Arma Tac2 Arsenal Restrictions Discussion Thread

[Law.S]

In case there is confusion please do not remove Thermals for Crews. Thank you

 

[Winter]

the Right side the limited side only the gunslinger box is available longshot box has no arsenal (i just checked)

 

[Whitsel.M]

In case there is confusion please do not remove Thermals for Crews. Thank you

Already taken of. I'm watching out for y'all

the Right side the limited side only the gunslinger box is available longshot box has no arsenal (i just checked)

That's a mistake on my end then. I'll fix it and publish and update

 

[Kubbo.A]

All I wanted to say that this was a change in TAC2 that had been due for a long, long time and that all those that roam in TAC2 will be eternally grateful for your efforts. WODKA!! \o/

 

[Falleur.J]

Personally the times i have played on Tac2 with the MG42 have been among the best its so much fun to hose bullets down in a certain direction and create a kill-box by yourself and i wish that it would be added back i understand the compatibility with scopes for some is a limiting factor and i can agree in certain situations it is.

i would like the MG42 re-added or maybe think about getting a MG3 in the mod-list i do not know if the MG3 allows scopes but it would be worthwhile at least i would be able to run the classes i enjoy and not be limited to standard MG's.

Thanks
SPC. Falleur

 

[Binks.J]

Restrictions on uniforms fine. Will certainly make it easier to find the right uniform there is a overwhelming variety. As for weapon choices they should only be restricted if they're clearly OP. I have my own base load out I build my load outs from. With very limited exceptions I can build a load out that I can survive multiple engagements, and not need a resupply while remaining within 65 to 80lbs depending on the role I want to play. Most the time we roll to 2-3 AOs and RTB to resupply and heal anyways. So restricting weapons down to certain calibers serves no real purpose. If pub players really want restricted equipment and roles then why aren't they enlisting? It's the same minority making the push for highly restricted Arsenals that have been poked and prodded to join for years but won't join.

We finally have a great mission file on TAC2 after years of hard work. Let's not kill the population on the server with excessive restrictions. Thermals don't care. Uniforms don't care. Restricting weapons to the point that only 5.56 and 7.62 are the only options not cool. That's what official 7CAV operations are for. I have said if before the reason TAC1 is practically dead population wise is it is too restrictive, vanilla Arma being terrible aside . Moving TAC2 in the direction of TAC1 would be a mistake.

P.S. I would like .50 Beowulf underbarrel back please.

 

[Maco.D]

It's not a case of Public players wanting to restrict its a case of trying to be as like Private Cav Ops so what we use in the Cav in Ops is what should be available in Tac 2 while being a little be loser. As Alot of the time people will enlist from Tac 2 to then join and say I want what tac 2 is where the Cav isnt. It doesn't Make alot of sense to allow people to wear anything that would make someone look like Opfor faction. Is a MCC was to happen a zeus can just spawn in different Kit to suit that MCC.

^My own thoughts on subject but 9 years with Cav^

 

[Whitsel.M]

Restricting weapons to the point that only 5.56 and 7.62 are the only options not cool.

Just looking at the infantry real quick, we have access to .338, .45, .50 BW, 5.56, 7.62x51, 12Ga, 9x19mm, 9x39, 7.62x45, 5.45, 5.7, 5.8, 6.5x39, 9.3. That doesn't even begin to include everything available to something like longshot. The goal is by no means to restrict everyone to 5.56 and 7.62 as detailed in the top post.

P.S. I would like .50 Beowulf underbarrel back please.

Also, literally just took this screenshot on Tac 2

I would suggest taking a little bit closer look at everything you have access to. There are few things that are outright restricted.

 

[Johnson.C]

As I thought... I just received a few PM's from some very regular pub players tonight... This was the poignant one; "they ruined tac 2 for me ima stat looking for another similar server".


This person has played hundreds (if not thousands) of hours on tac2 and in one day you made this player want to leave... To remove non-problematic ammo types (ir Tracer 5.56, AP 5.56 etc....), to remove a pile of non-problematic firearms, just because you don't want to use iron sights weapons...

I'm in the game right now as an Atlas 2 along with 2 other people.. 2 of us can use the arsenal, the other cant... even though we are all the same MO...

If you want all tactical server then make it a private server... if you want a public server, then you may have to accept the fact that some people will lone wolf, be goofy and be un-tactical... as long as they are behaving overall and not causing a real disturbance that requires an MP, why punish everyone.

 

[Johnson.C]

Also, in the last couple weeks is the first time I have ever seen a Zeus come online, and SHUT DOWN all the AO's and disabled AI spawning, to force everyone to participate in their MCC. I have been around for years, as a random pub player, CAV member, and CAV DISCH, and have NEVER seen that happen. My experience in the server is when an MCC is made, players are asked and an area is designated for the MCC and non MCC players are asked to avoid that area. Players who are just looking for the regular gameplay could still do their thing and those looking for more played the MCC.


If the server resources are so much better now as have been said consistently since the Christmas break update, why can' we not run regular AO's and an MCC at the same time? Why are we pigeonholing players in to super specific roles and game play on a public "fun" server used to peak interest in the cav.



As to the weapons... if a weapon was OP, then sure remove it (Frag rounds in a shotgun for example), but why remove something because its not what you may want to use, or the exact things the cav uses? If a guy wants to rock a Lee Enfield rifle with iron sights along players running m4's... who does that hurt? Nobody.

 

[Whitsel.M]

I just received a few PM's from some very regular pub players tonight... This was the poignant one; "they ruined tac 2 for me ima stat looking for another similar server"

I would ask those people to share their feedback as it does nobody any good to say "Tac2 is ruined" and stop playing. We've created these threads to seek input to serve our player base better. We've implemented the changes in direct response to player feedback and involved extensive discussion on how best to address the issues presented. Everybody has different opinions and will have different feelings about what changes and what stays the same, so we must effectively communicate those things to facilitate a healthy public server environment. That said, I understand that changes were not made without thought and discussion between several people also heavily involved in Tac2, so I would like to take the chance to explain some of these decisions a little further.

(ir Tracer 5.56, AP 5.56 etc....)

Regarding the couple of ammo types that were restricted, I will show you these three clips I just took. I've purposefully left them unlabeled, and the ammo type in use is revealed at the end to facilitate better approaching these with an open mind.

5.56mm Ammo

https://i.gyazo.com/56e22c76c9b6719d2805ebdd1e60b368.mp4

https://i.gyazo.com/5bc9b70f99ea0c2d50e1e484f3be4cd7.mp4

https://i.gyazo.com/d9d5a6f229cbfba24f66aad62327bad9.mp4

See more

In short, the ACE 5.56mm ammo types were not removed for being OP; we removed them because they are poorly configured and barely work with RHS assets. This discrepancy creates issues for players ignorant to this, believing that the medical setting or AI settings are broken when it is an entirely separate issue making seemingly invincible AI. Many ACE ammo types create wildly inconsistent damage models under even the best of circumstance.

As to the weapons... if a weapon was OP, then sure remove it (Frag rounds in a shotgun for example), but why remove something because its not what you may want to use, or the exact things the cav uses? If a guy wants to rock a Lee Enfield rifle with iron sights along players running m4's... who does that hurt? Nobody.

to remove a pile of non-problematic firearms, just because you don't want to use iron sights weapons...

The problem isn't using iron sights; the problem is that it is nearly impossible to operate as an effective team when a rifleman can barely engage targets up close, at a distance, provide suppression, or do many other tasks. Weapons identified to have these kinds of issues were removed because they made trying to work with other players problematic. The majority of the arsenal is not used by the Cav in any official capacity yet is still enabled to provide variety where it doesn't cause compromises in gameplay for others.

I'm in the game right now as an Atlas 2 along with 2 other people.. 2 of us can use the arsenal, the other cant... even though we are all the same MO...

There are a few issues that players identified that are already being addressed by S3. Providing information on specific issues encountered allows us to fix them quickly, so thank you for bringing this to our attention. Longshot had a similar problem, and it is likely the same source.

If you want all tactical server then make it a private server... if you want a public server, then you may have to accept the fact that some people will lone wolf, be goofy and be un-tactical... as long as they are behaving overall and not causing a real disturbance that requires an MP, why punish everyone.

The goal here is not to punish. The player base generally feels a sense of reward when operating tactically to achieve otherwise difficult or impossible goals. We seek to provide an environment to facilitate milsim and Tactical Realism. As with anything, there is a balance to be stuck. Understand that for many, tactical gameplay is the reward, and such behavior is a disturbance to the very reason they seek to play on the server. You are completely right some people will be goofy and un-tactical but we wish to provide an environment that encourages tactical team-based play.

Also, in the last couple weeks is the first time I have ever seen a Zeus come online, and SHUT DOWN all the AO's and disabled AI spawning, to force everyone to participate in their MCC. I have been around for years, as a random pub player, CAV member, and CAV DISCH, and have NEVER seen that happen. My experience in the server is when an MCC is made, players are asked and an area is designated for the MCC and non MCC players are asked to avoid that area. Players who are just looking for the regular gameplay could still do their thing and those looking for more played the MCC.


If the server resources are so much better now as have been said consistently since the Christmas break update, why can' we not run regular AO's and an MCC at the same time? Why are we pigeonholing players in to super specific roles and game play on a public "fun" server used to peak interest in the cav.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention, and know that S3 is addressing the issue of AOs being shut down for MCCs. Thanks to the hard work of S3 Public Staff, Development Staff, and S6, we have seen substantial boosts in performance on our servers. That said, as with any game, but especially Arma, the servers have their limits. We are currently simulating several hundred AI at a given time, so it can be challenging to find a balance, especially when players are looking to do different things. We continue to improve performance and provide the best milsim gaming experience that Arma and modern computer hardware can create.

 

[Zlobin.N]

Also, in the last couple weeks is the first time I have ever seen a Zeus come online, and SHUT DOWN all the AO's and disabled AI spawning, to force everyone to participate in their MCC. I have been around for years, as a random pub player, CAV member, and CAV DISCH, and have NEVER seen that happen. My experience in the server is when an MCC is made, players are asked and an area is designated for the MCC and non MCC players are asked to avoid that area. Players who are just looking for the regular gameplay could still do their thing and those looking for more played the MCC.


If the server resources are so much better now as have been said consistently since the Christmas break update, why can' we not run regular AO's and an MCC at the same time? Why are we pigeonholing players in to super specific roles and game play on a public "fun" server used to peak interest in the cav.



As to the weapons... if a weapon was OP, then sure remove it (Frag rounds in a shotgun for example), but why remove something because its not what you may want to use, or the exact things the cav uses? If a guy wants to rock a Lee Enfield rifle with iron sights along players running m4's... who does that hurt? Nobody.

Server performance is improved, not server resources. It was improved through better control of AI numbers. Anyone who has told you that the server resources have been improved probably meant that the same amount of resources are being spent more wisely.

Just going to point out that lonewolfing explicitly causes problems for other players because of this. The server can handle at most about ~170 AI before fps will start to degrade for everyone. If a single person is going out and activating spawn zones then it is possible to get quite a lot of the AI cap allocated just to themselves, which leaves less for everyone else. The current system is biased to give large groups of people most if not all of the AI cap, however there does not exist a good way to guarantee that at this time.

Ideally we would mathematically figure out when someone is on their own, and give them as little AI as possible when the situation requires it, but right now it is possible for a single person to spawn in an entire towns worth of AI or more, which are now going to stay there until they are killed or the player leaves the zone. If other players activate zones when there are too many AI, then nothing will spawn, which can cause a dearth in contact which is a problem if its happening to a group of players who should be getting more.

So yes lonewolfing causes a real disturbance.

 

[Sutodoreh.W]

Created an account specifically to post about this, because I think it's that important. I'm a longtime public player on both TR servers (top 30 players by score on both TR1 and TR2, on two separate usernames), and even played going as far back as the Arma 2 OA days. I've always been a serious player who sticks with the squad, plays the objective, doesn't equip goofy things like priest outfits and thermobaric grenades, etc., and have always loved the experience, so please don't take this criticism as just trolling or something. (I was even convinced recently to fill out enlistment papers, though I haven't quite made up my mind about submitting them.)

Some of the recent changes that many have been skeptical about (e.g. the group-system rework from a couple weeks ago) I've come to really like or, at least, to see the positives along with the negatives—yesterday's arsenal changes are not one of those. I like the tactical, serious aspect of the servers, but weapons are currently restricted to a point that I genuinely have zero desire to play any sort of infantry role whatsoever.

Entirely possible that I'm in the minority on this but everybody at spawn today seemed to unanimously agree. There have been plenty of changes over the years that I haven't necessarily agreed with, but this is the first one I can remember to go so far as to make playing so unenjoyable that I'd rather just log off instead.

Big love to those of you who have put so much time and effort into designing and maintaining the server but please, please, please consider reverting these changes! In my opinion, weapons should be restricted on an individual basis if/when players begin abusing them or they otherwise become problems, not lump-removed without causing issues.

P.S. to be clear, I fully support restrictions on uniforms and such, especially some of the sillier ones like priest outfits, as well as changes meant to encourage squad play. It's the weapon/gear restrictions that (in my opinion) go way too far—I'm in no way affected by another player running the M1 Garand or MG42, or thermal sights, or M2010, or anything else that doesn't have increased trolling potential such as stun grenades or high explosive 40mm.

 

[Whitsel.M]

Created an account specifically to post about this, because I think it's that important. I'm a longtime public player on both TR servers (top 30 players by score on both TR1 and TR2, on two separate usernames), and even played going as far back as the Arma 2 OA days. I've always been a serious player who sticks with the squad, plays the objective, doesn't equip goofy things like priest outfits and thermobaric grenades, etc., and have always loved the experience, so please don't take this criticism as just trolling or something. (I was even convinced recently to fill out enlistment papers, though I haven't quite made up my mind about submitting them.)

Some of the recent changes that many have been skeptical about (e.g. the group-system rework from a couple weeks ago) I've come to really like or, at least, to see the positives along with the negatives—yesterday's arsenal changes are not one of those. I like the tactical, serious aspect of the servers, but weapons are currently restricted to a point that I genuinely have zero desire to play any sort of infantry role whatsoever.

Entirely possible that I'm in the minority on this but everybody at spawn today seemed to unanimously agree. There have been plenty of changes over the years that I haven't necessarily agreed with, but this is the first one I can remember to go so far as to make playing so unenjoyable that I'd rather just log off instead.

Big love to those of you who have put so much time and effort into designing and maintaining the server but please, please, please consider reverting these changes! In my opinion, weapons should be restricted on an individual basis if/when players begin abusing them or they otherwise become problems, not lump-removed without causing issues.

P.S. to be clear, I fully support restrictions on uniforms and such, especially some of the sillier ones like priest outfits, as well as changes meant to encourage squad play. It's the weapon/gear restrictions that (in my opinion) go way too far—I'm in no way affected by another player running the M1 Garand or MG42, or thermal sights, or M2010, or anything else that doesn't have increased trolling potential such as stun grenades or high explosive 40mm.

I want to thank you for your feedback. It means a lot and helps us understand better how to make the server fun and tactically relevant. Restrictions have been a long-standing struggle for years and a source of debate and contention for the community. Tac2 has gone through a cycle of changes jumping between highly restricted and highly open arsenals, which we've inevitably always found both positive and negative results in both. That is an attempt to find a middle ground between the two ends of the spectrum. There is absolutely room for improvement, so we will continue to welcome these discussions.

Regarding specific gear changes, I'd like to ask you to provide a list of specific removed weapons that you feel should be allowed. You've already mentioned the M1 Garand, MG42, and thermal sights (Presumably the AN/PAS-13G(V)1, TWS, TWS MG, and Nightstalker). S3 can discuss and consider specific points that players bring us, but it is challenging to act on more generalized information such as arsenals merely being 'too restricted.'

To comment on the M2010, another feature added with this is different arsenals for different slots. As such, certain things are available to some roles that are not available to others. This feature did have issues on Day 1 where longshot and Sparrow couldn't access their respective kits, but we had since fixed the problem. All snipers are included for the Longshot roles exclusively to give their role a unique purpose. There can be adjustments made to this system too of course.

 

[WilsonJ]

Primarily, I play as a medic. I admit I have a select few people I enjoy playing with in smaller groups and don't like large tactical operations. I find they can tend to get drawn out and I've participated in a number of MCC's where I've never been put in a position to even fire a shot. Limiting gear to certain roles and cutting what gear can be used so drastically, makes me have no desire to return to the server. I enjoy playing as a medic but loading up a sniper rifle just in case. It all depends on the map and the area we're engaging. I like to load my vehicle to be prepared for whatever situation I may run into but I'm not able to do that now.
Also, as Johnson mentioned, certain Zeus operators are forcing MCC's on everyone and, if you don't like it, get off the server. If certain Zeus are online, I won't even log on. Lately there's been absolutely no regard shown for players that are not interested in their MCC's. I come to the server because I want to play the maps available. Its a public server and some Zeus' are treating its like their own private playground and making people not interested in participating feel unwelcome.

 

[Zlobin.N]

Its just that if you can be completely self sufficient, what reason do you have to play with anyone else?

 

[WilsonJ]

Its just that if you can be completely self sufficient, what reason do you have to play with anyone else?

But that's exactly why I loved Tac2. If I wasn't in the mood to deal with certain people, I didn't have to. I could collect my small group of friends and we could do our own thing. If we wanted to play with everyone else, we could. Now we're forced to go in one line, in one direction that's more or less dictated by whoever is leading the main group. If we don't, then leave the server. I've been playing on 7th Cav servers for years now. I've taken my breaks from it from time to time but this is the one game, the one server I never got bored of and always returned to. Unfortunately with these new updates, that's gone.

 

[Maco.D]

Speaking from my own Cav experience and im not part of the department that handles our public server.

So what you need to understand is Tac 2 is our main way of recruiting for the Cav. So the changes that are happening are to encourage people to work as a team. When people choose to join us as a member a lot of the time they say they wanted the Tac 2 experience. In their mind its having a army's worth of kit to use not take orders and when told they can they leave. So the changes are to focus people on the role they are slotted as and rely on their team mates to back them up. This is also to try and make the experience on tac 2 a mirror of what our private missions would feel like but of course on a smaller scale. This is why we do the big public missions as part of a recruitment drive to really showcase what we do and what you could experience when everyone is on the same page. i do think you can use other weapons you just cant get them at the box such things like AT and the such from the box spawner. Tho have not tested that as of yet

I hope this has helped in the understanding that these changes was not done on a whim but looking to the future of reaching the type of people that we can bring in to experience what the Cav can offer.

 

[Johnson.C]

Its just that if you can be completely self sufficient, what reason do you have to play with anyone else?

Not so much self sufficient and lone wolfing is Wilson meaning (as I'm usually with him, as this server is where we became good friends. Then later, dare I say it, best IRL friends. We usually kit up as a rifleman and a medic. We would take an AT crate and may load a long range rifle into a vic. Then we would roll out... often when we are the only players or 2 of like 7 on at the time. Once more people come online and fill the rolls we no longer have to assist ourselves as much with temporary "outside of our MO's scope", and just play and support others... but now.. unless there is like 15+ people it will be hard for us to have fun in a low pop server.

 

[Zlobin.N]

Not so much self sufficient and lone wolfing is Wilson meaning (as I'm usually with him, as this server is where we became good friends. Then later, dare I say it, best IRL friends. We usually kit up as a rifleman and a medic. We would take an AT crate and may load a long range rifle into a vic. Then we would roll out... often when we are the only players or 2 of like 7 on at the time. Once more people come online and fill the rolls we no longer have to assist ourselves as much with temporary "outside of our MO's scope", and just play and support others... but now.. unless there is like 15+ people it will be hard for us to have fun in a low pop server.

Once you have the equipment you have it until its taken away from you though. So essentially the only thing that makes it temporary is your word that it will be temporary, unless we can confiscate that equipment whenever we want.