Balancing?

[froggyluv 2136]

... and that would be totally illogical from BIS side. Instead of creating awesome and realistic sim, unique and one of a kind, they would create something... generic? Abandoning the mil-fans, so Arma would be bought by people who thought that it was too tough before? Finally by creating something for the masses they would create something for no one. If someone comes here, it is not because they've heard it's "easier", "accessible" but because they heard that it is the "ultimate war SIMULATION", realistic, immerse and what will happen they will arive? They will discover that you can destroy tank with machine gun fire, wind doesn't affect bullets, using rockets is "tabing" and killing with sniper rifle from 2,3km is piece a cake.

Arma is community! They will finally get to know all the flaws, and instead of convincing their friends to join, they will point that it is not a sim... it's a military sandbox game, but not a sim, and if you're looking for a game(fast paced, "interesting") - you've got BF and COD. BIS - be famous! be unique! be brave!

Well I guess time and sales figures will tell. As far as them trying to create a realistic "sim", Arma has never been one semantics and game covers aside as you noticed by Developers in every interview calling the game a 'sandbox cross-armed military game'. And "generic"? Seriously what other military "sim" has to worry about the direction the fish are swimming :p Point is, the game is still an over ambitious 'mess' that I still find highly enjoyable. I also don't agree that the newly found fans are going to give up once they find that wind is missing or tanks can be destroyed by guns as many of them come by way of BF3/Crysis and could care less. They've always avoided Arma because the game was too clunky and the units moved like the recent taxidermed.

Again I also want the aforementioned realism features implemented, but remember, this team was bored with military based gaming after OFP. It's no wonder they'd rather work on features that interest and excite them ie..underwater world over constantly trying to refine the truer military aspects ad infinitum. You can't make an ex GF/BF enjoy one last go around -it's more for obligation sake ;)

[bad benson 1733]

Well I've always said if BF3 gave me an editor and let me go wherever I want I'd like it - guess we sort of have that now

we're far from the amount of polish bf3 offers. it's a simple game but it's not a dumped down arma.

all while being fully optimized across all cores and 99% GPU utilization

there's a big difference between the engine's core and how it utilises hardware (which will probably never change) and "features" like a medical system that actually makes sense. or weapon resting which is simply easy to do (it just is, mods and scripts are the proof). i mean why add folded bipods to the guns if they have no use at all? it's really beyond me why they would do that. same with the medical system. why even add a medic if we're gonna have 90ies shooter style medipacks on each enemy? just commit to the simplicity instead of implying that there's more behind it and it'S more realistic than what other games offer. because right now it isn't (in the case of the mdeical stuff). it's bad for all sides.

and by the way. if the mantra is "polish instead of lots of unfinished features" then how about cleaning up the awful animation tree already. what's up with the launcher weirdness? i can't believe i still get shot while handling rocket launchers after all these years because BI doesn't really find it necessary to remove those unbearable transition bugs which make you perform launcher anims without one in your hand and make you go through nonsensical loops of anims while not allowing you to break them or move.

i feel bad for smookie having to tell people that certain stuff like changing weapons on the move isn't possible with the animation system. sure it isn't if you keep it unchanged and full of bugs...fix the goddamn transitions! it's embarrassing.

i just rage quit the new showcase because it's just a joke how you turn into a retarded robot when you use rocket launchers.

[Cykyrios 10]

I have to say I completely agree with Byku: they're deriving from the path of milsim to the path of "selling as much as we can to military fans", turning Arma into a generic but highly moddable game.

Come on! What other game is there that accurately (more or less) simulates all these aspects of warfare?

I have only started playing the Arma series from Operation Arrowhead, and had high expectations for Arma 3, what with all the promises the devs made... and having that crushed is not cool at all.

From Tuesday on, the "Alpha excuse" will no longer be an excuse, even though the only change from Alpha to Beta is content, which means there is no actual change to the core game.

So either we'll see the game improved during the Beta, or we'll have a game that is not what Arma is supposed to be.

Edited June 23, 2013 by Cykyrios

[froggyluv 2136]

we're far from the amount of polish bf3 offers. it's a simple game but it's not a dumped down arma.

BF3 has it's strengths and Arma3 has it's own. BF3 may be shiny indoors but has awful outdoors imo and has taken full control away from player in many respects. And yes, I have no idea why Arma3 is forgoing the old medical system in favor of heal me packs, FAKs whatever but had the game gone the route of implementing all of the above feature requests in favor of the new lighting, graphics, PhysX - I would have raged hard. Personally, the fact that I could fall off a small stone in Arma2 after hours of planning my attack, and glitch to my death was maddening to the point where -'window meet mouse'. Having my AI stuck behind a rock or anything similarly trivial stating "can't get there" elicited the same response. Everyone has their own personal caveat as to what can make them rage quit and my personal ones are (mostly) alleviated in 3.

But yes, bring back the medical BI :)

[bad benson 1733]

BF3 has it's strengths and Arma3 has it's own.

my comment wasn't about individual strengths but about polish. saying that the rocket launcher issue is just my personal favoured issue is kind of weird since it's not a weakness of the system but simply an age old bug. so yea. polish please.

but had the game gone the route of implementing all of the above feature requests in favor of the new lighting, graphics, PhysX - I would have raged hard.

i see what you mean but i fail to see how we can only have one without the other. i mean my request isn't a new medical system but very small changes to the existing one. i don't see how getting new physX stands in the way of that. i'm the last guy to bash BI for no reason but some things just make no sense. you really have to differenciate between core stuff and parts of the engine architecture and stuff that modders could easily achieve with sqf in lots of different versions already.

well and bugs are just bugs. no matter how you look at them, they have no place in the game especially when they have been known for years.

[Sniperwolf572 758]

Sniperwolf572 your post actually shows well what I mean.

All your examples have "I did this, I did that, I broke formation to kill enemies first, I GL'ed enemies". Yes exactly, because if you don't take it upon yourself to kill as many enemies as possible before they can pose a threat to your team - your team will get slaughtered. Still when I played COmbined Arms showcase 4 of my squadleaders died in a row because they didn't have orders like the rest of the squad and kept moving to the objective which is the issue.

Commanding showcase is besides the point since it's enemies that are advancing.

Oh come on, you're grasping at straws in my experience there. What are you expecting me to sit and watch how they do shit themselves? I wish I could dig out the statistics, but I'm sure I never killed more than 4-5 people per either mission to affect the game so much. I'm not saying your experience might be different from mine, but I really don't see anything overly wrong in those showcases. While I agree, Arma AI can be stupid at times and do really stupid things and have huge brain farts, I don't see how that's different between the two games.

You claimed they advanced headlessly at all times no matter what, the only point where that actually happened is the Commanding showcase where they did not know they were running into an ambush and where they crested the hill and got slaughtered due to our superior positioning which you claim to be irrelevant because it's the enemy AI as if it's somehow different to the friendly AI. This is the showcase where I had really few shots fired. The only real target for me was the boat which I knew that sending AI to deal with it would be stupid.

I observed in Infantry that my squad and enemy squads went for concealment and cover at all times. We were ambushed by the first squad in the infantry showcase from the treeline, we had a standoff in the treeline in the valley between my and enemy squad because both sought cover in it before noticing that there was enemy in it. We got stuck there because we were being engaged by the enemy from high ground. While sure, my team would be slaughtered in that concealment pretty fast if noone did anything for the next 30 seconds, because, you know, being engaged from behind isn't really a win scenario. I took some initiative to fire a few GL's and that makes the AI shit in your opinion? After that was over, my team was still in that treeline waiting for more enemies, which DID appear from the town and were engaged by my team because now the trees actually did give some cover and I went in a different direction to kill a few more guys that were taking cover behind buildings. You make it sound as if I went rambo all mission and my team didn't move from the start.

I also observed the AI in Combined Arms do the same thing, the treeline with wrecks between the LZ and the base was the only cover present, they used it and engaged from it. I went to take out the Marid because if you don't, the mission devolves into either hoping AMV or RAH-66 will kill it, and if they don't, you're screwed because it will slaughter the advancing infantry which probably will not be able to kill it with their AT. The enemy in the base, besides a few soldiers which might have been placed to not move at the gate, also took cover, but it's kinda hard to stay alive when there's an APC and a helicopter spewing death over 10 square meters and there's nowhere to hide. I see nothing wrong with that except that the AI infantry AT guys don't usually engage the armored targets as fast as a player would. But that's no different in Arma 2. Then came the part where we defended the base, once again, I did the stupid thing there and advanced to the hescos on the front, while ALL friendly AI stood back behind the second row of hescos only having the AMV go forward. The enemy noticed us, remained in the trees, fired GL's at me, I pulled back, AMV killed troops, I specifically protected the AMV from the AT guys as if it were taken out, we'd have a harder time. Some AI ran away, my AI deemed it clear and entered the base. The objective did not complete so I went hunting to advance the mission, but that's due to mission design and not failure of friendly AI.

Again, I observe much of the same behavior from Arma 2 AI, and as someone mentioned here, they don't shuffle as much trying to figure out where to go. I'm actually going to play the missions again only as observer and see what happens.

---------- Post added at 14:09 ---------- Previous post was at 12:20 ----------

Infantry showcase, attempt one. My squad is 4 AI that expects me to fight with them, but I don't. The end result is that they get wiped out by being outnumbered and flanked in cover.

I forgot to take screenshots from the start but anyway the doc stops to check on the pointman, one of my team takes cover by the rock with the doc, the other two hide to the left of our advancing direction behind a rock and a tree. They repel the ambush from the treeline, neither squad moves out from cover to rush eachother.

After the doc is done, they advance toward the next pieces of cover/concealment and the doc gets shot while running to cover from the hill. They are 3 men now against around two enemy squads that are in the trees next to the town and on the opposite hill behind the trees. Here they are seconds after they defeated them all and annouced "clear" and moved off a bit. One guy is crawling from behind the top rock, one guy is moving out from his cover in the near rock and the third guy is doing something behind the bushes.

They advanced forward towards next cover but suddenly stopped, dropped and scanned the area. You can see the team lead on the right giving the order to move on. As they start to move on to cover, one guy gets shot from the village.

Two remaning guys advance to cover so they have more chance against enemies in the village, they assign me targets hoping I'd help them out. Nope, I'm a dick.

Here they are just before I'm the only one left. First guy taking cover from the fire in the village, but he just spotted the enemies a bit to the side. The other guy is somewhere behind the bush about to attempt to get behind the little wall to hide from the flankers. And the guy that got shot from the village is to the right-top.

After this was taken, one of the guys running to the wall started crawling to get to it as there was fire coming towards him from those enemies to the side. Suddenly, two enemy AI appear way behind them and they're both dead.

Here is a shot of the final positions of the three AI that made it this far and the flanking AI in the distance that got them. I got shot in the back after this from the village as I was in plain sight.

Infantry showcase, attempt two

I take off my clothes and gun so they know I'm of no help. We reach the pointman, only one enemy until the doc is done this time. TL is behind everyone next to a rock.

They advance a bit and there's contact, everyone engages, TL pops his GL and I get shot because I'm standing in my undies and helmet on a side of a hill with no cover.

Also, plenty of crouching there, which you kinda mentioned is non-existent.

---------- Post added at 14:48 ---------- Previous post was at 14:09 ----------

Combined Arms, attempt one

We land, one of the guys in my squad gets smacked by the Ghosthawk tail.

We proceed towards the base and the RAH-66 gets shot out of the sky and crashes on top of us and we're all dead.

Edited June 24, 2013 by Sniperwolf572

[Darkpriest667 10]

Anyone crying about balancing can go to the latest hash of COD or Battlefield. We don't want/need it here. From what I have seen so far the run and gun FPS crowd hates even Arma 3. Good for them, they'll play the game for 20 minutes. Realize it might take half an hour to even encounter an enemy and move on. That just leaves the hackers and cheaters to worry about.

[Dark6-6 10]

Anyone crying about balancing can go to the latest hash of COD or Battlefield. We don't want/need it here. From what I have seen so far the run and gun FPS crowd hates even Arma 3. Good for them, they'll play the game for 20 minutes. Realize it might take half an hour to even encounter an enemy and move on. That just leaves the hackers and cheaters to worry about.

Snipers need nerfed, no fair to die in one shot.

XD

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk 2

[Darkpriest667 10]

Snipers need nerfed, no fair to die in one shot.

XD

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk 2

Go play call of duty or battlefield then sweetheart. On the real "battlefield" snipers kill you in one shot. Which is exactly why they are usually chosen to be snipers. Don't cry here I ain't yer momma.

[Dark6-6 10]

Go play call of duty or battlefield then sweetheart. On the real "battlefield" snipers kill you in one shot. Which is exactly why they are usually chosen to be snipers. Don't cry here I ain't yer momma.

EBR is OP, should be 6.5 like all other rifles.

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk 2

[purepassion 22]

Go play call of duty or battlefield then sweetheart. On the real "battlefield" snipers kill you in one shot. Which is exactly why they are usually chosen to be snipers. Don't cry here I ain't yer momma.

Please keep the discussion civil and refrain from any personal attacks. Thank you! :)

[Dark6-6 10]

Please keep the discussion civil and refrain from any personal attacks. Thank you! :)

Passion no offense taken I was just a parody of comments posted elsewhere and baited him a bit haha its all good.

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk 2

[purepassion 22]

Alright, just making sure it's going in the right direction. :)

And shh, you don't want to be that guy; it's pure

[Mirudes 1]

[snip] you will always get back to 75% health. this means you can infiltrate a base alone and get shot a 100 times as long as you kill 100 enemies and take their FAKs. there is no way of sugar coating this. it may sound minor to some people but just apply it to more actual gameplay situations and you'll see the impact.[snap]

I agree. But how was the role of the medic any better? He could heal 100 times, even the same player, without supplies, always up to 100% health. Some player have even choosen the medic-role only for the capability to heal himself, but have never healed another player!

But yes, bring back the medical BI :)

As this thread is about balancing, lets talk about HOW TO BRING BACK THE MEDIC first.

When you have ever played as a medic, you will have generally noticed that this role is less attractive.

Why? In ArmA2 the player have less slots for weaponry, can't take any AT-weapons, can't take any "good" rifles.

Besides that, in some popular missions like Domination every player can revive other players.

And to build a mash isn't even a native ArmA-feature, it is a user-made script.

The medic is always forced to help injured players. The medics have less freedom but is forced to interact with other people's mistakes. Most injured player know what to do: They fall back to a safer place and call for help. But disproportionately often you have to heal always the same player, again and again. It is like a Rambo-player, boosting his killratio, unable to work in a team. When I play as medic, I was always killed because I have to run to the neewbs --who are generally at the worst places-- and I get killed just only because of their incompetence.

I would like to see some constructive proposals on this topic:

How would you balance the medic slot for a public mission?

[progamer 14]

I agree. But how was the role of the medic any better? He could heal 100 times, even the same player, without supplies, always up to 100% health. Some player have even choosen the medic-role only for the capability to heal himself, but have never healed another player!

As this thread is about balancing, lets talk about HOW TO BRING BACK THE MEDIC first.

When you have ever played as a medic, you will have generally noticed that this role is less attractive.

Why? In ArmA2 the player have less slots for weaponry, can't take any AT-weapons, can't take any "good" rifles.

Besides that, in some popular missions like Domination every player can revive other players.

And to build a mash isn't even a native ArmA-feature, it is a user-made script.

The medic is always forced to help injured players. The medics have less freedom but is forced to interact with other people's mistakes. Most injured player know what to do: They fall back to a safer place and call for help. But disproportionately often you have to heal always the same player, again and again. It is like a Rambo-player, boosting his killratio, unable to work in a team. When I play as medic, I was always killed because I have to run to the neewbs --who are generally at the worst places-- and I get killed just only because of their incompetence.

I would like to see some constructive proposals on this topic:

How would you balance the medic slot for a public mission?

It's more on AI balancing. :)

[bad benson 1733]

I agree. But how was the role of the medic any better? He could heal 100 times, even the same player, without supplies, always up to 100% health. Some player have even choosen the medic-role only for the capability to heal himself, but have never healed another player!

As this thread is about balancing, lets talk about HOW TO BRING BACK THE MEDIC first.

When you have ever played as a medic, you will have generally noticed that this role is less attractive.

Why? In ArmA2 the player have less slots for weaponry, can't take any AT-weapons, can't take any "good" rifles.

Besides that, in some popular missions like Domination every player can revive other players.

And to build a mash isn't even a native ArmA-feature, it is a user-made script.

The medic is always forced to help injured players. The medics have less freedom but is forced to interact with other people's mistakes. Most injured player know what to do: They fall back to a safer place and call for help. But disproportionately often you have to heal always the same player, again and again. It is like a Rambo-player, boosting his killratio, unable to work in a team. When I play as medic, I was always killed because I have to run to the neewbs --who are generally at the worst places-- and I get killed just only because of their incompetence.

I would like to see some constructive proposals on this topic:

How would you balance the medic slot for a public mission?

your post reminds me of the planetside 2 forums where people cry about how their favourite class has not enough advantages. of course a medic can't carry much stuff because he already carries an object that makes him invaluable (in a world without magic medikits). this exact topic here was opened for exactly that reason. most people like arma because it isn't balanced for solo rambo play on public servers like certain other games (i won't go there). if you are frustrated by random "newbs" getting injured all the time just don't heal them, play with proper people (friends) or maybe play a role that doesn't frustrate you.

don't get me wrong. i'm all for making roles more useful but you are looking at it from exactly the wrong point of view. if "rambo newbs" getting killed/injured on public servers is the problem then i guess magic medikits for everyone are the solution. i just think that most people here and especially the OP see it exactly the other way around.

if you ask me, someone who gets shot has to be struggling with it from that point on. a medic should only be able to heal you to like 30-40% (numbers can be tweaked) health and reduce some effects of the injury. and as i said. FAKs should be for the stopping of bleeding only and you should actually bleed out if you don't bandage. actually the dayZ mod has a very nice medical system. replace meat/bloodpacks with medics and lower the healing effect to 30-40% restored max or something. in dayZ it's better to be able to totally heal yourself but in arma where people repsawn a lot more and the impact of death is smaller it would be great, if getting shot would actually have a lasting effect.

[Anachoretes 10]

Snipers need nerfed, no fair to die in one shot.

In ARMA, at the one in which everyone wants to play, you almost die from one bullet, or one mistake. Just wait for a more severe ballistics.

[Dark6-6 10]

In ARMA, at the one in which everyone wants to play, you almost die from one bullet, or one mistake. Just wait for a more severe ballistics.

I'm not seriously suggesting that these weapons are overpowered, just parodying the statements made elsewhere. It seems everyone who complains about things being too difficult or unfair to one side is hoping to make it so all the weapons are identical with different skins, which is a shame. Also, why is the NLAW reloadable?

Edited June 25, 2013 by Dark6-6

[sqb-sma 66]

Also, plenty of crouching there, which you kinda mentioned is non-existent.

I only disagree on this point, they do crouch, but here's how it works:

Default: Standing, joggging.

Takes contact: Stands still and looks at enemy, NEVER EVER SPRINTS WHEN CROUCHED

Shooting at enemy: Fires a few shots whilst standing, Turns slightly to either side for no reason, crouches to keep firing or prones and starts slowly spinning to either side.

This is what the AI always do, it's fairly predictable and makes them easy targets. I'd rather see them sprint/crouch sprint to cover on first contact.

Regarding medics: We should be the military simulator, I'd love to see a proper medical simulation with morphine and blood loss and all that jazz. I don't care about seeing the gore graphically, just the gameplay.

Regarding balance in general: We don't need it. What is this nonsense, this isn't a game where two equal 32 man teams get pitched against eachother... This isn't an arcade FPS. Why is any time being spent on this, making already unrealistic weapons even further from reality...?

I'd love to see the Arma series progressing not just graphically, but also in fidelity and gameplay. The movement and aiming changes are a decent start, they have their flaws but I much prefer the control over the weapon when standing, but there's more to do. Things that are making their way into arcade games because they make sense gameplay and realism wise, like bipods and weapon resting, are remarkably absent in Arma, the military simulator. What does this make Arma; the slightly clumsy FPS where you spend way less time fighting and way more time walking. That's not fun.

We're still using the VOIP system that Arma 1 got in a patch, why not try to implement something like ACRE. We're still missing weapon resting and bipods, even though the models all have bipods on them. We're still missing a medical system. We're still missing certain realistic features that modders have to add in, that not only make the game more of a simulator (which should be the goal of Arma, the box art of Arma 2 was right "thrilling realism/authentic simulation") but also make it more fun. Backblast, stamina (partially in A3) and more.

That's what the Arma fans want, not two equal sides duking it out. Give us Arma, not Battlefield (though I hate to make that comparison, it is quite apt here).

Edited June 24, 2013 by SQB-SMA

[Wolfstriked 11]

Right now servers have made it so that anyone can revive a downed player which furthers the movement away from the medic class sadly.For me the medic class should be needed and the only way you revive on battlefield.When I first started I would always be so grateful of medics and before I became a kills whore I would play as medic at times with the intent to help out first and foremost,as I presumed the medics before me did.:rolleyes:lol

But maybe they could be made to play differently.Like the people who like to transport soldiers to OA the medics class should be played by people that want to play it and not just for points whoring.If missions were in a way dependent on how good the medic takes care of his men then it would be a fun class to play.Have it so that every player not revived but instead respawns back at base the OA spawns one new enemy soldier.Make the timer to death much faster also so it places urgency on the medic.You could even give the medic special equipment that would be on a 2035 battlefield.I read today about a developing GPS battlefield computer that a squad leader carries that pinpoints his squads location on a GPS screen.Normal GPS shows your current location but this special GPS shows all the soldiers in a squad.Its heavy and could be part of a medics medkit....weighs 7 pounds and is kinda bulky.Could show at top an X with a distance to downed soldier etc.

Something needs to be done.

[Masharra 10]

The medic is always forced to help injured players. The medics have less freedom but is forced to interact with other people's mistakes. Most injured player know what to do: They fall back to a safer place and call for help. But disproportionately often you have to heal always the same player, again and again. It is like a Rambo-player, boosting his killratio, unable to work in a team. When I play as medic, I was always killed because I have to run to the neewbs --who are generally at the worst places-- and I get killed just only because of their incompetence.

Medic misconception. A medic does not foolishly run to the wounded to provide treatment. If the medic dies even more people will die.

Also Rambo-player is a problem of the norespawn pub friendly gametype.

The problem is the gametype not the medic.

Also please do not use the term public mission as the respawn happy type you are referring to is only part of it.

In no respawn scenarios the medic is one of the THEE most important positions often seeing the least amount of fire and requiring the most amount of patience.

Perhaps said gametype should remove the medic slot and just allow players to heal each other.

For a basic idea on roles

http://ttp2.dslyecxi.com/st_platoon.html

Suggest to all to read and understand for a truly better gameplay environment, then when you are done lobby for no-respawn, no-revive!

Edited June 25, 2013 by Masharra

[bad benson 1733]

i don't see why the "medic class" needs work to make it more interesting. i only mentioned it because with the magic FAKs it is now useless. what needs to be done is changing the FAKs at the very least. then the medic won't be pointless. i mean that's only my opinion but i never saw arma as a class based game.

i also think that if there's no real going back from getting shot that it would help a lot making things more plausible and interesting. the medic would just patch you up and keep you from losing more health. like he would just stabilize you. and the same should go for himself. he shouldn't be able to heal himself at all. just stabillize.

in short: FAKs against bleeding, medics against general trauma and more health loss.

that would create a culture of asking medics for help and bad medics being called out for being bad because they are actually needed. but much like lots of other developers these days BI seems to now think that people can't be trusted with the simplest tasks so they just give everyone a magical medikit.

and if there's no one/no one competent in the medic slot you just die. that's what happens when you get shot...and then you respawn:D

[chortles 263]

your post reminds me of the planetside 2 forums where people cry about how their favourite class has not enough advantages.

Admittedly I find this rather amusing in light of how Battlefield 3 dealt with this: namely, with only four classes the method was to make artificial gear restrictions. Emphasis on artificial, since some of these restrictions were direct changes compared to Bad Company 2 and BF4 has its own different gear restrictions as well, whereas Arma 3's classes are basically just "default premade loadouts". I will say however, Bad Benson, that after previous "balance" talk (before this topic, I mean back with the old MP balance thread) and seeing recent BI moves, it feels less like "BI feels that players can't be trusted with the simplest tasks" and more like "the onus is on the mission-maker to create imbalance and 'enforce' tactical gameplay, not us"...

Gotta say, some of the "default" small arms changes are interesting: the TRG rifles are now for the not-yet-implemented "GREEN Guerillas" and in 5.56 mm, the BLUFOR Recons use 6.5 mm MX's while the OPFOR Recons use 9 mm Vermin SBRs, the OPFOR now uses 7.62 x 51 mm for both their DMR and their LMG/SAW while BLUFOR uses 6.5 mm STANAG for both (20-round mags of 7.62 x 51 mm for Mk 18 ABR vs. 30-round mags of 6.5 mm STANAG for MXM, and 150-round belts of 7.62 x 51 mm vs. 100-round mags of 6.5 mm STANAG), the Mk 200 is moved over to Green Army (so now 200-round belts of nominal 6.5 mm) but they use the same 7.62 mm DMR as OPFOR... to say nothing of the vehicle differences.

Edited June 25, 2013 by Chortles

[-Coulum- 35]

it feels less like "BI feels that players can't be trusted with the simplest tasks" and more like "the onus is on the mission-maker to create imbalance and 'enforce' tactical gameplay, not us"...

Yes indeed. Seems like BIS is no longer making "the ultimate military simulator" and instead now making "The game that you can turn into the ultimate military simulator". Notice how there are tonnes of new scripting commands regarding bleeding, burning etc. yet none of that is ingame - either BIS simply hasn't finished these aspects yet and the current simplistic first aid is a place holder (got my fingers crossed) or BIS only plans to give us a solid base and the tools so we can do it ourselves.

Gotta say, some of the "default" small arms changes are interesting: the TRG rifles are now for the not-yet-implemented "GREEN Guerillas" and in 5.56 mm, the BLUFOR Recons use 6.5 mm MX's while the OPFOR Recons use 9 mm Vermin SBRs, the OPFOR now uses 7.62 x 51 mm for both their DMR and their LMG/SAW while BLUFOR uses 6.5 mm STANAG for both (20-round mags of 7.62 x 51 mm for Mk 18 ABR vs. 30-round mags of 6.5 mm STANAG for MXM, and 150-round belts of 7.62 x 51 mm vs. 100-round mags of 6.5 mm STANAG), the Mk 200 is moved over to Green Army (so now 200-round belts of nominal 6.5 mm) but they use the same 7.62 mm DMR as OPFOR... to say nothing of the vehicle differences.

Perhaps the Green army weapons/vehicles also used by opfor are place holders until more unique weapons/vehicles are created maybe?

Edited June 25, 2013 by -Coulum-

[bad benson 1733]

i was talking about the FAKs and not how "balanced" the sides are in this game. i couldn't care less about that. i'll fight you with a spoon, if i have to and have fun doing so:p.

i mean are there really that few people who find it strange that now suddenly every single soldier can heal himself? i mean once, ok. but infinite amount of times? that's just weak design. and it also breaks immersion. at least for me.