The Fictional MX Rifle series, why?

[Alwarren 2767]

2 hours ago, stburr91 said:

 

God I hope not. I'd hate to see the game regress like that, but with A4 almost certainly going to be a cross platform release, who knows what A4 will even be. It could be a pretty watered down version of the game to appeal to console gamers.  

 

I am not personally the biggest fan of the Cold War but TBH I would prefer it to the 2035 setting, mainly because I think that the current 2035 setting is not going far enough in terms of equipment and battlefield aids. I mean, I am not advocating Martian Goliath Mk 3 power armour, but I somehow doubt that 2035 will have a lot of iron sights in military use... and a good deal more drones.

 

Personally, I prefer the contemporary stuff (avoiding the term "modern warfare" intentionally 😄 )

[drebin052 324]

21 hours ago, joostsidy said:

And I'm not sure, but are the new names not a result of (increased) licensing fees for brands? We may have to drive a Humveeeevfe in Arma 4 😨

 

 

No need for a "new" name. Arma 2's EOL patch retroactively renamed all HMMWVs to HMMMX already (though not for Arma 1 and OFP for some reason...).

[mmm 35]

On 1/29/2021 at 1:20 PM, Alwarren said:

 

I am not personally the biggest fan of the Cold War but TBH I would prefer it to the 2035 setting, mainly because I think that the current 2035 setting is not going far enough in terms of equipment and battlefield aids. I mean, I am not advocating Martian Goliath Mk 3 power armour, but I somehow doubt that 2035 will have a lot of iron sights in military use... and a good deal more drones.

 

Personally, I prefer the contemporary stuff (avoiding the term "modern warfare" intentionally 😄 )

Well that "2035" setting have always been more superficial visual facelift than gameplay changing representation of expected technological advancement, but if they(CAN in the first place that is...) do there's not much game to play... Gun pulls the trigger for you, only when the ballistic computer feels you're pointing the right way, and vehicle won't even have that twitch reflex test, it just require your signature to kill so to speak. Probably even footsoldier will carry a GPU that runs detection algorithm on the imagery collected by HMD, with things like this going on... Your target tag and red circle highlight? It's not a difficulty setting, it's an equipment function. And all that shared on 1 unified network instead of today's several layers of platform specific non-interoperable ones? The AI hive mind is a feature, not a bug then.

 

You don't even need jet or artillery for abrupt death, loitering munition can do just that. If you've been observed and targeted you'll die before you know.

[drebin052 324]

Subjective, but I think that's a tad bit too far flung into the future. It sounds like Arma would be drifting too much in the direction of CoD: Advanced Warfare territory, and I can't imagine the same folks who got angry with Arma 3's setting would be even more pleased to see fUtUrE tech on that scale.

 

Without sounding too much like I'm Arma 4 wishlisting, a 2030s setting with present day prototypes and networked tech having entered full service -- similar to how the MX essentially represents NGSW, is the ideal balance IMO. Not the strange mix of Cold War prototypes and outdated technology that Arma 3 (before Apex) featured; the "superficial" stuff as you pointed out.

[Alwarren 2767]

3 hours ago, mmm said:

... there's not much game to play...

 

Which is exactly the reason why I question the choice of time period. Especially for a game with the realism approach as Arma, I find it weird that some units still have iron sights. Sure, you can argue gameplay, but if that is your reason for "toning down" technology, maybe pick a time period that isn't as far into the future in the first place. The game came out in 2013, placing the whole thing e.g. in 2020 would have been a more credible scenario and would still have allowed for some design freedom. As it is now, the 2035 secnario has a couple of things like the automatic turret but the standard infantryman is still underequipped, even more so than soldiers on the contemporary battlefield. 

[mmm 35]

On 2/7/2021 at 4:14 AM, drebin052 said:

Subjective, but I think that's a tad bit too far flung into the future. It sounds like Arma would be drifting too much in the direction of CoD: Advanced Warfare territory, and I can't imagine the same folks who got angry with Arma 3's setting would be even more pleased to see fUtUrE tech on that scale.

 

Without sounding too much like I'm Arma 4 wishlisting, a 2030s setting with present day prototypes and networked tech having entered full service -- similar to how the MX essentially represents NGSW, is the ideal balance IMO. Not the strange mix of Cold War prototypes and outdated technology that Arma 3 (before Apex) featured; the "superficial" stuff as you pointed out.

Well there's no jumping at neckbreaking acceleration, only silicon and software with some plastic so... Uncooled thermal sight with bluetooth and embedded chips, soldier smartphone with GPU for inference workload, Microsoft Hololens Army Edition, with another 14 years to go that doesn't sound far fetch to me at all. With how much commercial tech there is the cost will be literally dirt, especially compared to personnel cost of first world armies. The accelerated decision making at ARMA speed will be the next big leg up IMHO.

 

Not that I think it can ever be represented 1:1 for (expect)real life, probably won't serve the most popular game modes and broader playerbase well, whatever they are today.

 

But say that's the reality in 2035, an ARMA 6 wouldn't be "realistic" "contemporary" milsim without those elements would it? It would at most be a historic sim of war on terror era. How much ARMA is a "milsim" or how much they want it to be one is totally up for debate OFC. But then again I'm betting even in 2035 there will be sim enthusiast enjoy the most accurate representation, even if that reality seen from today doesn't look like fun gameplay. Who know maybe VR will be the prerequisite.

 

On 2/7/2021 at 6:11 AM, Alwarren said:

 

Which is exactly the reason why I question the choice of time period. Especially for a game with the realism approach as Arma, I find it weird that some units still have iron sights. Sure, you can argue gameplay, but if that is your reason for "toning down" technology, maybe pick a time period that isn't as far into the future in the first place. The game came out in 2013, placing the whole thing e.g. in 2020 would have been a more credible scenario and would still have allowed for some design freedom. As it is now, the 2035 secnario has a couple of things like the automatic turret but the standard infantryman is still underequipped, even more so than soldiers on the contemporary battlefield. 

I was talking more about the preference of the general market. Personally I'd love to see a meticulously studied 2035 ground combat sim with every era defining technology represented(in meaningful fashion), whether that still play like an industrial standard shooter is of no concern to me(god help my pleb reflex peasant frame rate). For all I know it could be Combat Mission with boots on the ground perspective and a ton more detail. Coming to think of it I actually like the idea.

 

Now ARMA 3 pushed it too far no arguement, there's no way to study 2035 with any reasonable accuracy from 2013. But that time frame for a hypothetical 2023 ARMA 4 still sounds okay to me, a reassessed version based on updated knowledge. I think lack of visibility of more recent changes in trends and the implications in land warfare unlike the ~2000s does make a proper study more difficult.

[Jackal326 1181]

On 2/7/2021 at 11:11 AM, Alwarren said:

...but the standard infantryman is still underequipped, even more so than soldiers on the contemporary battlefield. 

Two words - "Funding cuts" 🤑.

If the cut-backs the UK military branches are seeing in recent years are anything to go by, by the time 2035 rolls around we'll be using sticks and rocks...

[mmm 35]

On 2/16/2021 at 9:44 PM, Jackal326 said:

Two words - "Funding cuts" 🤑.

If the cut-backs the UK military branches are seeing in recent years are anything to go by, by the time 2035 rolls around we'll be using sticks and rocks...

Given UK outspend Japan and more than twice of Israel, guess they'll have to make do with even smaller rocks and shorter sticks and sail on rafts...

[Reticuli 14]

If anything, the MX rifles in Arma 3 seem castrated compared to what such a round is already capable of.  I suspect BI muted the 6.5 caseless performance due to the anticipated outcry about going too 'sci fi'.  So, instead they made the round slightly more stopping energy than the SPAR's 5.56, but with slightly less rounds in each mega magazine to provide a sort of fudged tradeoff.  They could have simply said it was conventional cased ammo and had that sort of effect.  There may also be a benefit in the game regarding caseless ammo weight, though, but I don't know.  If you're going to call it caseless ammo and then castrate it, that sort of defeats the purpose, and they're already catching flack for going sci-fi.  Maybe useful marketing to cater to the Halo crowd without actually upsetting the game balance so much?  Anyway, I think they work well in the game and have their place.