cod-ish", just because BIS wants to add new guns to the game does NOT make it "cod-ish."

Plus almost every single post of yours is advertising your work, if you like your work so much why don't you make a new arma instead of bashing every single thing BIS does with THEIR game.

[gossamersolid 155]

I, like many others that I know, avoid servers that use DLC content simply because we don't have DLC and the lite version textures are too ugly.

DLC is not a solution for MP addon problems at all.

Xeno

I'm not saying it's a solution, but I'm saying it is easier to get people into a server if it uses content that is already in a patch that people need to play online anyways.

The solution to this would be in-game addon downloads from servers (which should be a high priority thing by this time IMO). It's something that people have wanted for a long time and it would really help the modding community here I think,