OPFOR too Futuristic?

[stupidwhitekid75 11]

The only thing that really bugs me about the OPFOR is their helmets. They have all this additional stuff on it, screens that sit in front of the eyes, etc. I just wish they actually had some functionality. I wouldn't mind them much at all if they worked somehow. Without working why even bother adding them, except for the "coolness" factor maybe? I dunno I think they're ugly looking.

[aop 1]

Yeah, I think the infantry equipment in the game is a bit too futuristic. It's just 20 years to the future and if you look 20 years to past the infantry equipment and weapons haven't taken any huge leaps. The leap between this day and ArmA 3 seems more than what has happened during last 50 years.

I would have liked to see mix of new and old equipment, like special forces using all the new and fancy stuff like the 6.5mm caseless ammo, and new rifles and the airconditioned suits while regular troops still using improved variants of old weapons, uniforms and body armors.

[Maio 293]

Yeah, I think the infantry equipment in the game is a bit too futuristic. It's just 20 years to the future and if you look 20 years to past the infantry equipment and weapons haven't taken any huge leaps. The leap between this day and ArmA 3 seems more than what has happened during last 50 years.

I would have liked to see mix of new and old equipment, like special forces using all the new and fancy stuff like the 6.5mm caseless ammo, and new rifles and the airconditioned suits while regular troops still using improved variants of old weapons, uniforms and body armors.

1. The action does not take place in our universe (it never did actually)

2. There is more content inbound.

[Skjold 1]

I dislike their helmet, thats my main issue.

[GRS 10]

Yeah, I think the infantry equipment in the game is a bit too futuristic. It's just 20 years to the future and if you look 20 years to past the infantry equipment and weapons haven't taken any huge leaps.

:Oo:

filler

[tyxo 12]

I dislike their helmet, thats my main issue.

Agreed!

Where do I sign ?

I like all the other stuff.

[SkyeFyre 10]

Personally I love the direction they're taking the game. People keep mentioning that things haven't changed that drastically in the last 20 years. Well what about the 20 year period that started 40 years ago? or 60 years ago? Just because relative to our period in time the last 20 years hasn't seen a huge change doesn't mean that every 20 year increment is just as stagnant. If there happens to be a major incentive to upgrade infantry gear in the next 20 years, then yes you will see these kinds of changes.

What we have now would look like sci-fi to people 20-30 years ago. I've already played the modern era, I want something that feels fresh, and that's what I'm getting.

To clarify: I'm not saying you're unjustified in what you believe, just stating the reasons why I love the direction they're taking.

[Crierd 24]

What's too futuristic about them? What, their clothing have some futuristic aesthetics? I don't see how that even really matters unless they are dressed up like Marauders from Star Craft 2. The game takes place around 2030 I believe, so the uniforms and looks are definitely not too futuristic. Just go google prototype vehicles, armor, clothing, and etc being proposed to various militaries around the world. Just look at something like the G11 rifle by H&K. That started development in the 60s.

[Guest]

I think it's fine and matches the setting of the near future nicely.

[cross888 10]

I got excited about this and rambled on so let me clarify it for the dayz, and black ops COD warriors and all round ARMA noobs.

Helmet and neck braces with the aircon = Stupid cyborg men from mars.

Uniform looks like the Russian spetznatz stuff = fine.

Rifle = Chinese fine.

change the helmets please they look ridiculously silly its kind of draggin arma in to a CODBlackOps style game. :)

Edited March 7, 2013 by [FRL]Myke
Font size reset

[Guest]

I don't see where Dayz players come into this, lol...

[Trakko 1]

Unfortunately that's what "sells". Coolio "sci fi", "special operator" tacticool stuff.

Ordinary light, regular or irregular, infantry doesn't sell games just as much.

Hopefully mods will fix this while BI will still get their monies from kids willing to play deathmatch 24/7 on a server away from me.

Well said buddy.

[Guest]

Not well said at all. Clearly those of you who are new to the Arma series have no idea what kind of developer BIS is.

They do not cater to "what sells best". Absolutely, they want to make money and be successful, but they will put game design and what they want to achieve way ahead of what "makes money".

Their plan to make this game near future is something they have put significant research and time into, and something fresh and new to the previous titles dating back to 2001. The Arma series never has, and never will be a game that appeals to casual gamers and "kiddies". Future soldiers or not, the core of the game remains, and only those serious about the game will stay in the community for any length of time.

Some people have no idea, but what can I say.

[kireta21 13]

Yes, G11 and such, and yet most of this futuristic stuff was rejected, usually because it was not as practical as more conventional stuff.

I think when designing Iranian forces we could use typical cold war template: Shocktroopers, well trained, well equiped, but still regulars, doing most frontline combat. And cannon fodder, concripts with gear either already withdrawn from Shocktroopers, or just cheaper, that are supposed to do less important or demanding tasks, filling up defences, securing supply lines, occupying captured territory, or acting as meatshield aganist enemy offensive.

While current ArmA3 Iranian forces will do for first role, second line could use what we see nowadays: regular kevlars, weapons using traditional ammunition like KH2002 or CQ 5.56 (Chinese AR-15 copy), maybe Iranian heavily upgraded T-72s, with FLIR and Relikt ERA.

NATO could use less high-tech variant as well. If war is going on for some time, and NATO isn't exactly winning side it's expected they will increase their numbers, at obvious cost of overall quality of new forces (concripts, national guard-type units and such, reorganized to do frontline stuff).

[edited]

Edited March 7, 2013 by boota

[cross888 10]

@up And most of this futuristic stuff was rejected, usually because it was not as practical as more conventional stuff.

I think when designing Iranian forces we could use typical cold war template: Shocktroopers, well trained, well equiped, but still regulars, doing most frontline combat. And cannon fodder, concripts with gear either already withdrawed from Shocktroopers, or just cheaper, that are supposed to do less important or demanding tasks, filling up defences, securing supply lines, occupying captured territory, that sort of things.

While current ArmA3 Iranian forces will do for first role, second line could use what we see nowadays: regular kevlars, weapons using traditional ammunition like KH2002 or CQ 5.56 (Chinese AR-15 copy), maybe Iranian heavily upgraded T-72s, with FLIR and Relikt ERA.

NATO could use less high-tech variant as well.

WELL SAID!!

that's exactly what i meant I'm just rubbish at wording this sort of stuff.

@Richie now now don't start flame war.

Edited March 9, 2013 by Cross888

[Guest]

WELL SAID!!

that's exactly what i meant I'm just rubbish at wording this sort of stuff.

@Richie now now don't start flame war.

Not starting a flame war, just putting people in their place when they try and accuse BIS of being like Activision, EA, Codemasters, etc.

Edited March 7, 2013 by Guest

[Beagle 684]

Yes, G11 and such, and yet most of this futuristic stuff was rejected, usually because it was not as practical as more conventional stuff.

It was rejected because the cold war was over. It's 2035 nnow get over it, it is SciFi and the artistic freedom grants what is in game.

[Trakko 1]

Richie mate it seems to me like your on here to cause trouble, I am aloud my own opinion if I think Luiz made a valid point then I can say so. It's not for you to decide I'm wrong, I'm not on here to argue with a childish forum troll so unless you start showing some competence and adding to the discussion then I don't know why your here.

BIS/BI may be some amazing god like entity to you, but in actual fact they are just publishers/developers, we all here are fans of the series and regardless of whether you played from OFP or ArmA 3 is your first title your still here because you don't like those run of the mill FPS shooters.

Publishers/developers are aloud to make mistakes or honest errors, we the consumer are allowed to help them by pointing out issues, that is what an alpha is for and it seems a lot of the BIS "Fanboys" are forgetting this, and pleas don't go shouting " OH IF YOU HAVE A COMPLAINT THROW IT ON HERE http://feedback.arma3.com/my_view_page.php" I would much rather see what the BI community had to say about it.

---------- Post added at 16:53 ---------- Previous post was at 16:49 ----------

Not starting a flame war, just putting people in their place when they try and accuse BIS of being like Activision, EA, Codemasters, etc.

Nobody accused them of being like EA, if your referring to luizsilveira earlier comment he mentioned no such thing, he pointed out that the modern market of younger gamers like this idea of being an action hero, cool guy.

He didn't claim that BI were making us pay outrageous prices for our games, and hitting us with micro transactions at every possible moment, in fact they've done us a great deal with the £20 alpha and I look to do them the same favour by helping them improve their game.

[Guest]

Richie mate it seems to me like your on here to cause trouble, I am aloud my own opinion if I think Luiz made a valid point then I can say so. It's not for you to decide I'm wrong, I'm not on here to argue with a childish forum troll so unless you start showing some competence and adding to the discussion then I don't know why your here.

BIS/BI may be some amazing god like entity to you, but in actual fact they are just publishers/developers, we all here are fans of the series and regardless of whether you played from OFP or ArmA 3 is your first title your still here because you don't like those run of the mill FPS shooters.

Publishers/developers are aloud to make mistakes or honest errors, we the consumer are allowed to help them by pointing out issues, that is what an alpha is for and it seems a lot of the BIS "Fanboys" are forgetting this, and pleas don't go shouting " OH IF YOU HAVE A COMPLAINT THROW IT ON HERE http://feedback.arma3.com/my_view_page.php" I would much rather see what the BI community had to say about it.

The fact you are willing to call me a trouble maker and a troll sums up why people will react to you the way I have.

You are clearly new here, and you clearly have no clue whatsoever about who Bohemia Interactive are. They are a very community shaped/influenced developer, with many members of staff active on the forums, (including actual devs, not just market boys, cough, Codemasters).

Don't pop your head in and try and tell me who Bohemia are and what their purpose is. I know who Bohemia are, I know they are a great developer, and I know they are not some cow milking money making bunch of asses like most devs are today.

You have every right to your opinion.

[cross888 10]

So yes back to subject at hand so the thread doesn't get locked.

Boota made a great point

"I think when designing Iranian forces we could use typical cold war template: Shocktroopers, well trained, well equiped, but still regulars, doing most frontline combat. And cannon fodder, concripts with gear either already withdrawed from Shocktroopers, or just cheaper, that are supposed to do less important or demanding tasks, filling up defences, securing supply lines, occupying captured territory, that sort of things.

While current ArmA3 Iranian forces will do for first role, second line could use what we see nowadays: regular kevlars, weapons using traditional ammunition like KH2002 or CQ 5.56 (Chinese AR-15 copy), maybe Iranian heavily upgraded T-72s, with FLIR and Relikt ERA.

NATO could use less high-tech variant as well."

Please don't rise to troll bait i dont wish to see this thread get locked like the walking stance thread.

[faultyscotsman 1]

I think the game as a whole feels too futuristic but it is still in its alpha stages and i still enjoy it

[Guest]

I like the idea of having different types of soldier to fight against, but it depends heavily on the back drop of the story BIS have chosen.

If we are fighting an Army who are just as advanced as us, there is no reason why they should be weaker and have worse equipment.

The kind of future scenario where I believe the enemies being weaker would work, is if the western Army was on the Opfors land, Afghanistan for example. Then the local army could be weaker and lesser equiped.

From my understanding, in Arma 3 we are facing a strong enemy who are on equal grounds to us, much like in Flashpoint where it was a cold war situation.

[Nathan1506 1]

Bohemia stated (go find the quote, im not your librarian ;) ) than most if not ALL of the tech and gear used for both sides are modelled or based on REAL technology that is either being tested, or prototyped today. I dont see the problem? they look fine, the gear looks normal the only "futuristic" thing being the swing down UI shades on the helmet, thats it...

As for the "underdog" faction i agree, but bear in mind we havnt seen any "independant" faction models yet, that may be just what you are looking for.

[cross888 10]

Bohemia stated (go find the quote, im not your librarian ;) ) than most if not ALL of the tech and gear used for both sides are modelled or based on REAL technology that is either being tested, or prototyped today. I dont see the problem? they look fine, the gear looks normal the only "futuristic" thing being the swing down UI shades on the helmet, thats it...

As for the "underdog" faction i agree, but bear in mind we havnt seen any "independant" faction models yet, that may be just what you are looking for.

The argument isn't about balance its about aesthetics

I agree with your post but my point is that the Iranians look silly they look like bug men from mars. :)

[Bee8190 10]

I don't see what the problem is. I believe there are 3 more factions coming later to the game and that's not to mention someone will, sooner or later come up with less futuristic units later. There's already mod popping up for all kind of scopes attachable to rifles and my guess is that units will follow shortly too.

I wouldn't think its needed to redesign certain equipment and waste even more time on that just because the helmets appear to have high tech shape. Vanilla content doesn't ''really'' matter all that much

Edited March 7, 2013 by Bee8190
Edit - I'm forgetting some letter lmfao in the middle of the word/s