Arma Tac2 Arsenal Restrictions Discussion Thread

[Zlobin.N]

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.

We dont remove gear from peoples inventory, so no its not inventory policing. Once you have a gun you have it, and I think every gun we restrict from a role is restricted for a pretty good reason. If you have a concern about specific weapons we would welcome your feedback.

 

[Dio.B]

, 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.

unlikely, as it is; most infantry roles have the same restrictions between SL-GREN-RIFL-CLS. Same with Longshot and Pilots. Considering they can't now perform outside of their role BECAUSE of restriction i think the effect is actually the opposite of what you're claiming here. You can't grab anything that will enable you to do anything like that and if you tried, you would be severely under-geared and ill- prepared to survive without help.

 

[Sorrow.R]

We dont remove gear from peoples inventory, so no its not inventory policing. Once you have a gun you have it, and I think every gun we restrict from a role is restricted for a pretty good reason. If you have a concern about specific weapons we would welcome your feedback.

My concern is not with any specific gun, my concern is the restrictions in and of themselves. There's no reason for them to exist in the first place. And yes, I understand that you won't restrict people from having a weapon if they already have it, but then what's the point of restricting the access in the first place?

 

[Zlobin.N]

My concern is not with any specific gun, my concern is the restrictions in and of themselves. There's no reason for them to exist in the first place. And yes, I understand that you won't restrict people from having a weapon if they already have it, but then what's the point of restricting the access in the first place?

The reason the restrictions exist is because it gives mission makers passive control over how people play their roles. Control via active administration is a good idea in theory but it requires manpower that is not always available as much as we would like it to be. The reason we dont inventory police is because we want to retain flexibility, and give discretion to the people in charge (zeus) to control their force composition in case they want to run an MCC or an SP with restricted gear.

It has proven true in the past that having an uncontrolled force composition does not result in an acceptable environment on tac2.

 

[Sorrow.R]

unlikely, as it is; most infantry roles have the same restrictions between SL-GREN-RIFL-CLS. Same with Longshot and Pilots. Considering they can't now perform outside of their role BECAUSE of restriction i think the effect is actually the opposite of what you're claiming here. You can't grab anything that will enable you to do anything like that and if you tried, you would be severely under-geared and ill- prepared to survive without help.

Well infantry roles restricted in such a way remove the incentive to play. I do not recall ever hearing people complaining about an infantryman or sniper not playing their roles properly. If anything, the guns themselves already discourage improper use of them simply because of the function of the weapon themselves. Snipers are heavy, their ammo is heavy, and have very limitated capabilities in close range already, vice versa with a sniper using a rifle. However, should someone say play as longshot and completely forgo the role of longshot, just like with the roles such as eagle or buffalo, an MP can come in and make them leave from the role.

 

[Chapman.K]

unlikely, as it is; most infantry roles have the same restrictions between SL-GREN-RIFL-CLS. Same with Longshot and Pilots. Considering they can't now perform outside of their role BECAUSE of restriction i think the effect is actually the opposite of what you're claiming here. You can't grab anything that will enable you to do anything like that and if you tried, you would be severely under-geared and ill- prepared to survive without help.

I may be wrong then. My one concern is leveled about the types of players who like to jump into the atlas slot and go all medic/sniper/pilot and make it impossible to actually play the atlas role, as it were. It's possible we see a reduction in that with this restriction, it's also possible we see a rather significant loss in player base because they can't be as creative or fill a niche in low pop hours like some do. I see good and I see bad with it in the end.

 

[Sorrow.R]

The reason the restrictions exist is because it gives mission makers passive control over how people play their roles. Control via active administration is a good idea in theory but it requires manpower that is not always available as much as we would like it to be. The reason we dont inventory police is because we want to retain flexibility, and give discretion to the people in charge (zeus) to control their force composition in case they want to run an MCC or an SP with restricted gear.

It has proven true in the past that having an uncontrolled force composition does not result in an acceptable environment on tac2.

While compelling, your argument is incredibly flawed in the fact that an MCC is an event in tac 2, not the norm that is always going on. As often as they can be, or seldom be, emplacing major restrictions upon players for what is, in my opinion, not the primary purpose of tac 2 seems like administrators overreaching what they should actually be controlling. If a zeus is trully hellbent on a piece of gear not being used, I'm sure the people attending would be willing to comply.

 

[Sorrow.R]

I may be wrong then. My one concern is leveled about the types of players who like to jump into the atlas slot and go all medic/sniper/pilot and make it impossible to actually play the atlas role, as it were. It's possible we see a reduction in that with this restriction, it's also possible we see a rather significant loss in player base because they can't be as creative or fill a niche in low pop hours like some do. I see good and I see bad with it in the end.

If Atlas is being a major issue, perhaps then the restrictions be localized to only atlas. And even then it is a rather niche thing, given very few people who play tac 2 actually intend to use the atlas role seriously for FOB building. However, should someone come on I think our playerbase is mature enough to be willing to give up their role should the occasion arise.

 

[Chapman.K]

While compelling, your argument is incredibly flawed in the fact that an MCC is an event in tac 2, not the norm that is always going on. As often as they can be, or seldom be, emplacing major restrictions upon players for what is, in my opinion, not the primary purpose of tac 2 seems like administrators overreaching what they should actually be controlling. If a zeus is trully hellbent on a piece of gear not being used, I'm sure the people attending would be willing to comply.

Not to mention what will players do during low pop times on the server? When there's only 1-3 people on and multi-classing is needed to actually make the mission playable since everyone will need to be a medic with AT launchers and one of them carrying an AR.

 

[Zlobin.N]

While compelling, your argument is incredibly flawed in the fact that an MCC is an event in tac 2, not the norm that is always going on. As often as they can be, or seldom be, emplacing major restrictions upon players for what is, in my opinion, not the primary purpose of tac 2 seems like administrators overreaching what they should actually be controlling. If a zeus is trully hellbent on a piece of gear not being used, I'm sure the people attending would be willing to comply.

The restrictions for the majority of players are minor.

It has been evident that we need some sort of control, and I agree that a zeus may not always be present. This is also true of administrators who may enforce the ROE. This is why we need to have control that is not contingent on anyone, and the simplest vector thus identified has been the arsenal.

 

[Chapman.K]

The restrictions for the majority of players are minor.

It has been evident that we need some sort of control, and I agree that a zeus may not always be present. This is also true of administrators who may enforce the ROE. This is why we need to have control that is not contingent on anyone, and the simplest vector thus identified has been the arsenal.

I guess I just disagree on that front. Being the arsenal as the problem area. I have a few points on that subject but I'd would turn into a thesis if I typed here. Suffice to say it has less to do with the weapons than it does with people's attitudes towards one another and their inability to get along.

 

[Sorrow.R]

The restrictions for the majority of players are minor.

It has been evident that we need some sort of control, and I agree that a zeus may not always be present. This is also true of administrators who may enforce the ROE. This is why we need to have control that is not contingent on anyone, and the simplest vector thus identified has been the arsenal.

If your attempts to administrate do not affect the majority of players, then you yourself are admitting that the issue is not common. The minority of players are the ones who are adversely affected to issues that are not rampant enough to warrant such an extreme restriction.

 

[Zlobin.N]

If your attempts to administrate do not affect the majority of players, then you yourself are admitting that the issue is not common. The minority of players are the ones who are adversely affected to issues that are not rampant enough to warrant such an extreme restriction.

Again, the premise here is incorrect. The minority of players may be the problem, but this does not preclude it being a common issue because of the number of players who flow through this server. It was a common (daily) issue beforehand, and I will re-iterate that these restrictions are not extreme.

 

[Sorrow.R]

Again, the premise here is incorrect. The minority of players may be the problem, but this does not preclude it being a common issue because of the number of players who flow through this server. It was a common (daily) issue beforehand, and I will re-iterate that these restrictions are not extreme.

You cannot say that the risk of it happening due to the number of players who come in and out of the server in and of itself justifies this. And any restriction without a proper reason is extreme.

 

[Zlobin.N]

You cannot say that the risk of it happening due to the number of players who come in and out of the server in and of itself justifies this. And any restriction without a proper reason is extreme.

Why can I not say that it justifies this? If the risk of abuse is high enough why would it not justify restrictions? I think that we have been pretty reasonable with the restrictions so far.

 

[Dio.B]

It seems a lot of sentiment here is backed by emotional reaction rather than actually trying out this new thing we are doing... why don't some of you just try playing it the way it is and give your feedback from there? Alot of the reaction here is knee-jerk and baseless. You are knocking this thing before you have even tried it. This is not change for changes sake. please understand that...

It gets very old for somebody seeking milsim around our community when the environment we provide for them is not what we sell ourselves to be. There has recently been public players who very much enjoy playing team based milsim and have since joined because of what they saw on Tac2. some of these guys have even taken a liking to Squad leading - something that attracts crickets when called for because frankly without restriction there is no need for team play, and without a need for team play - well there no need for leadership. How fun is it really? Shooting AI mindlessly without worrying about movements, supplies, equipment, and the well-being of the players around you. It's boring after a while and you find yourself wanting different mission files, when what you really want is a more dynamic experience. We've gone through a multitude of mission files, mods, scripts... but never restrictions to this degree and refinement. Give it a chance, and try to play without every single piece of gear necessary to survive, you will find yourself cautious and working with people around you more often.

alot of these complaints are issues THAT DO NOT EVEN EXIST. Zeuses can spawn anything. Slots arents restricted down to infantry squad roles. It just seems like made up negativity to push an agenda, im sorry. You guys are plain ol' making up problems that are not issues. All the gear will be available to you when it is relevant to the play at hand - until then; it's just disruptive to the focus of the server to have 20 medic sniper pilots who remove the fun from somebody else who wants to play a specific role within a team ; which again is what our community play style is based off. You guys seem to be assuming things will just not be fun and creating these negative reactions without any actual experience playing it. It's unfair to the people in S3 working tirelessly to bring everybody a better/unique experience and not one that follows the path we've had for Tac2 since its inception. These guys literally spend all day debating about changes and how they would affect YOU. The least you can do is give it a shot and throw feedback from there. You might even find yourself enjoying a renewed relationship with the game.

I will also say this... and i hope this is taken in the most respectful way possible.... but when you enlist into this community you agree to these minimum requirements that state :
5. Must be willing to play in a Military and Tactical Realism Unit

6. Must be willing to take orders and follow the chain of command

Criticism is always welcome and in no way is debate unwelcome, but please... try the thing before you say it's bad. and like really try it.. don't get on tac2 for an hour and cry that you don't have a noreen bad news and quit... If you want to truly build a Tac2 that brings the cav together, then your continued presence and promotion of 7Cav culture and values on the public server is how we build a prosperous public server, and from there - a community.

 

[Sorrow.R]

Why can I not say that it justifies this? If the risk of abuse is high enough why would it not justify restrictions? I think that we have been pretty reasonable with the restrictions so far.

Risk in and of itself, in this situation, does not justify restrictions. If this were an issue that occurred repeatedly and consistently disturbed players then I would agree. However, risk in and of itself does not justify this kind of action.

If that were the case, friendly fire should be disabled due to the risk of blue on blue.

 

[Zlobin.N]

Risk in and of itself, in this situation, does not justify restrictions. If this were an issue that occurred repeatedly and consistently disturbed players then I would agree. However, risk in and of itself does not justify this kind of action.

If that were the case, friendly fire should be disabled due to the risk of blue on blue.

I would argue that yes, it has repeatedly and consistently disturbed players.

And we dont disable friendly fire because that would be too unrealistic.

 

[Sorrow.R]

It seems a lot of sentiment here is backed by emotional reaction rather than actually trying out this new thing we are doing... why don't some of you just try playing it the way it is and give your feedback from there? Alot of the reaction here is knee-jerk and baseless. You are knocking this thing before you have even tried it. This is not change for changes sake. please understand that...

It gets very old for somebody seeking milsim around our community when the environment we provide for them is not what we sell ourselves to be. There has recently been public players who very much enjoy playing team based milsim and have since joined because of what they saw on Tac2. some of these guys have even taken a liking to Squad leading - something that attracts crickets when called for because frankly without restriction there is no need for team play, and without a need for team play - well there no need for leadership. How fun is it really? Shooting AI mindlessly without worrying about movements, supplies, equipment, and the well-being of the players around you. It's boring after a while and you find yourself wanting different mission files, when what you really want is a more dynamic experience. We've gone through a multitude of mission files, mods, scripts... but never restrictions to this degree and refinement. Give it a chance, and try to play without every single piece of gear necessary to survive, you will find yourself cautious and working with people around you more often.

alot of these complaints are issues THAT DO NOT EVEN EXIST. Zeuses can spawn anything. Slots arents restricted down to infantry squad roles. It just seems like made up negativity to push an agenda, im sorry. You guys are plain ol' making up problems that are not issues. All the gear will be available to you when it is relevant to the play at hand - until then; it's just disruptive to the focus of the server to have 20 medic sniper pilots who remove the fun from somebody else who wants to play a specific role within a team ; which again is what our community play style is based off. You guys seem to be assuming things will just not be fun and creating these negative reactions without any actual experience playing it. It's unfair to the people in S3 working tirelessly to bring everybody a better/unique experience and not one that follows the path we've had for Tac2 since its inception. These guys literally spend all day debating about changes and how they would affect YOU. The least you can do is give it a shot and throw feedback from there. You might even find yourself enjoying a renewed relationship with the game.

I will also say this... and i hope this is taken in the most respectful way possible.... but when you enlist into this community you agree to these minimum requirements that state :
5. Must be willing to play in a Military and Tactical Realism Unit

6. Must be willing to take orders and follow the chain of command

Criticism is always welcome and in no way is debate unwelcome, but please... try the thing before you say it's bad. and like really try it.. don't get on tac2 for an hour and cry that you don't have a noreen bad news and quit... If you want to truly build a Tac2 that brings the cav together, then your continued presence and promotion of 7Cav culture and values on the public server is how we build a prosperous public server, and from there - a community.

As virtuous if a message that is, and one that I agree with, you are strawmanning the argument. There are not 20 medic snipers on the server. As a matter of fact, whenever I have been on tac 2, medics are more often NEEDED rather than overused. The made up issues here are ones by S3, and from what Zlobin has told me have been decided over risk, rather than an issue that exists (unless I have misinterpreted what he said, but I believe I understood him well enough).

I understand the desire to encourage cooperation, but forcing it on people is absolutely not the way to go. It will more likely incite people to fight rather than to come together because they do not want to play a role but have to. If you want to encourage cooperation, reward it in someway, do not force it.

I am not trying to disrespect or take S3's efforts for granted, but I will not blindly accept what they decide for that reason alone. A decision made over a problem that doesn't exist is, in my opinion, ridiculous. Especially when it comes to restricting people.

 

[Sorrow.R]

I would argue that yes, it has repeatedly and consistently disturbed players.

And we dont disable friendly fire because that would be too unrealistic.

Would you mind giving me examples of things that have occurred?