They better have female soldiers...

[scrim 1]

Hah?

Not only was I obviously not being literal and you are obviously trying to cut off an argument you can't win but I'm also sure it's been said and is clearly what you guys are implying if you don't wish to see a single fighting woman in the game.

A few pages back someone said we wouldn't think even 1% would be eligible to serve and that we would see 1% at the frontlines when we do in fact already have 3%.

Obviously there's a lot of bubbling stupidity and ignorance amongst the people arguing against it.

Oh, the old "lolz u guise, I wasnt serius" when you get called out on a lie. Which by the way also explains why you pretty much based your entire post of the claim that we'd said what you now claim to have been a joke from your side.

And if you're going to say anything about stupidity and ignorance, you should probably not twist statistics like that. "3% on the front lines" is simply stupid because of the following reasons: A, there is no front line in Afghanistan or Iraq, meaning that female servicemembers have been exposed to a little shooting a few times. B, Those female servicemembers were part of non combat branches, meaning that it isn't 3% who've been eligible for combat jobs, but rather 0%.

[Sneakson 1]

The only thing BI cares about is: does it add anything to gameplay?

At this point BIS are adding SCUBA divers, submarines and underwater mines to the game. How much does that add to gameplay, REALLY?

BIS want a fully featured game at every price.

Not at all. I've never disputed their contribution I'm just disgusted by gender norming that endangers everyone in those impacted units. You post an example of them being strong. Women are not combat infantry. This is a combat infantry simulator. While having variety of new units is great, I would not want to have anything else dropped in favor of a feature which does not reflect reality.

As sourced, 3% of frontline infantry are women already and it’s likely going to increase over the next 20 years. So how exactly does this not reflect reality? Not to mention that about 15% of the entire US Army are women throughout all of it except frontline infantry and the Navy and that 30% of medical and intelligence specialists are women. We ought to encounter more than some women.

It’s also dumb when people say ARMA is all about infantry and then complain and having women in since women probably would be infantry. Shouldn’t you want that more than underwater mines? And then there are some people saying enough has already been done about infantry too. You guys would be arguing against yourselves if you didn’t have in common that women would completely ruin your experience.

Not to mention that BIS are obviously the ones with the greatest capability to make women and make them as good as possible since we haven’t got their resources.

Instead modders will have to put women in the next big Day-Z-like that hits the mainstream where women are more prominent and the request for women really starts boiling.

It's also funny to hear people scream about the extreme detail that women must have considering we haven't even got working bipods or the simplification of vehicles that surely will endure until release.

Anyways I’m confident we will see women in the game. 60% of people want it and the only sane argument people against it have is that it would take them some work. If BIS are any good at all they’ll do it without stopping their entire organization though. If they do it they would clearly set themselves apart from other military games and may even interest women now that Day-Z has brought ARMA2 into a lot of mainstream gamer’s libraries. If they didn’t I’d be really disappointed.

Edited June 23, 2013 by Sneakson

[dm 9]

At this point BIS are adding SCUBA divers, submarines and underwater mines to the game. How much does that add to gameplay, REALLY?

Much more than a variant of a character model ever will. They open up the underwater aspect (important when you consider the entire map is surrounded by water) for use. Where before it was entirely unusable.

Tell me, please, exactly what gameplay improvements female character models will add?

It's also funny to hear people scream about the extreme detail that women must have considering we haven't even got working bipods or the simplification of vehicles that surely will endure until release.

Yup, and I'd rather they fix these issues before wasting time on alternate character skeletons, etc.

Anyways I’m confident we will see women in the game. 60% of people want it

Interesting of note that the female character models in one of very few a3 tickets with more than ~1% of NO votes. Infact, that it has 40% NO votes is very telling...

and the only sane argument people against it have is that it would take them some work.

And this is the very same reason it is highly unlikely to happen.

BI is already overloaded with the current development they have to do (to the end that already "confirmed" features are being cut), so the complex task of adding a variant skeleton and animations is even more unlikely to be achieved.

If BIS are any good at all they’ll do it without stopping their entire organization though. If they do it they would clearly set themselves apart from other military games and may even interest women now that Day-Z has brought ARMA2 into a lot of mainstream gamer’s libraries. If they didn’t I’d be really disappointed.

1. You clearly have little idea of how the work is distributed amongst the dev teams/studios/projects.

2. You clearly have little idea of the complexity involved in such changes.

3. They are already set apart from other developers, based on their dev style, modding support, community interaction, etc etc etc.

4. Oh noes, someone on the internet will be disappointed if a game doesn't have the feature he wants. The world is ending!

[scrim 1]

As sourced, 3% of frontline infantry are women already

Can you provide a source for that? I imagine it would be challenging, since women for now at least are still barred from combat arms, meaning they are not allowed to enlist or hold a commision in armour, infantry or special forces. And while you're at it, please remind us why we are ignorant and stupid. Even if you were lying I'd still say some of the latter would be involved, since it's a very poor lie.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Are military women moving so much differentely than men, while in combat ?

[Dark6-6 10]

Are military women moving so much differentely than men, while in combat ?

Slower. And they wear out faster.

The bug tracker wasn't meant for feature requests. It is meant for bugs. I would rather have TOH flight modeling than a female pilot. I would rather have working bipods and attachments than female clothing. I would rather have more environmental assets than female soldiers.

Women are able to capably defend themselves and bravely serve a critical function to support the wat effort. They cannot close with and engage the enemy in close quarters with direct fire. If women want their own units, I sat we train and equip them and wish them well, but getting men killed for the sake of political correctness is disgusting and this game, this simulator, should hold true to the realities of that and not political pressure.

I am fine if they eventually get implemented but I seriously doubt that they would be willing to accurately reflect a woman's physical capabilities for fear of being called sexist, or that anyone would want to play as one.

Maybe I'm still pissed that they gender normed airborne school.

[Sneakson 1]

Can you provide a source for that?

Pentagon through CNN.

The US started considering this in 2011 and opened up for women already in January 2013.

By 2016 they aim to fully integrate women into the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines and Special Forces including the Army Rangers, Navy Seals and so on and aim to have a women in every combat unit though no decisions have been made yet obviously.

Over here:

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/18/politics/women-combat

Slower. And they wear out faster.

He’s referring to their animations. Their stamina wouldn’t have to work any different from a man’s.

The bug tracker wasn't meant for feature requests. It is meant for bugs.

Bullshit and completely irrelevant.

or that anyone would want to play as one.

More and obvious bullshit.

Edited June 23, 2013 by Sneakson

[ProfTournesol 956]

Slower. And they wear out faster.

I meant "do we need a new animation system for them". I don't think so.

[Dark6-6 10]

Would you want a character with slower run speed and less carrying capacity and lower fatigue? Call it BS if you want but there should be a tradeoff for that smaller hitbox.

Again, not a bug. Doesn't belong on the bugtracker.

[Dark6-6 10]

I meant "do we need a new animation system for them". I don't think so.

New skeletons are going to require new animation. Shorter frame, wider hips...either new mocap or it will look very awkward.

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk 2

[ProfTournesol 956]

New skeletons are going to require new animation. Shorter frame, wider hips...either new mocap or it will look very awkward.

If the size is significantly smaller, yes.

[Sneakson 1]

I meant "do we need a new animation system for them". I don't think so.

According to someone in this thread the engines animations work by relative positions or if it was the other way around and I’m guessing a new skeleton would need a completely new set of animations or possibly have the others be painstakingly translated somehow… since the engine isn’t intended to have a lot of different skeletons they’re going with methods that are versatile for working with one skeleton but useless for having many skeletons apparently. Makes sense.

And women would need slightly changed skeletons not to clip into stuff and be able to be thinner and not look funny when running.

[Dark6-6 10]

If the size is significantly smaller, yes.

20 centimeters shorter and 50 pounds lighter is pretty drastic I'd say.

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk 2

[Sneakson 1]

Would you want a character with slower run speed and less carrying capacity and lower fatigue? Call it BS if you want but there should be a tradeoff for that smaller hitbox.

I think being a head shorter would be significant enough to counterbalance a somewhat smaller hitbox.

Changing the running speed is absurd because I don't see any truth to it and nearly same with the stamina. Combat women have the same stamina even if they do wear out over years of service.

At least I don’t think the stamina difference between men and women could be accurately modelled without scientific support… the fatigue model for men already seems pretty shaky.

Again, not a bug. Doesn't belong on the bugtracker.

What the hell are you on about? The FEEDBACK tracker was indeed made for feature requests.

[Dark6-6 10]

A 120 pound woman carrying 80 pounds of gear isn't going to wear out faster and run slower than a 180 pound man?

Can we stop pretending that women are as strong as men are?

The feedback you linked was marked as a high priority game breaking bug, not a feature request.

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk 2

[scrim 1]

Pentagon through CNN.

The US started considering this in 2011 and opened up for women already in January 2013.

By 2016 they aim to fully integrate women into the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines and Special Forces including the Army Rangers, Navy Seals and so on and aim to have a women in every combat unit though no decisions have been made yet obviously.

Over here:

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/18/politics/women-combat

And that source says nothing at all about the infantry, or any other combat arms being 3% female. You are a liar, and a bad one to top it off.

[Sneakson 1]

And that source says nothing at all about the infantry, or any other combat arms being 3% female. You are a liar, and a bad one to top it off.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/24/us/military-women-glance

Over there if you want the numbers article instead of the planning article.

The same numbers are available everywhere since the original source is indeed the Pentagon still.

[Dark6-6 10]

The is an emotional instead of a rational argument, he doesn't need facts or science. He feels like women are just as strong and he feels like they are combat troops so they are.

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk 2

[Sneakson 1]

A 120 pound woman carrying 80 pounds of gear isn't going to wear out faster and run slower than a 180 pound man?

Can we stop pretending that women are as strong as men are?

The feedback you linked was marked as a high priority game breaking bug, not a feature request.

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk 2

Are all women 120 pounds and all men 180 pounds though?

The average weight of American women is 164 pounds and 180 pounds is the maximum allowed weight for an average soldier based on some very brief research.

Which would lead me to believe that well trained women may weight more than 120 pounds (model weight lol) and that male soldiers may weigh less than 180 pounds.

The is an emotional instead of a rational argument, he doesn't need facts or science. He feels like women are just as strong and he feels like they are combat troops so they are.

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk 2

Except I'm the only one using information directly from the Pentagon as a source in this thread from what I can tell.

[Dark6-6 10]

164 is a fat person. 130 is cut fighting weight, maybe 145 and that would be a very solid woman. The female shotputters could very well be a man under all the gear and a helmet.

I am referring to your denial of women's sports, not to your CNN report.

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk 2

[PN11A 2]

So .. yes you included a picture of a group of female soldiers in your post, what does that have to proof? that it's beneficial ? As for 3d programs I have to disapoint you, I work with 3d programs all the time as it is part of my job. As for education, i don't see a discussion of including or not including female soldiers in a game part of academic reasoning or higher education.

First, If you really read through the post you would see that the comment about 3d was referencing another poster not you. The purpose of the females in the photo was to show that their is a place for woman in special operations and front line situations. There is indeed a difference between CST and infantry. Their presence can made legitimate based on that alone. That alone is the response to you dont see what it will add. Because its very likely you dont understand combat vs cultural environment in a warzone. Its not a knock against your intelligence its just a response to the comment "you dont see a reason." Most of you in this thread said you can see woman being put in on a non military or resistance type faction. IF THE STORY ALLOWS FOR WOMAN TO PLAY IN A BLUFOR ROLE I SEE NO REASON NOT TO ADD THEM. If it is out of the scope of the story then there is no purpose to add woman.

[scrim 1]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/24/us/military-women-glance

Over there if you want the numbers article instead of the planning article.

The same numbers are available everywhere since the original source is indeed the Pentagon still.

Air crews and navy units are not front line units. Neither are artillery units, and further, last time I checked, those too were counted as combat arms and thus not open to women.

[motorizer 12]

It's a feedback tracker and it lets you report things as a feature, which is how this is categorized, so I don't think there's a problem with having it there...last time I checked the internet wasn't getting full.

Anyway, I guess it all boils down to how you see the game and what you want from it, a hardcore military simmer will see this as an unnecessary addition...someone such who is after a sandbox experience with a versatile mission editor will see not adding them as an unnecessary restriction to mission building, and of course a female gamer will want to play as her gender.

What is unimportant for one is necessary for another, only BIS can say if it's too much work, from everyone else it's just speculation, no matter how much they think they know.

I've already bought it so I'm in either way, but I do hope they add them from a mission editing point of view.

[dragon01 902]

They're now opening to women, by the time ArmA III rolls about they will probably be female grunts in the Marines.

What seems weird to me is all that talk about how much work it'd be to add new, female body models. Yes, it'd probably be plenty of work, but you guys missed the fact it would have to be done anyway. Female civilians will most likely be featured, it'd be really weird if they weren't. So, all that talk about skeletons, models, etc. won't matter, since BI will have to do that for civilians. They'll need walking and running animations, probably most basic stances and gestures, so I'm asking, why not add the rest? Sure, women are not common in combat, and probably won't be, but certainly are present. I see no reason not to include them, especially now that they Pentagon is opening combat roles for them.

[dm 9]

They're now opening to women, by the time ArmA III rolls about they will probably be female grunts in the Marines.

What seems weird to me is all that talk about how much work it'd be to add new, female body models. Yes, it'd probably be plenty of work, but you guys missed the fact it would have to be done anyway. Female civilians will most likely be featured, it'd be really weird if they weren't. So, all that talk about skeletons, models, etc. won't matter, since BI will have to do that for civilians. They'll need walking and running animations, probably most basic stances and gestures, so I'm asking, why not add the rest? Sure, women are not common in combat, and probably won't be, but certainly are present. I see no reason not to include them, especially now that they Pentagon is opening combat roles for them.

Still failing to comprehend the amount of work needed to achieve this. It doesn't matter if its that way in real life, if the amount of work needed to achieve it is too much, it wont happen.

Also, where are female civilians confirmed as features of the final game? I have not seen anything...

Yes, there was the clip of the bikini chick swimming, but that is certainly not confirmation of anything...