Development Blog & Reveals

[roberthammer 582]

The Katiba is effectively what happened when someone decided that the KH2002 should be upcalibered and get an aftermarket rail upper... though the latter isn't nearly as absurd as it may sound, considering how many weapon families have had at-least-aftermarket-if-not-OEM rail uppers, such as this third-party one for the Emei T97NSR (Canadian-legal derivation of the QBZ-95 in 5.56 mm) although Emei made their own as well. (As for why the real-life PLA itself doesn't use these, I've read that the PLA only allows modifications which can be reverted 'as if it had never happened'... the exact opposite of "cutting off the iron sights of a T97NSR to install the Flat Top Upper." I'm not sure if Emei's system is any less permanent, but I haven't heard of the PLA planning to adopt a non-proprietary rail interface either.) 

Ehm > http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/upgraded-qbz-95.61077/

 

PLA already uses rails on their guns , some only attached and some other use RIS

 

Speaking of Katiba - irl the gun was really bad , really unreliable that much so that they scrapped the whole KH2002 idea

[drebin052 323]

Re: #5: I'm wondering how intentional that rebalancing is, considering that Bohemia previously stated via OPREP that (under the old body armor system) BLUFOR was to have the strongest chest protection in return for worse weight-to-capacity ratio, while CSAT chest rigs were to "provide the best ratio between weight and capacity in-game."

 

It was the unintentional side effect of the PPE update I guess.

 

OPFOR uniforms were already fairly good prior to the update but now you can definitely survive a lot more dakka being thrown your way. BLUFOR vests on the other hand seem to have been given the short end of the stick and were reduced to having the same protection levels as INDEP vests (with the exception of the medium-sized Carrier Rigs).

[Alwarren 2767]

Clearly we disagree in that I believe that Kerry had all the reason I needed to "have" the AAF -- they were shooting his way!  :D Although, truthbetold you acknowledging "who says they aren't justified?" is more moral equivalence than I usually see around here re: The East Wind... not that I'm calling your pointing-this-out a negative.

 

 

That was a typo, it was supposed to be "hate" (I hate typing on a tablet, I shouldn't reply from it). The problem is, the narrative was already there before. "AAF are incompetent". Why? And yeah, they shoot at me. But do they have a good reason? After all, I am stationed on their land.

 

My problem with the whole situation is that it is something like the dreadfully bad Star Wars prequel. Most of the stuff is not apparent from the game's narrative, we have to be told. "AAF is bad because they slaughtered half of their population". In Harvest Red, we actually SEE the rape victims, and we SEE the mass graves, giving you a reason to hate them, first on a general level, then on a personal level. Here, you shoot at them because you are told to.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

That was a typo, it was supposed to be "hate" (I hate typing on a tablet, I shouldn't reply from it). The problem is, the narrative was already there before. "AAF are incompetent". Why? And yeah, they shoot at me. But do they have a good reason? After all, I am stationed on their land.

 

My problem with the whole situation is that it is something like the dreadfully bad Star Wars prequel. Most of the stuff is not apparent from the game's narrative, we have to be told. "AAF is bad because they slaughtered half of their population". In Harvest Red, we actually SEE the rape victims, and we SEE the mass graves, giving you a reason to hate them, first on a general level, then on a personal level. Here, you shoot at them because you are told to.

Actually, in the Bootcamp, you experience first hand AAF Human Rights abuse. You did attend Bootcamp... didn't you?

[Alwarren 2767]

Actually, in the Bootcamp, you experience first hand AAF Human Rights abuse. You did attend Bootcamp... didn't you?

 

Yes, which is why this one should have been the first mission of the campaign. Only that it came much later. When I played it first, this wasn't there, and it all felt arbitrary.

I already said elsewhere that I liked the Bootcamp missions and that they should have been part of the campaign, they would have improved it significantly.

[chortles 263]

Ehm > http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/upgraded-qbz-95.61077/

 

PLA already uses rails on their guns , some only attached and some other use RIS

 

Speaking of Katiba - irl the gun was really bad , really unreliable that much so that they scrapped the whole KH2002 idea

None of those photos had uniformed PLA (as opposed to models or police) and a flattop upper (as opposed to a carrying handle-mounted or between-carrying handle-and-front-sight rail adapter) in the same photo... indeed the only picture I was sure was PLA (the PLAN Marines) had the latter.

[roberthammer 582]

None of those photos had uniformed PLA (as opposed to models or police) and a flattop upper (as opposed to a carrying handle-mounted or between-carrying handle-and-front-sight rail adapter) in the same photo... indeed the only picture I was sure was PLA (the PLAN Marines) had the latter.

Well yes but atm they still use mounts on the carry handle but they can change to rails simply enough - like the police guys and SF did

[zukov 490]

LOL, funny AF how they're using the BF4 Theme song during their Expo... Damnit... just... *shaking head, and trying not to laugh too hard*

 

However, on a more serious note, that ULCV does seem extremely robust.

if is the new LSV, the new faction is clearly Indonesia........ the MBT is already in game..... likely we will see the return of the FAL

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

if is the new LSV, the new faction is clearly Indonesia........ the MBT is already in game..... likely we will see the return of the FAL

I wouldn't say as much to go that far. Just because a vehicle could be added doesn't mean the faction that uses said vehicle will go beside it. Case and point, NATO is using Israeli gear, while the AAF are using a mix of German, Czech, and British gear.

[theevancat 277]

I wouldn't say as much to go that far. Just because a vehicle could be added doesn't mean the faction that uses said vehicle will go beside it. Case and point, NATO is using Israeli gear, while the AAF are using a mix of German, Czech, and British gear.

The future is just an excuse to use things that are aesthetically pleasing. Which is fine, so long as there's a backstory. Which is what this game lacks.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

The future is just an excuse to use things that are aesthetically pleasing. Which is fine, so long as there's a backstory. Which is what this game lacks.

While it does lack context, being aesthetically pleasing is fine. I wouldn't mind NATO, or Tanoan forces using a ULCV developed in Singapore, a country with similar Geography, which is natural. But if we had something out of whack, like non-amphibious Armor, or no vehicles to help non-amphibious vehicles cross a lot of water in a nation that's Majority Archipelago.. then THAT, is a bit more unacceptable. 

[AveryTheKitty 2626]

While it does lack context, being aesthetically pleasing is fine. I wouldn't mind NATO, or Tanoan forces using a ULCV developed in Singapore, a country with similar Geography, which is natural. But if we had something out of whack, like non-amphibious Armor, or no vehicles to help non-amphibious vehicles cross a lot of water in a nation that's Majority Archipelago.. then THAT, is a bit more unacceptable. 

Indeed, we definitely need some more amphibious assets. I bet we'll see a few tracked vehicles too, seeing as - according to an earlier tweet - the Developers aim to enable amphibious tracked vehicles in Apex. I'd imagine they'd want to do something with that new feature. (ASCOD Scout SV pls, we need some actual futuristic vehicles.)

[theevancat 277]

While it does lack context, being aesthetically pleasing is fine. I wouldn't mind NATO, or Tanoan forces using a ULCV developed in Singapore, a country with similar Geography, which is natural. But if we had something out of whack, like non-amphibious Armor, or no vehicles to help non-amphibious vehicles cross a lot of water in a nation that's Majority Archipelago.. then THAT, is a bit more unacceptable. 

 

I would've preferred it if they had completely fictional/obscure experimental designs going for them. That way you wouldn't need to try and explain a Singapore ULCV, but just lampshade it and say: "Yeah, we designed this in 2030/revived funding for it."

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

I would've preferred it if they had completely fictional/obscure experimental designs going for them. That way you wouldn't need to try and explain a Singapore ULCV, but just lampshade it and say: "Yeah, we designed this in 2030/revived funding for it."

So pretty much "Just Cause 3". They have a large array of very unique vehicles, that are basically just mix matches of existing assets. For instance, they have a jet that is a mix of a JF-17, and F18. Essentially, their own designs though. To be honest, I wouldn't mind that, but on the contrary, I don't want everything ending up looking like the freaking Huron or Wipeout. Hell, I think the only vehicle that is a BI design that looks absolutely amazing would have to be the Kajman. But of course, the Kajman isn't stealth-ish, and is an existing design. The Havic, but with no tail rotor, and added troop transport capabilities. In short, I'm indifferent on the matter.

I don't mind if they design unique vehicles, as long as it looks believable. I don't mind if they pick existing vehicles, or designs that are conceptual, in the same guidelines. Of course I'm not really going by what exactly I want to see, it's just I don't want to end up having ridiculous things like a 6 copter VTOL C-130. Stuff like the V-280 Valor, because pretty much concept, but it's a real aerodynamically proven design, or even mix a ULCV with Gibbs Amphibious technologies, because those are proven designs, and together could not only create a really great looking vehicle, but add a whole new gameplay element because of it. And of course, then comes that key part of designing assets, which is core gameplay. Not, I'm not talking specifically about balance. That's a given, but just gameplay possibilities as a whole. What you can do in game, live, without use of scripts. Designing assets around that is important. For example I could have a section of Armored vehicles, but they're not Amphibious. How do we get from one island to the next? This is where light Transport boats could come in, you drive them up on a small flatbed, and sail them across. Of course that brings risks and advantages. Get sunk, you lose vehicles and team mates. Get across, you could vastly out maneuver your enemy with overwhelming firepower.

In terms of Balance, some things can be done there too. For example, you can Add APC's to one team, but give one faction a Flyer for example, because the Flyer sports a 30mm Cannon. This means the team with less Armor has to think smart when using this vehicle to beat the enemy with the same armament, but more Armor. But that's only for that mix, while another two vehicles for example could have varrying advantages over another. This creates a chain of balance, which means when one vehicles is thrown into the mix, the other side could deploy a different assets, with a countering capability, and it keeps going, which keeps things interesting.

[theevancat 277]

Yeah, modernized takes on equipment and gear is what I like to see personally, revised experimental designs (Comanche was pretty cool, perhaps should have been paired with a big and heavy attack helo like it was supposed to be in real life), and a variety of capabilities. It's what I try to do when I imagine and lay out a faction. I really do like the Arma 3 setting and, as I've said before, it's kind of wasted of its potential. I didn't mind the stealth airframes and whatnot, I just wish there were more of them. But at the same time I realize and respect the limitations of developing a game. So I just kind of tried to mod a lot of that variety and believable futurism in.

[zukov 490]

the most important feature in  Tanoa will be the Knife 

[AveryTheKitty 2626]

the most important feature in  Tanoa will be the Knife 

Actually, a knife (or other form of melee combat) would be interesting. Probably very useful for SF operating in Tanoa's dense jungles. Though I doubt that we'll see it.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Given the fact RV4 or Arma in general don't support sneaking, or knives, or melee at all, I would have to agree with nightmare. We won't see it.

[zukov 490]

it's only a matter of IK RIG

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

it's only a matter of IK RIG

Nope. Not unless BI completely overhaul the Animation system like the DayZ team have claimed they've done, and then heavily fix the net code issues regarding client to client interaction. And even then, I still don't really see Melee happening, mainly because I sense BI would never get AI to be able to use it, thus making it moot in their book. The mod is good because it accomplishes what BI can't do, as its to far into the Games life to consider something like Melee, even if it is an important part of jungle warfare.

[theevancat 277]

I have heard stories from Rangers about how one guy in their platoon brought a tomahawk to Afghanistan with him. They all laughed at him... until he killed someone with the tomahawk. Then everyone bought one.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

I have heard stories from Rangers about how one guy in their platoon brought a tomahawk to Afghanistan with him. They all laughed at him... until he killed someone with the tomahawk. Then everyone bought one.

Well of course. Most of those poor soul's probably didn't care too much about Hand to Hand combat. Didn't expect to get anywhere with it so, seeing as someone just got a close range kill with a knife, everyone's going to grab one to bring along.

[Alwarren 2767]

Might be a good idea to put all melee combat fantasies into the wishlist thread and get back on topic here which is "Development Blog & Reveals"?

Send from my tablet, so pardon any autocorrect bollocks

[mistyronin 1181]

What I wonder its why there are no news of a tractor. Each iteration of the Arma series and OFP has always had a tractor! 

Where is the tractor?  :angry: 

BTW for those who are a bit old, or played OFP, the best gameplay moment involving a tractor was in "After Montignac".  :P

[R3vo 2654]

Are there any news on the integration of DX12 ? This was mentioned at an game show event, but I was quite disappointed that it wasn't mentioned in the roadmap.