Different Player Faction

[That guy 10]

i would also love to see some official non-american campaigns. (like harvest red from the CHDKZ perspective). course it makes sense to include americans on both a business level, and scenario level. we have military personnel in almost every country on earth, and tend to be quite ready to stick our noses where others fear to tread, or cant be bothered too :p

now that we almost have OA we have all the necessary US land forces (USA, USMC), and it opens the doors for BIS to get more varied content out into the world (unless BIS next expansion will cover the USAF or USN for some bizarre reason).

on a final note: even vanilla to vanilla ArmA2 kicks the crap outa "that-other-game". even longevity and with no mods. how long did we have to play OFP before the really good mods start coming out? a wile

[AnimalMother92 10]

I tend to play as US forces because I have a better understanding of how their military works and they also happen to have better weapons. I have very little interest in buying/using other countries' stuff. I don't mind messing around as NAPA from time to time but I don't feel the same suspension of disbelief if I play a mission as a British marine for example.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Voted "I don't care". Unless there is enough to build a reasonable army of of them, they will be of less use. If I wanted to play the British SAS, I would have to do it being supported or having other British forces around me. If I had to rely on US support troops, then the idea of being British doesn't "work in my head", and play them as USMC Force Recon instead.

[bwc153 10]

BIS screwed up big time with the AK sights, something they haven't fixed since Armed Assault. Try vilas' weapon pack to see how they should have been.

I have shotten an AK-47 in real life (semi auto only however), and the sights are much easier to use, however I still prefer the sights of other guns, although those same guns i would prefer their sight to the US weapon sights as well :P. I will try Vilas weapons, for some reason i have not used them... Really not sure why....

Edited June 22, 2010 by bwc153

[Lethn 10]

@MadDogX

It's one thing to create a relatively simple editor for singleplayer missions and multiplayer missions and to let you edit game modes. It is another thing entirely to actually code the game to the point where absolutely anything can be cleanly edited and put up as an entirely modded version of the game. Oblivion and I'm almost ashamed to say Fallout 3 ( Because of how blatantly buggy and glitchy it was ) are actually designed with modding in mind you can quickly put in a merchant in any area you want for instance without too much bother.

There is also the problem of compatability MadDogX if Bohemia don't pick up the slack in areas or officially support certain mods ( Why not put the actual skins in multiplayer for people to freely use if they have no problem with their accuracy? ) then it will segregate the communities who want to play with certain mods on their game and it will mean that it will take longer for the game to get a good multiplayer player base up and running.

I have plenty of idea of what I'm talking about, if you're going to disprove me at least have the decency to do it through facts rather than obscure quotes and smartass comments.

Edited June 22, 2010 by Lethn

[maddogx 13]

@Lethn

Interesting examples you chose there, considering that neither Oblivion nor Fallout 3 have any form of multiplayer. You're comparing apples with oranges here. Player customizability is not the same as modding, and no, BIS cannot just slap a bunch of third party textures into the game for various reasons. Copyright issues first and foremost.

And then you have to think about the cost of implementing a system that allows people to choose custom uniforms, despite the fact that it would ultimately have zero gameplay benefits. I really don't see much point in that, besides players being able to stroke their egos.

Your "idea" seems to revolve around turning Arma2 into a fancy dress party, because you either have personal issues with playing as an American soldier, or you think Arma2 should be more like Unreal Tournament.

[Lethn 10]

It's not comparing apples with oranges at all, using these principles is the exact same as it is in singleplayer as it is with multiplayer the only difference is that you have to upload the stuff to a master server and make sure the whole network updates properly.

If you want me to use an example of good multiplayer modding then fine, look at valve, as much as I detest their business practices sometimes they have made one of the most easily accessable and simple multiplayer engines in the market. Not only that, they've made it so that it is incredibly simple to set up your own dedicated servers for the game as well and even provide developer software to use. Copyright issues my arse, I bet most modders would be delighted to see some official support going into what they've created. Unlike most corporations gamers and modders aren't a bunch of greedy leeching scumbags so I bet the most they would have to do is agree to putting them in the credits and that'd be that.

It's hillarious how the people who object to my ideas object to it even when I am soley wanting to at least have the option available so people can freely use it without being punished in an almost fascist dictatorship way.

[Militant1006 11]

Some interesting conversations here, so far it seems that most people want non-american content, personally i prefer playing as western nations over eastern ones, just because of more familiarity with the equipment.

The problem with the U.S. for me is that they always have so much support, so it's not as much of a challenge to play as them because you have an abrams to your left, a Bradley to your right, artillery behind you and an apache above you, the only sides which the Americans are not on are in front of you, cause the enemies there, and below you, cause the ground's there.

[Inkompetent 0]

Non-American campaigns? Yes please. Even though the AK-sights are Terribad-2000â„¢ I still enjoy insurgency-missions.

Other skins? Silly. It'd completely break the scenario-feel to start with. And how reasonable is it to send maybe 10MB of data to 50 other people at the start of a mission just because one is vain like a primadonna and can't use what one is assigned but have to use custom stuff?

[Militant1006 11]

On the AKM sights note i have never fired an AK of any type, but i would have to agree with everyone that the sights don't seem right, I've fired an Austeyr and and M-16, as well as heaps of pistols and old rifles but i can't name them all. On every game i've played besides ArmA 2 the AK sights have been "raised up" a bit more than ArmA 2's.

[Inkompetent 0]

On the AKM sights note i have never fired an AK of any type, but i would have to agree with everyone that the sights don't seem right, I've fired an Austeyr and and M-16, as well as heaps of pistols and old rifles but i can't name them all. On every game i've played besides ArmA 2 the AK sights have been "raised up" a bit more than ArmA 2's.

Problem really is depth of field of view and two-eyed aiming. The rear post on sights should be much less visible on all weapons, to a differing degree depending on sight type/distance to the eye, but it is tricky to do properly. Other games compensate for this by raising the front post on 'troublesome' sights like the AK ones, but since they don't have any kind of bullet drop either usually, and don't expect you to fire anywhere up to 500m with said drop, it makes it easier. We kind'a need proper sights to make them workable.

The peep-hole of M16s is easier to cheat with since one gets it closer to the eye, so just toss in a extra large peep hole and it's fixed.

I guess the same could be done for AKs though. I.e. make the indent in the rear post so large that one actually can see something around the front post, instead of getting a continous line of black (which it more or less is IRL when aiming with just one eye).

With 3D screens and stuff becoming more common we might in some years actually see proper two-eyed vision (i.e. increasing positional difference on screen the closer something gets and resulting percieved transparancy), but before that we're stuck with poor compromises (unless going back to the old OFP 2D sights of course! :D )