Arma Tac2 Arsenal Restrictions Discussion Thread

[Johnson.C]

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.

Yes Zlobin, you do have my word... and I hope the hundreds if not thousands of hours of my dedication to the Tac2 server over the years would have been a good faith of that. Its also called self-control, and community policing... like when I see a player in an airframe not on TS... I message them politely and inform them of the server rules and help get them setup. If it becomes an issue then I call an MP. Why can we not do that? Improper uniform/outfits... fine remove em... keyhole'ing (pigeonhole'ing) all players because a few abuse the system... why not punish the habitual problem makers...

 

[Whitfield.L]

Could we get the vanilla 7.62 150r Softpacks back for the CAF Mk48. Think the functionality & versatility of being able to switch between calibers (5.56mm/7.62mm) was a very fun & useful function on it.

Perhaps only the Sniper Slot in Longshot could have access to Sniper Rifles (.338+). The spotter should really be limited to DMRs such as the Mk14 EBR or M110 at most. It is Sniper / Spotter after all, they should be working together as a team, to deliver accurate fire down range. Also, then things get dicey, you’re gonna much prefer having a semi-auto rifle instead of relying on a Glock or Bolt-Action to defend yourself...

 

[Zlobin.N]

Yes Zlobin, you do have my word... and I hope the hundreds if not thousands of hours of my dedication to the Tac2 server over the years would have been a good faith of that. Its also called self-control, and community policing... like when I see a player in an airframe not on TS... I message them politely and inform them of the server rules and help get them setup. If it becomes an issue then I call an MP. Why can we not do that? Improper uniform/outfits... fine remove em... keyhole'ing (pigeonhole'ing) all players because a few abuse the system... why not punish the habitual problem makers...

We just have to deal with public players who likely will have a fraction of your playtime. Also did we not try the community policing and self control thing with the totally open vehicle spawner? Didnt people regularly abuse that?

I would really like it if people could have the self control to not abuse some of the freedoms we give them, but over the past few months that seems to not have been the case. It has been a regular problem in the recent past, from what information I can gather the vehicle spawner was abused almost on a daily basis.

 

[Dio.B]

After reading through some replies here, I have a few thoughts on the matter of restrictions as a whole.
It seems most of the sentiment here is that, some of you will now be forced to adjust the way you play because of the restrictions. I understand that and I know it's going to be a slight learning curve especially if you got used to running kit that has since been restricted. Some of you feel like the fun is gone, never to return; S3 has somehow created a public server wasteland that is never to succeed because there is no longer free reign over loadouts....
I challenge that, and I challenge you;
You have probably grown accustomed to having a multitude of medics around you and having all the ammo you need, and every gear for every possible situation at hand. But seriously try to play without that and you'll find a much different experience. One that, may be harder to manage at first but can be super rewarding when you do. I have always restricted myself and have been able to clear caches and intel.markers.with 2 people and 0 special permissions. It's not impossible and it seems a lot of the sentiment here is that S3 is making tac2 "unplayable". Usually people want volume of ai to shoot and they want to make them more challenging, but ask yourself how much we can do with them before they are overwhelmed by the arsenal you drive around with and then the superior support assets that are always at hand. This not only creates a better environment for all roles to work together - it makes the server generally more challenging, more immersive, easier to manage, more effective as a collective force, creates dynamics that require you to react to( other than : monkey see target monkey shoot target). maneuverability and tactic is what wins against ai when you do not overwhelm them with the full.might of modern day warfare. That's what I believe s3 is trying to push for-players to start working as a team to maneuver and outplay rather than create an environment where the main focus is on the killing of the enemy, we as players should be working to outsmart the ai. The firefight will be there and you will get your monkey set target monkey shoot target moment; just on your own terms and in your advantage tactically.

Arsenal restrictions also indirectly help most people that aren't quite versed with managing stamina, weight, and also being able to navigate and select gear you need vs gear that's redundant/not needed.
As much as you may feel your weapon choice is the deciding factor in your effectiveness, nothing truly beats the m4 platform ( on tac2, I don't want a gun debate nerd). It seems most people want to be seen as the guy to run the weirdo gun; the guy with all the quirks...but majority of the time I have seen over a few thousand hours and years that your "favourite gun/loadout" actually hinders you and your gameplay.
The mg42 is 11kg and the belts are heavy aswell(its also iron sights only).. the m249 is 7kg and you can "max" yourself out with 1200 rounds under 38kg( oh if that's not enough hey ask your battle buddy for a few 30rnd mag and keep going.) That's without the use of an assistant auto rifleman. The argument of restrictions hindering play just has no legs to stand on. Is there a slight adjustment some of you will have to make? Sure. Is it going to be harder? Yes absolutely. But is it impossible to play in low population without an entire arsenal in your vehicle? Absolutely not, it has never been... also there are medical vehicles that can be used as a CCP as they give everybody around them medical perms. It's not impossible guys you just have to rewire the way you play the game slightly.
In terms of thermal capabilities for infantry... its again not necessary and just makes it easier. We have a camo system, a constant flow of support assets, superior vehicles, weapons, human control( not hindered by script or game limitations imposed on ai) and sometimes a zeus to turn the tide.. yet still you feel the need to be able to spot ai using thermal sights whilst your enemy can't even see in the dark(lythium/tanoa). The game becomes bland and repetitive when you constantly overpower the ai with all this gear and tech. Nothing bums me out more then somebody around me saying : "hey don't worry I have thermals; the next 10 km ahead look clear." Now instead of swiveling my head expecting the unknown I'm scrolling through my.phone holding the w key. It does take away from the general experience of a realism server in that sense.
Since this is already a wall of text, here's another reason why restrictions can actually be of use to you: when choosing a sight, everybody naturally goes towards the highest zoom sight where they can read the name plate off the enemy uniform at 1200m out( usually not even accounting the fact that the sight they use is incompatible with the caliber they are firing) . When in reality that 50x zoom sight is doing you no good, as you try to hit 1 of 90 shots as you sway from your 5m sprint at 100kg. In reality your m68 cco which is a 1x zoom sight can be really useful even at 500m which is already pushing the limit of your weapon effective range. I know it seems like you need it but really it just makes it worse for yourself.

To be honest its business as usual for me. Nothing restricted affected my loadouts or the way I play and my experience stays constant. Ask yourself how much it was really worth beating the ai with all your fancy pants gear while they couldn't even see in the dark using Lee Enfields. This is a necessary "evil" if you want to be challenged on tac2.

 

[Chapman.K]

There's a reason I was fighting to keep Tac 1 alive as a more "unrestricted" version of Tac 2 and funneling people from there into Tac 2. I get we are supposed to be a "mil-sim" group, but that gets hard to believe when I see Cav members doing things on Tac 2 that would get them in a load of trouble if they did it during an official Op, public players see that an immediately assume it's ok to do that kind of stuff. Sure the restrictions are in the name of helping, but if your gonna restrict weapons in the name of "mil-sim" you need to restrict the guys using them and still going out an "accidentally" executing an entire village in front of public players. Or doming a captured ViP because you don't wanna drag him back to the LZ. Or any of the other various acts I see perpetrated on Tac 2 just about every time I'm on. I'm fine with restricting things but restricting weapons is only one step in my mind.

 

[Maco.D]

If you feel there are members breaking rules contact a MP or report it to your COC

 

[Maco.D]

Also these changes are things that's been requested by people to hopefully improve the server. Nothing is gonna be perfect so its all a progress

 

[Boyd.M]

Would it be possible to get the Canadian Forces mod berets back? unless there was a reason for removing them?

I found them as a zues, so maybe we could unrestrict those, i dont see the harm in me or anyone wearing a Canadian Forces beret

 

[Dio.B]

There's a reason I was fighting to keep Tac 1 alive as a more "unrestricted" version of Tac 2 and funneling people from there into Tac 2. I get we are supposed to be a "mil-sim" group, but that gets hard to believe when I see Cav members doing things on Tac 2 that would get them in a load of trouble if they did it during an official Op, public players see that an immediately assume it's ok to do that kind of stuff. Sure the restrictions are in the name of helping, but if your gonna restrict weapons in the name of "mil-sim" you need to restrict the guys using them and still going out an "accidentally" executing an entire village in front of public players. Or doming a captured ViP because you don't wanna drag him back to the LZ. Or any of the other various acts I see perpetrated on Tac 2 just about every time I'm on. I'm fine with restricting things but restricting weapons is only one step in my mind.

My argument to this is that; I can't blame members for falling in on the memes that happen on tac2. The lack of rulesets/guidelines on how to play on tac2 does not exist outside of our own Code of Conduct(where it is still vague on WHAT it is you are supposed to uphold - especially if you have not been exposed to our values). This is a problem as it makes it an uphill battle against people who play this game like any other shooter out there. The lack of a rule set that would essentially set the tone for play would absolutely turn that tide. It will be effective in creating a "culture" rather than leave it up to the populous to treat it as a sandbox - which in the end will have them treating arma as any regular FPS. I think role specific guildelines and rules/ROE can be very effective in keeping the balance and play style constant.

Adding to this, i will also say that newer members may have had very little exposure to the "proper way" of playing tac2 BECAUSE of the environment that can be found on there regularly. Aside from that, it is part of our Code of Conduct to uphold our values especially when it(Tac2) is the publics window into 1st Battalion and ultimately the 7th Cavalry.

In the end though, it is very difficult to sell milsim when the server itself does not guide you to do this niche thing on a game. In saying that, we can't just easily falter from the way our community plays Arma3 - as that is doing a disservice to its recruitment and retention efforts; aswell as the general interest of a community which signed up and joined mainly to play within a Milsim Community.

 

[WilsonJ]

I see a lot of posts from people against the change that were told to voice their opinions and promised they would be heard. I see responses to those posts filled the underlying message that, this is how it is, this is what we want, deal with it. Our concerns that were promised to be heard and considered have simply fallen on deaf ears and its unfortunate.

 

[Whitsel.M]

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

This is the case. If say your AT guy gets domed, someone that would not necessarily have access to a Javelin in the arsenal can still use it

Could we get the vanilla 7.62 150r Softpacks back for the CAF Mk48. Think the functionality & versatility of being able to switch between calibers (5.56mm/7.62mm) was a very fun & useful function on it.

This is not an intentional function of the weapon and merely a byproduct of the poor configs in the mod. There are no weapons that can just slap in different caliber ammunition. The belt doesn't even fit into the feed tray.

Perhaps only the Sniper Slot in Longshot could have access to Sniper Rifles (.338+). The spotter should really be limited to DMRs such as the Mk14 EBR or M110 at most. It is Sniper / Spotter after all, they should be working together as a team, to deliver accurate fire down range. Also, then things get dicey, you’re gonna much prefer having a semi-auto rifle instead of relying on a Glock or Bolt-Action to defend yourself...

I just made the more generalized classes for sake of convenience since I was writing all that up in about 2 days. I'm in the process of refining the system to be more modular right now (it's a bit of a mess on the backend tbh). There are no plans in place right now for restricting each individual role (Rifleman, grenadier, AR, Sniper, Spotter, etc) but if it is something the player base is interested in that is an option the system is technically capable of. It would just take a bit to create the sheer number of different cases needed for that though.

Would it be possible to get the Canadian Forces mod berets back? unless there was a reason for removing them?

I found them as a zues, so maybe we could unrestrict those, i dont see the harm in me or anyone wearing a Canadian Forces beret

I just took them out cause there were so many and they kinda looked like shite IMO. I'll add some back in for a little variety.

I see a lot of posts from people against the change that were told to voice their opinions and promised they would be heard. I see responses to those posts filled the underlying message that, this is how it is, this is what we want, deal with it. Our concerns that were promised to be heard and considered have simply fallen on deaf ears and its unfortunate.

Given that I just spent most of the last 18 hours working to implement stuff in direct response to people's request that simply isn't the case. We welcome all feedback but for it to be reasonably actionable it needs to be reasonably specific. Most of the responses in this thread are long form theses on the fundamental nature of Tac 2 and whether it's good or bad. The feedback we've gotten that is specific (i.e. This role should have this weapon, these vehicles should be added for this group) is being acted on. That's not to suggest that every request is endorsed but all requests are considered and discussed. While I welcome the the greater esoteric discussion it oftentimes just isn't productive.

 

[Maco.D]

As gunslinger 4 is from what I can tell gonna be known as the heavy weapons squad so what they are able to get from the box. Also I get having like the support slots more restrictive tho will the whole squad of gunslinger 1-3 have the same access to weapons as I feel going from a AR- rifleman and restrict would be a bit far. Would it also be a push to readd the MK11 or at least maybe add to gunslinger 4.

 

[Moraru.R]

Whitsel.M - Would you agree that clarifying the intended nature of the Tac2 experience will at least put some discussions to rest? "Tac2 is meant to be ... "

 

[Maco.D]

The Tac 2 experience is what you make of it regardless if there is a set aim for what it should be.

 

[Moraru.R]

The Tac 2 experience is what you make of it regardless if there is a set aim for what it should be.

The audience that the server maintains however is directly influenced by what kind of mission files run.

As a hypothetical example, if Tac2 didn't feature airframes we probably wouldn't get many people interested in becoming pilots.

 

[Maco.D]

In that way you are asking 2 questions your original question what is the nature as in what is the purpose of tac 2 why do we have it, how does it benefit the cav and what should people take away from it.
Your second question was in your reply which was implies what is the purpose of the mission which is quite clear what the aim of the mission is.

Also on a second note Zlobin.N you spoke about a ROE update can we make sure a ROE for Civ's is included as well due to our tac 2 missions now using them. I have had many complaints from both Cav and public players of both Cav and public players not showing any regard to Civs and freely killing, calling in bomb runs on towns. If we can handle acting in the right manner towards having civs then they should be taken out of the server.

 

[Sorrow.R]

I personally do not think gear limitations should be a thing at all. There are already rules in place that tell people to not wear things like OPFOR gear or use OPFOR weapons. We're all adults and we have moderators on the servers to prevent tomfoolery from occurring.

I think that limiting what people can and cannot use will only further stagnate interest in playing Tac 2. I have that allegedly some people are tired of the "Rambo styled gameplay" (paraphrased) that Tac 2 has been offering and that that is one of the reasons the restrictions have been proposed. However, limiting what people can and cannot use is absolutely not the way to go, especially with the way it has currently been implemented (being that your access to weapons is restricted by role selection screen).

For one, what if your desired role is filled? Are you with your squad for some practice on Tac 2 for whatever circumstances? If the slot for your specific role is taken, you're SOL. Or perhaps you just prefer running a certain weapon, e.g. the M249 or the Noreen Bad News.

Secondly, weapon restrictions both inhibit and restrict the creativity and functionality of MCCs. What if a Zeus wants us to play as the bad guys? Or simply would prefer certain weapons not be used during the MCC. I doubt people are very interested in going through the effort of having to abort the mission, go back into role selection, then respawn back in. While for some that is no big deal, for others (myself included) that can take a rather annoying amount of time due to either slow computers or just the server is being slow.

If these changes are put in place in order to promote organization, I guarantee they will not. Most people I see on Tac 2 run rifleman regardless, so any limit to that won't affect the majority of players, but rather the minority who prefer a specialized role/weapon. What's worse if this is the case, there is NO INCENTIVE WHATSOEVER to organize in the first place. There are NO real objectives on Tac 2. The best we have currently is killing bad guys to find intel which leads us to more bad guys who are guarding intel which leads to more bad guys. It's boring and monotonous.

If you want to encourage organization and coordination, give us back the vanilla missions and tactical missions. Those were BY FAR the most effective thing I have ever seen on Tac 2 in my almost 1.5 years of being in the cav (the majority of that time being on Tac 2 until recently).

Punishing players by limiting what we can do will only encourage people to play less because they have to jump through, in my opinion, completely and utterly pointless hoops that benefit nobody, nor the server.

As someone who used to love playing tac 2, and who WANTS to want to play tac 2 again, for the love of God do not make it more restrictive. Bring back the vanilla missions. Bring back the vanilla tactical missions. And DON'T restrict us MORE on what we can and cannot use. Tac 2 is to have fun, not feel like your fun is being restricted because of, in my opinion, pointless rules.

 

[Zlobin.N]

I personally do not think gear limitations should be a thing at all. There are already rules in place that tell people to not wear things like OPFOR gear or use OPFOR weapons. We're all adults and we have moderators on the servers to prevent tomfoolery from occurring.

I think that limiting what people can and cannot use will only further stagnate interest in playing Tac 2. I have that allegedly some people are tired of the "Rambo styled gameplay" (paraphrased) that Tac 2 has been offering and that that is one of the reasons the restrictions have been proposed. However, limiting what people can and cannot use is absolutely not the way to go, especially with the way it has currently been implemented (being that your access to weapons is restricted by role selection screen).

For one, what if your desired role is filled? Are you with your squad for some practice on Tac 2 for whatever circumstances? If the slot for your specific role is taken, you're SOL. Or perhaps you just prefer running a certain weapon, e.g. the M249 or the Noreen Bad News.

Secondly, weapon restrictions both inhibit and restrict the creativity and functionality of MCCs. What if a Zeus wants us to play as the bad guys? Or simply would prefer certain weapons not be used during the MCC. I doubt people are very interested in going through the effort of having to abort the mission, go back into role selection, then respawn back in. While for some that is no big deal, for others (myself included) that can take a rather annoying amount of time due to either slow computers or just the server is being slow.

If these changes are put in place in order to promote organization, I guarantee they will not. Most people I see on Tac 2 run rifleman regardless, so any limit to that won't affect the majority of players, but rather the minority who prefer a specialized role/weapon. What's worse if this is the case, there is NO INCENTIVE WHATSOEVER to organize in the first place. There are NO real objectives on Tac 2. The best we have currently is killing bad guys to find intel which leads us to more bad guys who are guarding intel which leads to more bad guys. It's boring and monotonous.

If you want to encourage organization and coordination, give us back the vanilla missions and tactical missions. Those were BY FAR the most effective thing I have ever seen on Tac 2 in my almost 1.5 years of being in the cav (the majority of that time being on Tac 2 until recently).

Punishing players by limiting what we can do will only encourage people to play less because they have to jump through, in my opinion, completely and utterly pointless hoops that benefit nobody, nor the server.

As someone who used to love playing tac 2, and who WANTS to want to play tac 2 again, for the love of God do not make it more restrictive. Bring back the vanilla missions. Bring back the vanilla tactical missions. And DON'T restrict us MORE on what we can and cannot use. Tac 2 is to have fun, not feel like your fun is being restricted because of, in my opinion, pointless rules.

The premise that weapon restrictions inhibit and restrict the creativity and functionality of an MCC is wrong, and I think it stems from a misunderstanding of what these weapon restrictions are and how they are implemented currently.

We have so far restricted peoples access to certain weapons from the arsenal at main base, not the ability to use any given weapon or piece of gear with the sole exception of certain vehicles at the main base (tanks and aircraft pretty much). We do not inventory police, or stop players from using equipment they already have. So anyone with zeus access can give players whatever equipment they want, and anyone on the server would be free to use that equipment without any restrictions.

As for what happens when a desired role is already filled, what happens in cav ops? You pick another role, or you talk to someone in charge to work in the role you want.

 

[Sorrow.R]

The premise that weapon restrictions inhibit and restrict the creativity and functionality of an MCC is wrong, and I think it stems from a misunderstanding of what these weapon restrictions are and how they are implemented currently.

We have so far restricted peoples access to certain weapons from the arsenal at main base, not the ability to use any given weapon or piece of gear with the sole exception of certain vehicles at the main base (tanks and aircraft pretty much). We do not inventory police, or stop players from using equipment they already have. So anyone with zeus access can give players whatever equipment they want, and anyone on the server would be free to use that equipment without any restrictions.

As for what happens when a desired role is already filled, what happens in cav ops? You pick another role, or you talk to someone in charge to work in the role you want.

Not allowing players access to weapons and gear from the arsenal is, in and of itself, inventory policing. The only way people would be able to access the gear they want is to have a Zeus place down a new arsenal which, if what you say is not to police inventory, is contradictory. There is also the fact that a Zeus is not always available.

Addressing your point about the roles, I think it's somewhat outrageous to just tell people "tough" or expect them to have to talk to someone else to gain access to a role to be able to use your preferred small arms.

 

[Chapman.K]

Addressing your point about the roles, I think it's somewhat outrageous to just tell people "tough" or expect them to have to talk to someone else to gain access to a role to be able to use your preferred small arms.

Not to mention, just like with the vehicle restrictions and people crowding the atlas slots just so they can fly a raven as a sniper, you'll have people hogging the slots that give them the most gear because I've seen the "apocalypse" that is someone's Tac2 loadout getting messed up.