7th Cavalry Gaming

Join the Tactical Gaming Excellence

Arma Tac2 Arsenal Restrictions Discussion Thread

7
24
3
I am throwing up this thread for Cav and public players alike to discuss the idea and potential practical implementation of arsenal restrictions on Tactical Realism 2. Among other things, there has been a lot of discussion regarding more updates to Tac 2 and it is useful to get functional and specific feedback to better inform decisions. From previous polling, it is understood that most are ok with some form of restrictions but different people have different opinions as to where that line should be drawn. This is a means to discuss the details in a productive manner that doesn't get buried in a discord chat.

I've taken the liberty to create a demo scenario with 3 different arsenal boxes. This can simply be subscribed to and played in your single-player scenarios. This also allows easy updates as feedback is received.
  • One is completely open and unrestricted
  • Another has a current WIP blacklisted arsenal
  • The last has everything that was removed from the aforementioned arsenal so you can easily see exactly what was taken out
Please take the time to look through it and give feedback on anything you feel should be returned or removed from the current listing. It is immensely helpful to provide specific classnames for what you are suggesting. You can get this just by pressing CTRL+C on it in the arsenal. Feedback can be posted here or on the steam workshop page but please actually check the mission first before formulating an opinion.

I'm going to use this section to discuss the design philosophy that I approached this blacklist with. Inevitably, there had to be 1000 marginal decisions made as to what specific things are in or out but I tried to air on the side of allowing things unless there was a good reason to remove it.

On the first pass, I removed all explicitly civilian or opfor gear that has a tendency to cause confusion with PID and encourage friendly fire incidents. Vanilla weapons that have an RHS replacement such as the 416 were removed for sake of reducing arsenal bloat. Weapons that offer little to no contribution to most team-based play such as those incapable of supporting any optics were removed. Items that serve no function such as the ace MREs were removed. Many of the firewill pilot coveralls were removed only because there are so many but we hope to bring these back when pilots have a separate arsenal in the future. Magazines for weapons that are no longer in use were removed to make finding ammo types easier when resupplying others and the such. After some was feedback received, specific guerilla uniforms were replaced as people use them for their 'operator' vibes.
 
Last edited:

Chapman.K

Private
Active Duty
9
12
8
I'm down for the removal of civilian/opfor gear, I know we sometimes use them for SpecOp MCC's but at that point Zeus can just spawn in a crate of them. Removal of unused assets likes MRE's and weapons like the starter pistol is also good. However I'd say we go with a whitelist/blacklist setup as going to something like class based restrictions would just lead to constant re-loging when someone wants to use a different gun, similar to how people crowd the atlas slots so they can use all the vehicles without having to re-slot to that given position.
 
7
24
3
I'm down for the removal of civilian/opfor gear, I know we sometimes use them for SpecOp MCC's but at that point Zeus can just spawn in a crate of them. Removal of unused assets likes MRE's and weapons like the starter pistol is also good. However I'd say we go with a whitelist/blacklist setup as going to something like class based restrictions would just lead to constant re-loging when someone wants to use a different gun, similar to how people crowd the atlas slots so they can use all the vehicles without having to re-slot to that given position.
The idea of class based restrictions is specific to something like pilot coveralls and helmets which an infantryman wouldn't have any good reason to use. We don't anticipate anything that would prevent the use of all the weapons between the regular rifleman, grenadier, and automatic rifleman roles and the such. Such a system would be yet included in this just yet though
 
Last edited:

Chapman.K

Private
Active Duty
9
12
8
The idea of class based restrictions is specific to something like pilot coveralls and helmets which an infantryman wouldn't have any good reason to use. We don't anticipate anything that would prevent the use of all the weapons between the regular rifleman, grenadier, and automatic rifleman roles and the such. Such a system would be yet included in this just yet though
That's all good in my mind, I was under the impression of like barring a regular infantryman from grabbing an AR or something along that line
 
2
0
1
Personally... I despise the idea of black listing a bunch of weapons and gear. One of the best things about tac2 is that people can play and have fun that isn't extremely strict on what you use. If people want to all load up together as a Russian group and go out and fight the enemy just promotes team work, tactics and Camaraderie (Hey guys remember that time we all got Russian gear and raided the desert of Lithium and held the ISIS forces at bay*). If one person wants to try out a lesser used rifle (VZ-58 for instance) but run everything else as an American or Canadian grunt why not? its not hurting anybody... its public server and one of the draws is the freedom. Get the pubbers hooked to a style of teamwork and play, then they can go to the more strict in-depth play of 7th Cav.

 

Oliver.K

Reservist
Reserve
S2 Staff
1
0
1
I understand the point in removing the civilian items from the arsenal, however as a reservist I like to wear the police uniform. As a active duty deputy could this civ uniform be returned or a better option added?
 

Chapman.K

Private
Active Duty
9
12
8
Personally... I despise the idea of black listing a bunch of weapons and gear. One of the best things about tac2 is that people can play and have fun that isn't extremely strict on what you use. If people want to all load up together as a Russian group and go out and fight the enemy just promotes team work, tactics and Camaraderie (Hey guys remember that time we all got Russian gear and raided the desert of Lithium and held the ISIS forces at bay*). If one person wants to try out a lesser used rifle (VZ-58 for instance) but run everything else as an American or Canadian grunt why not? its not hurting anybody... its public server and one of the draws is the freedom. Get the pubbers hooked to a style of teamwork and play, then they can go to the more strict in-depth play of 7th Cav.

That's all well in good, I think it's more in the name of getting battle priests and that one dude who seems to always run out dressed as an insurgent and then causes blue on blue off the battlefield. As I stated there's nothing wrong in my mind if for the sake of an MMC you wanted to do some sort of deep cover spec ops dressed as insurgents stuff, it's just for normal day to day ops of tac 2 cause for me, looking through a tank guns thermals, the friendly player dressed as an insurgent, carrying an RPG is gonna get shot.
 
28
51
13
That's all well in good, I think it's more in the name of getting battle priests and that one dude who seems to always run out dressed as an insurgent and then causes blue on blue off the battlefield. As I stated there's nothing wrong in my mind if for the sake of an MMC you wanted to do some sort of deep cover spec ops dressed as insurgents stuff, it's just for normal day to day ops of tac 2 cause for me, looking through a tank guns thermals, the friendly player dressed as an insurgent, carrying an RPG is gonna get shot.

Anyone silly enough to wear that would get shot. By anyone.. Also, this person would have no right to complain after being shot in my oppinion..
 
4
4
3
That's all well in good, I think it's more in the name of getting battle priests and that one dude who seems to always run out dressed as an insurgent and then causes blue on blue off the battlefield. As I stated there's nothing wrong in my mind if for the sake of an MMC you wanted to do some sort of deep cover spec ops dressed as insurgents stuff, it's just for normal day to day ops of tac 2 cause for me, looking through a tank guns thermals, the friendly player dressed as an insurgent, carrying an RPG is gonna get shot.
I was quite fond of my battle priest loadout :(
 
2
0
1
That's all well in good, I think it's more in the name of getting battle priests and that one dude who seems to always run out dressed as an insurgent and then causes blue on blue off the battlefield. As I stated there's nothing wrong in my mind if for the sake of an MMC you wanted to do some sort of deep cover spec ops dressed as insurgents stuff, it's just for normal day to day ops of tac 2 cause for me, looking through a tank guns thermals, the friendly player dressed as an insurgent, carrying an RPG is gonna get shot.
Removing non military items (ie. Priest frock) is fine to a point in my opinion. However if a small group of people want to dress up as Czech/Russian forces and make that known to people that we are working with friendly nation forces then fine. Its known and people have to do a little bit of PID or have some decent coms. Hence another reason to put the ability to change squad and rename squads back in. When one of these units forms, it would be weird to call them Gunslinger 1 (or whatever) but label them as something that sounds right for that group and then they are easier identified on the GPS/Map.


I generally run as a medic, as I prefer playing where there is 4-12 people on. However, when this is the case we generally don't have enough people to play all roles. So if needed I will carry an AR platform and be a medic. If another medic shows up, then I will continue to run the slot as a medic, but will play as an AR member, only activated into Medical role if the second Atlas requires assistance or that atlas goes down. On a full server, I have no issue either re-slotting or giving the role of AR over to another.
 
7
24
3
I've published an update to the steam workshop with role-based restrictions. While these were planned to be rolled out later, they are being rolled out in a single package to address some other concerns.



I understand the point in removing the civilian items from the arsenal, however as a reservist I like to wear the police uniform. As a active duty deputy could this civ uniform be returned or a better option added?
While I can appreciate your concern, we are trying to keep this a milsim themed server. Could you provide the name of the uniform so we can at least give it proper consideration?

Personally... I despise the idea of black listing a bunch of weapons and gear. One of the best things about tac2 is that people can play and have fun that isn't extremely strict on what you use.
The goal here isn't to be super strict to the point of everybody running m4s or anything like that. We are attempting to keep maximum variety in weapons, uniforms, and gear where it does not explicitly compromise gameplay.

If people want to all load up together as a Russian group and go out and fight the enemy just promotes team work, tactics and Camaraderie (Hey guys remember that time we all got Russian gear and raided the desert of Lithium and held the ISIS forces at bay*).
However if a small group of people want to dress up as Czech/Russian forces and make that known to people that we are working with friendly nation forces then fine.
The issue with the uniforms is that 99% of the time it's one person running Russian uniforms or the like and no one knows. This creates issues with identifying targets and promotes friendly fire incidents. Zeus will still be able to place open arsenals when such opportunities arise that a group of players does want to work together in unconventional ways but that is typically the exception and not the rule.

If one person wants to try out a lesser used rifle (VZ-58 for instance) but run everything else as an American or Canadian grunt why not? its not hurting anybody
Most "inferior" weapons still remain that don't make that individual completely useless. To use your example, the Sa vz. 58 is very much present within these boxes for all to use freely. I suggest actually checking out the arsenals and responding with anything you feel they are deficient in. We do appreciate your input on this matter.

Anyone silly enough to wear that would get shot. By anyone.. Also, this person would have no right to complain after being shot in my oppinion..
This is frequently the case but certainly something to be avoided. This is a milsim server and friendly fire is considered a serious incident, so we wish to do what we can to prevent it where we can.

I was quite fond of my battle priest loadout :(
Unfortunately, this is not conducive to the type of gameplay we wish to promote on Tac2. This has actually been one of the prime examples so many have cited as to why we need such restrictions.

Hence another reason to put the ability to change squad and rename squads back in. When one of these units forms, it would be weird to call them Gunslinger 1 (or whatever) but label them as something that sounds right for that group and then they are easier identified on the GPS/Map.
The issue created by changing the names is no one knows what that unit is. We also usually ended up with 5 or 6 small teams not working together and nobody understanding what roles are being playing in the AO. What "sounds right" to one is complete gibberish to another and already commonly accepted callsigns communicate to everyone what role that element is filling.
 
Last edited:
5
19
3
I appreciate the methodology but.... aren’t there more important things to work on with TAC 2? I can agree with some but this does work as a release for some. Also members are already restricted from items that are used in their assigned equipment not allowable on the server with the mod list.

I believe, more energy and focus should be placed on organization, structure, command and control and discipline, among other things and shift to that.

As I have read this, I interpret it is going to happen. Not that it might or can.

Thanks
 
5
7
3
Personally i think the removal of civ/insergent clothing to be a good thing, i think the thermobaric grenade needs to go it is stupid
adding the civi uav terminal would be good tho as we could be able to use the idap demining if mines ever decide to come back

i think a good compromise for using Blufor/Opfor(or indpendent arma 2 chernorussians wink wink) equipment is to create a opfor mission files and then vote or rotate between them variety is the spice of life not much would have to change besides the vehicles and how you look

callsigns, structure will stay the same
 
7
24
3
I appreciate the methodology but.... aren’t there more important things to work on with TAC 2? I can agree with some but this does work as a release for some. Also members are already restricted from items that are used in their assigned equipment not allowable on the server with the mod list.

I believe, more energy and focus should be placed on organization, structure, command and control and discipline, among other things and shift to that.

As I have read this, I interpret it is going to happen. Not that it might or can.

Thanks
I can assure you that we are pursuing several avenues into improving Tac2. Some will inevitably take more time than others, while some have already been in play thanks to the hard work of the folks in Public Staff and Development Staff. Things like arsenal restrictions are technically easy to implement but difficult to achieve a good balance with which is why we are seeking feedback preemptively. I am curious about details regarding members not able to use assigned equipment though. This was likely an oversight and can be easily amended if we understand better the nature of the issue.

Personally i think the removal of civ/insergent clothing to be a good thing, i think the thermobaric grenade needs to go it is stupid
adding the civi uav terminal would be good tho as we could be able to use the idap demining if mines ever decide to come back

i think a good compromise for using Blufor/Opfor(or indpendent arma 2 chernorussians wink wink) equipment is to create a opfor mission files and then vote or rotate between them variety is the spice of life not much would have to change besides the vehicles and how you look

callsigns, structure will stay the same
I don't think this is an idea we have thoughtfully explored before but is certainly worth consideration. While I don't think right now is the best time to open up such a large endeavor, it is certainly an idea I'll keep in my back pocket to revisit once things have stabilized some.
 
4
4
3
Unfortunately, this is not conducive to the type of gameplay we wish to promote on Tac2. This has actually been one of the prime examples so many have cited as to why we need such restrictions.
I get it. Just poking some fun. I'm impressed it turned so many heads, seeing as I only ran the loadout one time for some laughs on a particularly silly night.
 
9
18
3
I know I have been away for awhile, just being back some of the things I noticed is that there is more lack of the Tactical Realism and more of the do as I please mentality. Uniform should be more on the military side unless special operations are accruing and everyone is well aware and tracked by leadership at the time to maintain the friendly fire to a minimum. As far as weapons I do like the freedom to use different types and learn multiple systems to better hone your skills. I am the type to use long range rifles at times even as a rifleman or any other role depending on my mood and the ability to do so is a plus for me. Just my two cents. Thank you for listening.
 
Top