revamped the CSAT PLZ !! :(

[zukov 483]

Ya, if you take away the gloves and the neck they look fairly normal with body armour. The LBVs just enhance the sci-fi look by showing the upper body with the extra protection and future-looking thangs.

the game is out of a year, not huge changes are possible, but some chest rigs from arma 2 and a "far east ops core helmet with wire" for CSAT recon force are surely wellcome

[mistyronin 1181]

the game is out of a year, not huge changes are possible, but some chest rigs from arma 2 and a "far east ops core helmet with wire" for CSAT recon force are surely wellcome

I see perfectly feasible to release the same uniform but without the globes and the neck-shoulders. Call it "light version".

Besides that could be used for cool reskins.

Edited July 5, 2014 by MistyRonin

[vegeta897 13]

It's clear that people are not happy with the A3 setting, this forums, Steam ones, etc are a witness of it.

Clear that some people are not. It would also be clear that some people aren't happy with the game not progressing in military tech if Arma 3 had been present day. You'd have people complaining that BIS is selling the same game twice with prettier graphics, among a thousand other things people could possibly complain about. In the end it's about what BIS has passion for making. If they were forced to make something they don't want to make just because some veterans want it, we get a less quality product as a result.

Also the fact that most of the mod/addon makers are creating realistic stuff being actual or past, proves my point.

That's a fallacy if I've ever heard one. How does it prove your point? It proves that Arma 3 doesn't have actual/past weapons and vehicles, which we already know. Thus, mod makers fill the gap. Not to mention it's easier for mod makers to model things off of objects they can find a lot of reference photos or models for. I also see some mod makers making futuristic stuff. Am I going to use that to "prove" a point that people want future stuff? Of course not.

[mistyronin 1181]

You'd have people complaining that BIS is selling the same game twice with prettier graphics, among a thousand other things people could possibly complain about.

You mean because BI has already included all the possible military realistic settings in their games? ( Just check how many armies are in the world. And how many wars and backgrounds ). There's thousands of possibilities, and this time BI opted to make an extreme radical change in the series, they betrayed the spirit of the series. And of course that has had a lot of consequences ( for instance the creation of a new game: Take on Mars and the huge delay in A3 content half made with what they got from the previous sci-fi project.

That is just a fact. As I have repeated numerous times, to me it doesn't affect me much, as we have a huge array of addon and mod makers that create H.Q. actual & realistic content. It kind of annoys me a bit because I have to keep track of them, and use replacement packs and things like that. But the game engine is WAY better, and the vanilla campaign story is quite good ( in fact the best since OFP ), so not a big issue.

That's a fallacy if I've ever heard one. How does it prove your point? It proves that Arma 3 doesn't have actual/past weapons and vehicles, which we already know. Thus, mod makers fill the gap. Not to mention it's easier for mod makers to model things off of objects they can find a lot of reference photos or models for. I also see some mod makers making futuristic stuff. Am I going to use that to "prove" a point that people want future stuff? Of course not.

Well the main OFP/Arma community seem to always want to fill the same gap: realistic & actual warfare. Even when in OFP the setting was the Cold War or A1 and A2 realistic warfare. For instance you have a lot of reference photos and models and info of Star Wars, or Lord of the Rings, or the American Civil War ( you have even all US Gov. photo archive open ). But people always go to the same.

If you say that it's a fallacy, then let's say that Universe conspires always to reach the same point. Maybe people are obsessed with realistic & actual warfare... Or maybe it's that they enjoy to characterize/interpret their heroes, and are proud to make their own armies, or are army veterans, etc.

But ok, you are right, it's all a coincidence. They have just been trying to fill the gap for all the past games in the series and because it's easy to get info about them...

Edited July 5, 2014 by MistyRonin

[barakokula31 10]

...this time BI opted to make an extreme radical change in the series, they betrayed the spirit of the series.

What is the "spirit of the series", anyway? OFP and Arma 1 were very different - not just graphics and asset wise, the gameplay was also very different. The difference between OFP and OA was even bigger, especially with the introduction of things like thermal imaging. Arma 3 is yet again even more different from OFP.

And what's this "extreme radical" change? Going 20-ish years forward in time? Wasn't the difference between OFP and Arma 1 around the same?

[roshnak 41]

But you are right, uniforms must be comfortable and pragmatic, that's one of the main points in which the CSAT uniform fails. It would be really annoying and uncomfortable to wear that metallic steampunk stuff.

The texture doesn't necessarily sell it that well, but you know that metallic steampunk stuff is supposed to be rubber, right?

[mistyronin 1181]

What is the "spirit of the series", anyway? OFP and Arma 1 were very different - not just graphics and asset wise, the gameplay was also very different. The difference between OFP and OA was even bigger, especially with the introduction of things like thermal imaging. Arma 3 is yet again even more different from OFP.

And what's this "extreme radical" change? Going 20-ish years forward in time? Wasn't the difference between OFP and Arma 1 around the same?

The spirit of the series was to set the player in a hypothetical conflict between real factions, trying to simulate realistic war ( from an entertainment point of view ). Always using reality as a base.

That has changed with Arma 3, they created factions mixing all kind of vehicles ( some real, some made up, some changing their roles ), and including weird designs that have never been seen. All that has its origin in the first project for A3, that was basically pure Sci-Fi with aliens, and so on. When they realized of how things were going they tried to pull the breaks, but they had already some content done, so they have adapted the Sci-fi content mixed with some other stuff, and the actual A3 is the product.

And if you check OFP you had already fatigue and most of the features that A3 have, obviously improved a lot in the second. So the main difference between A3 and OFP & A1 and A2 is the half sci fi setting.

The texture doesn't necessarily sell it that well, but you know that metallic steampunk stuff is supposed to be rubber, right?

If that is supposed to be rubber...

[barakokula31 10]

All that has its origin in the first project for A3, that was basically pure Sci-Fi with aliens, and so on. When they realized of how things were going they tried to pull the breaks, but they had already some content done, so they have adapted the Sci-fi content mixed with some other stuff, and the actual A3 is the product.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction

Quote: "Science fiction is a genre of fiction dealing with imaginative content such as (...) space travel, time travel, faster than light travel, parallel universes, and extraterrestrial life."

Do you think a gunship with a few seats to transport troops or an MRAP with a big windshield are comparable to these?

[katipo66 94]

I think you mis-read or didn't understand Misty's post...

Anyway I don't think this is a rage of future things, we already had that drama, its just some simply feel that CSAT "uniforms" look stupid in the whole context of the game! No one doubts the tech is available. But it's seems to only be present in thier uniform only and no other tech like weaponary, even their vehicles don't match the nano suit tech! So toning down the uniforms would go along way in making it a somewhat believable scenario, I guess it's no problem if people just racking up kills against opfor.

[Flemdot Jr 10]

isn't it said somewhere that the CSAT in the game are a special division or something that ate testing prototypes?

[mistyronin 1181]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction

Quote: "Science fiction is a genre of fiction dealing with imaginative content such as (...) space travel, time travel, faster than light travel, parallel universes, and extraterrestrial life."

Do you think a gunship with a few seats to transport troops or an MRAP with a big windshield are comparable to these?

Read again. The first project for A3 was to include aliens, fight in the space, and so on. But that changed at the end of 2012 beginning of 2013.

BTW it's funny/sad that you removed part of the quote:

Science fiction is a genre of fiction dealing with imaginative content such as futuristic settings, futuristic science and technology, space travel, time travel, faster than light travel, parallel universes, and extraterrestrial life. It often explores the potential consequences of scientific and other innovations, and has been called a "literature of ideas".[1] Authors commonly use science fiction as a framework to explore politics, identity, desire, morality, social structure, and other literary themes.

Report in! Marek Spanel ( A.K.A. BI's big boss )

Originally, we were playing around with the idea of bringing the authenticity of the Arma series to a more sci-fi futuristic setting. This resulted in a couple of experiments, even along the lines of Arma meets aliens. However, as I suspect, many of our player base will be relieved that we ultimately decided to adjust the direction. Even though Arma 3 still takes place in the near future, with some prototype tech and vehicles, the game is much more faithful to our previous installments. Our obsession in space exploration is now vested in Take On Mars.

[roshnak 41]

If that is supposed to be rubber...

It is. It's supposed to be colored, weathered rubber.

Like I said, the texture doesn't do a great job of selling it, but it's very clearly rubber in the screenshot of the high poly model posted earlier.

Even the cooling units on the back look like they're supposed to be rubberized.

[mistyronin 1181]

It is. It's supposed to be colored, weathered rubber.

I do believe you. Just that to me it looks like anything but rubber.

BTW it's just me, or Marek Spanel and Capt. Miller look alike?

Edited July 5, 2014 by MistyRonin

[zooloo75 833]

The CSAT neck sleeve, metal(?) gloves, fans, and bug helmet just look ridiculous.

[ajsarge 10]

So by Misty's reasoning, everyone (except a minority of people who actually enjoy playing Arma 3, despite it seeming not sci-fi enough for its +21 years from today future) wants an M-16 vs AK-47 game again. If so, then why (last I saw) are there a bajillion Altis Life (an RPG mission) and Breaking Point (Zombies!) servers that seem to have a jillion players on them at all times? And why isn't every single server running M-16 vs AK-47 addon packs that disable the MX?

In my eyes, a game's internet presence on Forums and groups such as Reddit comprise the "Vocal Minority." No matter how much they whine, attention needs to be payed towards which servers are running, which addons are active on these servers, and where the multiplayer population congregates. Assumptions have to be made about Singleplayer unless it's monitored and reported on to the devs. After that's done, you can start appeasing the forums. Which, by the way, will not actually appease them and is more likely to just piss them off that you changed the game for the worse, even if you changed it like they wanted.

Moral of the story? Make the game you want to make, so that it can make money, and get good reviews to make even more money, and continue support so that more people will buy the game thus creating a never-ending spiral of hype and win. If someone is being whiny about your characters looking like bug-eyed aliens, eff them because you made that decision based on information you had and the grand goal that you wanted to accomplish. We don't need M-16 vs AK-47 Clone #254, we need something different that inspires people to have fun in other ways and create even more awesomeness. In the end, Arma 3 is just a game. If you can't find it in yourself to have fun playing a game, go find somewhere else to have fun.

[mistyronin 1181]

So by Misty's reasoning, everyone (except a minority of people who actually enjoy playing Arma 3, despite it seeming not sci-fi enough for its +21 years from today future) wants an M-16 vs AK-47 game again.

If after reading my posts, you think that I want a M16 vs AK47 game, is that your reading comprehension is 0 or you are just trolling ( tell me if it's the case so I can send a report ). The rest of your post doesn't even deserve a comment.

BTW the one that says that A3 has a sci-fi setting is Marek Spanel.

[barakokula31 10]

...stuff...

So, by your logic, the devs should add more things for Altis Life and that zombie mod?

[theevancat 277]

I, for one, actually enjoy the CSAT uniforms from the base game. Yeah, this is probably weird coming from me but I understood other peoples' preferences and did something for them.

I personally like science fiction and the future. I think that it is tomorrow. How cool would it be to live in a house where everything is high tech and networked? To drive a car that doesn't run on gas and can go five times to mileage per gallon? On the warfare side, who doesn't want Spartan armor and capabilities enhanced by the digital age?

I agree that, for the setting, it isn't futuristic enough. Especially with NATO/US. But the CSAT troops are pretty awesome and unique compared to what I've seen. However, modern warfare is fine as well. Basically, I don't mind either.

[lexx 1331]

I kind of hope to see the railgun tank again some day in the future, even if it's just a one-of-a-kind prototype in the story.

And to say again, I also love the CSAT faction. Actually, I like them a lot more than NATO and also still hope we will see a campaign for them at some point. This campaign then should also show a different, "not so evil" side of them. Getting rid of that silly black and white stuff in the story, yadda-yadda.

Oh, and the Kamysh looks awesome, btw.

[2nd ranger 282]

I like them a lot more than NATO and also still hope we will see a campaign for them at some point. This campaign then should also show a different, "not so evil" side of them. Getting rid of that silly black and white stuff in the story, yadda-yadda.

Agreed. Enough with NATO campaigns, let's play as CSAT or AAF. There seems to be some aversion to playing as OPFOR. Very few user missions are from CSAT perspective, and when CSAT are the enemy, alot of the time the story is "CSAT have invaded and are killing civilians!". It reminds me of a tutorial mission someone made for Flashpoint, years ago. It was to demonstrate how to make dialogs or something, but it had a short cutscene at the start with General Guba standing in the middle of a town, and he says "HAHAHA! I am evil because I am Russian!". That seems to be most people's idea of the OPFOR faction in this series.

Anyway, I like CSAT. But I liked the original story that they were going to be the technologically superior faction. They currently have no advantage over NATO whatsoever. Except maybe an APC that has better armament. And an earthquake machine.

Edited July 7, 2014 by 2nd Ranger

[Bouben 3]

Agreed. Enough with NATO campaigns, let's play as CSAT or AAF. There seems to be some aversion to playing as OPFOR. Very few user missions are from CSAT perspective, and when CSAT are the enemy, alot of the time the story is "CSAT have invaded are are killing civilians!". It reminds me of a tutorial mission someone made for Flashpoint, years ago. It was to demonstrate how to make dialogs or something, but it had a short cutscene at the start with General Guba standing in the middle of a town, and he says "HAHAHA! I am evil because I am Russian!". That seems to be most people's idea of the OPFOR faction in this series.

Anyway, I like CSAT. But I liked the original story that they were going to be the technologically superior faction. They currently have no advantage over NATO whatsoever. Except maybe an APC that has better armament. And an earthquake machine.

I play with CSAT often. It is refreshing and I love Zafir.

[mistyronin 1181]

Agreed. Enough with NATO campaigns, let's play as CSAT or AAF.

Advertisment mode ON: in the campaign I'm working ( link in my signature ) you play as an AAF soldier.

Feel free to play the first missions.

Edited July 6, 2014 by MistyRonin

[redarmy 420]

I play my own created scenarios,

always as sud russian, or massis spetsnaz.

With the new csat alternative mod(awesome) im playing as "Iran" now.

Yes the common arma player will say opfor should be iran and therefor should be seen as evil,and the aggressor.

But last i checked in reality,iran didnt have 48military bases stationed on the border of US. Its the other way around haha.

Iran-peaceful

syria-peaceful

libya-used to be peaceful

Nato-expansionists!

[simon1279 51]

It's already released and it has even a replacement pack ( so you can play the vanilla campaign and missions with this new look ), check it in the Complete addons forum.

thank you very much, very appreciated, i hope one day to fight against these kind of units without to add a mod thought, hope for the expansion to have "human" opfors

[Corvinus 35]

I would've been surprised that NATO didn't have Future Warrior system already going.

But they do. At least both NATO Combat Goggles and Tactical Glasses have means for augmented reality.

It's perfectly feasible technology...

Great analysis, InstaGoat.