No women at all

[Sneakson 1]

Nice misquote there, bro. Let me repeat, since you felt like ignoring a part of my post: It's not a civilian simulator, so it's not important. Having an identifiable civilians is sufficient while there are better things to do, whether they have tits or clothes that you like is irrelevant. You're free to disagree, though. And what "other thread"? As if lack of authenticity is a problem in ArmA. Lmao.

All BIS should do is make it possible to mod in civilians for those who need the extended authenticity in that particular field, as they have done AFAIK. Same for the furnitures and other useless shit. You could just reskin them to look like women in whatever clothes you want, put them in a skirt or whatever, but then you would probably complain they don't look womanly enough at close, because your "civilian simulator" needs to be perfect.

What voting? That's 65% on the tracker, and that's pretty low considering how many have probably voted for, just because it would be a "nice to have" rather than "need to have", while some of those who don't give a damn just haven't voted on the issue. Like me, until now.

There was a voting thread. As I remember only 2-5% were against women of any sort.

If I don't remember incorrectly the tracker vote is only about women in combat roles.

Also don't:

• Claim that 65% is low. It's a majority.

• Try saying some of the yes-voters voted yes only because it would be "nice to have". You have absolutely zero data to back up how important the voters think the feature is.

Conversely I may say this: women in the game wouldn't break it for anyone. The no-voters are insignificant because if women were implemented they would simply have to play on servers without women.

Also, how does "those who don't give a damn" not voting on the issue change anything? Those who don’t give a damn SHOULDN’T vote on a yes-no question. It doesn’t change anything.

Anyone's free to mod their game, unlike in Battlefield, but I can't remember anyone complaining this shit on BF forums... Funny, huh?

Actually there has been a good deal of complaining about Battlefield 4 not having women. Call of Duty now has women as of Ghosts.

[artisanal 22]

Actually there has been a good deal of complaining about Battlefield 4 not having women. Call of Duty now has women as of Ghosts.

And dogs :cool:

[13islucky 10]

And dogs :cool:

And PiP scopes which halve your frames :cool:

[hardsiesta 1]

For anyone who may have been confused, this is what a straw man argument looks like.

Well, I was discussing MY opinion replied to someone else, which was challenged by you guys, so if I was taking the (rather obviously) limited resources in assets of A3 into account, and what op said about needing female models more than aircraft being one good example of it, I don't think that's supposed to change to anything else just because you reply something else.

There was a voting thread. As I remember only 2-5% were against women of any sort.

If I don't remember incorrectly the tracker vote is only about women in combat roles.

Also don't:

• Claim that 65% is low. It's a majority.

• Try saying some of the yes-voters voted yes only because it would be "nice to have". You have absolutely zero data to back up how important the voters think the feature is.

Conversely I may say this: women in the game wouldn't break it for anyone. The no-voters are insignificant because if women were implemented they would simply have to play on servers without women.

Also, how does "those who don't give a damn" not voting on the issue change anything? Those who don’t give a damn SHOULDN’T vote on a yes-no question. It doesn’t change anything.

Actually there has been a good deal of complaining about Battlefield 4 not having women. Call of Duty now has women as of Ghosts.

I can claim the 65% at hand is low when I'm replying to someone who claims it's "90% of all of users" without reference. See, I actually asked "what voting?". Oh, and I might be part of that 90% once the game actually has everything more important in. For the moment I am not, and I have only discussed my opinion replied to someone else, that you guys chose to argue. I wasn't even trying to make a scientific point, but take it for what you want, it won't make a difference unless you provide anything better either. Fair enough with the yes-no thing. I still think the yes votes represent themselves better than the no votes.

Ok, I haven't been into BF4 but I have hard time believing anyone in that community would take it "good deal" serious, especially with the game having far more serious problems than A3 from what I hear. A quick google about it was interesting though.

But it seems my opinion has provoked enough discussion for my original replies and point to come rather unclear, so whatever. If BIS decide to make civilian assets a priority or not then so be it, but I will voice my disagreement until the game has at least the campaign and the mentioned aircraft in, like it or not. Just to be clear: I obviously assumed the assets to be implemented officially are competing with each other, and I assumed the OP did too, with their comparison to the lack of aircraft. Then came these confusing "you shouldn't be posting your opinions you selfish pig" replies. Bottom line: My original post was replying and directed to nicholasroger.

Peace, out.

Edited February 23, 2014 by HardSiesta