Tanks are... Kinda weak...

[maturin 12]

Wasn't in previous games. ArmA3 is filled with artificial balance.

Just compare Merkava to T-100. It's exactly the same tank, with a different skin. Same weapons, same ammo, same crew.

That's among many other artificially balanced things in the game.

It's not balance!

Balance has an objective. Balance has to make sense.

It's dumb, and it's weird, but I can guarantee you that no one on the dev team sat down and said 'let's give the T-100 a miniscule advantage over the Merkava, to even out some other imbalance that doesn't exist.'

As for same ammo, weapons and crew, ArmA 2 is calling. Next you'll be complaining that both NATO and CSAT have men with rifles and grenades.

[progamer 14]

It's not balance!

Balance has an objective. Balance has to make sense.

It's dumb, and it's weird, but I can guarantee you that no one on the dev team sat down and said 'let's give the T-100 a miniscule advantage over the Merkava, to even out some other imbalance that doesn't exist.'

As for same ammo, weapons and crew, ArmA 2 is calling. Next you'll be complaining that both NATO and CSAT have men with rifles and grenades.

Are you serious? These are problems with lack of time on the developers part. With the kind of attitude currently displayed to problems like this, we wouldn't even have commander seats! The tanks should be using 7.62mm Coaxial guns with commander MGs. Right now the tanks almost do seem to be re-skins. Does the Merkava even have its greatly better Armor?

For some reason, fake names make people think vehicles don't have to be realistic anymore. This is a horrible direction from Arma 2. We shouldn't have to wait for mods like ACE to come around and fix things for the majority of players.

Edited November 4, 2013 by ProGamer

[maturin 12]

Did you read my post? I said it's bad. You have no idea why they made this decision, but it's probably not a lack of time. If it was a lack of time, neither tank would have a coax.

And wow, you're really complaining that an obsolete Merkava doesn't have better armor than a vastly more modern, IMAGINARY tank?

You've all gone off the deep end, and it doesn't help the community get anything fixed.

[progamer 14]

Did you read my post? I said it's bad. You have no idea why they made this decision, but it's probably not a lack of time. If it was a lack of time, neither tank would have a coax.

And wow, you're really complaining that an obsolete Merkava doesn't have better armor than a vastly more modern, IMAGINARY tank?

You've all gone off the deep end, and it doesn't help the community get anything fixed.

Balance would be lets give each side a tank. Not lets give one a coaxial gun that's the wrong caliber and lets give the other a commander gun that's the wrong caliber. These issues are due to lack of time and resources, which will hopefully be resolved. The Merkava chassis is pretty strong. The T-100 is based off the Black Eagle which i seriously doubt had the same level of armor.

[Damian90 696]

Wow, big words from someone who lacks even the basic knowledge about real tanks.

Not lets give one a coaxial gun that's the wrong caliber and lets give the other a commander gun that's the wrong caliber.

Nothing wrong here, Slammer use 6,5mm coaxial machine gun, because in game, 6,5mm caseless ammunition is considered as standard for NATO in 2035. T-100 have a TC machine gun in remote weapon station, that have a proper 12,7mm, and it is even a real gun, the NSVT. What you did not noticed such obvious truths?

Are you incapable to accept a single fact, that Slammer is a fictional, NATO variant of Israeli Merkava Mk4M builded by NATO nations on licence, and because it is fictional future, it means that vehicle is probably improved or redesigned, for example have crew reduced to 3 by use of autoloader, have different small arms installed where old FN MAG/M240 had been replaced by new M200 machine gun firing caseless 6,5mm ammo? This is how devs done it, because they wanted to do so, and your whining does not change that.

And if you don't like it smartass, then made your own addon or mod, or vehicles replacement pack, or just goddamn wait for addons and mods, in nearest future RHS and COMBAT! mods will give us awesome and ultra realistic vehicles, be patient.

The Merkava chassis is pretty strong.

In real world to the contrary, and also contrary to the Merkava myth of the best armored tank, the best crew protecting tank and such bollocks spread mostly by propagandists or people lacking knowledge.

The T-100 is based off the Black Eagle which i seriously doubt had the same level of armor.

No, the T-100 is based on Omsk KBTM prototype which only, real designation code is Object 640 per designation system used by GABTU. "Black Eagle" is invention of some fanboy or journalist, because in Russia, design bureaus use Object xxx codes for prototypes.

Edited November 4, 2013 by Damian90

[progamer 14]

Wow, big words from someone who lacks even the basic knowledge about real tanks.

Not lets give one a coaxial gun that's the wrong caliber and lets give the other a commander gun that's the wrong caliber.

Nothing wrong here, Slammer use 6,5mm coaxial machine gun, because in game, 6,5mm caseless ammunition is considered as standard for NATO in 2035. T-100 have a TC machine gun in remote weapon station, that have a proper 12,7mm, and it is even a real gun, the NSVT. What you did not noticed such obvious truths?

We shouldn't even have to be arguing about this stuff. The developers should have known like Arma 2. But Arma 3's development was just a mess with everything that happened. If you have better sources and information for my tickets then by all means add it, but not just oh its in the game or this is how the game does it.

[Damian90 696]

FPDR

It is just a waste of time it seems...

[R0adki11 3945]

@all please keep it civil on this thread, save the insults otherwise there are consequences to such actions.

[laverniusregalis 10]

FPDR

It is just a waste of time it seems...

Be nice to him, I don't care who's right. You don't need to break eachother's jimmies.

[metalcraze 290]

It's not balance!

Balance has an objective. Balance has to make sense.

It's dumb, and it's weird, but I can guarantee you that no one on the dev team sat down and said 'let's give the T-100 a miniscule advantage over the Merkava, to even out some other imbalance that doesn't exist.'

As for same ammo, weapons and crew, ArmA 2 is calling. Next you'll be complaining that both NATO and CSAT have men with rifles and grenades.

Maybe you will compare M1A2 to T-90 in ArmA2?

Or loadouts of USMC and russian soldiers?

They are as different as nations on the opposite areas of the globe can get.

Merkava and T-100 on the other hand are identical. 3 men crew, sabots and HE shells with exactly the same stats, 1 cannon, 1 MG. And it's not just tanks. Every single vehicle is the same as its counterpart on the "other" faction.

It's a bad, cheap, easy-way-out balancing but it's still balancing, like it or not.

and because it is fictional future, it means that vehicle is probably improved or redesigned

Right. That old and tired "it's the future" excuse.

If it's "improved" where is its active defense system? Where is the mortar? Where is commander's MG?

"auto-loader"? Yeah good excuse for not putting in a 4th crew member because that will make Merkava different from T-100, can't have that.

It's the future but Merkava is on par with a tank from 90s?

Edited November 5, 2013 by metalcraze

[progamer 14]

Didn't they hire a Game Balancer? But I thought was for the AI.

---------- Post added at 03:25 ---------- Previous post was at 03:20 ----------

On the other hand people need to stop with the it's futuristic! or it's for balance!

Theses are likely just issues because of lack of time and resources and will eventually be corrected. I doubt BI would turn there backs on the fan base by going for an unrealistic and balanced game.

[metalcraze 290]

Didn't they hire a Game Balancer? But I thought was for the AI.

BIS used the "balancing for us is making sure AI is on par with the player" excuse when Intervention and Lynx ended up being the same weapon and one of FT users created a ticket which was quickly closed with the reason "They are the same due to balancing" and it caused an uproar on forums.

That excuse is especially funny when you consider that AI didn't get anything but minor tweaks (and a complicated turn-speed limit system based on loads and stances... with human players not affected by it at all) and we got a ton of identical vehicles and weapons with identical stats since then.

If BIS didn't want to balance stuff they could've just opened even Wikipedia and used numbers from there. It doesn't take any more time and resources than copy pasting same stuff across content.

ArmA3 went live 8 months ago and the balancing is still here. But you can be optimistic if it makes you happy.

[progamer 14]

BIS used the "balancing for us is making sure AI is on par with the player" excuse when Intervention and Lynx ended up being the same weapon and one of FT users created a ticket which was quickly closed with the reason "They are the same due to balancing" and it caused an uproar on forums.

That excuse is especially funny when you consider that AI didn't get anything but minor tweaks (and a complicated turn-speed limit system based on loads and stances... with human players not affected by it at all) and we got a ton of identical vehicles and weapons with identical stats since then.

If BIS didn't want to balance stuff they could've just opened even Wikipedia and used numbers from there. It doesn't take any more time and resources than copy pasting same stuff across content.

ArmA3 went live 8 months ago and the balancing is still here. But you can be optimistic if it makes you happy.

Staying with my opinions until I get an answer from the developers. Though the development wasn't exactly smooth.

---------- Post added at 04:20 ---------- Previous post was at 04:16 ----------

They haven't ever said "No" to anyone because things would unbalanced. And hopefully never will.

[Damian90 696]

It seems that T-100 might receive a coax machine gun. I compared photos of the model from earlier builds and current 1.04 and it appears that coax model had been added at the lower part of the gun mantled right side, however it is still not added in config.

[L3TUC3 32]

The M2A1 has six passenger seats.

[Harry Canyon 10]

BIS used the "balancing for us is making sure AI is on par with the player" excuse when Intervention and Lynx ended up being the same weapon and one of FT users created a ticket which was quickly closed with the reason "They are the same due to balancing" and it caused an uproar on forums.

That excuse is especially funny when you consider that AI didn't get anything but minor tweaks (and a complicated turn-speed limit system based on loads and stances... with human players not affected by it at all) and we got a ton of identical vehicles and weapons with identical stats since then.

If BIS didn't want to balance stuff they could've just opened even Wikipedia and used numbers from there. It doesn't take any more time and resources than copy pasting same stuff across content.

ArmA3 went live 8 months ago and the balancing is still here. But you can be optimistic if it makes you happy.

I don't think this company is interested in "Arma" any more. Everything looks like its being developed for DayZ and were just being tossed the "ports". I've about ditched this game. I'm looking to the future and Outerra now. Outerra is going to be amazing. It tosses everything to the GPU like it should, leaving the CPU to direct. And the game scales across multiple cores on the CPU. What Arma 3 should have been.

---------- Post added at 21:37 ---------- Previous post was at 21:35 ----------

Staying with my opinions until I get an answer from the developers. Though the development wasn't exactly smooth.

---------- Post added at 04:20 ---------- Previous post was at 04:16 ----------

They haven't ever said "No" to anyone because things would unbalanced. And hopefully never will.

Lol, Pro, I think your starting to wake up and smell reality here. And it has quite a stench.

[progamer 14]

I don't think this company is interested in "Arma" any more. Everything looks like its being developed for DayZ and were just being tossed the "ports". I've about ditched this game. I'm looking to the future and Outerra now. Outerra is going to be amazing. It tosses everything to the GPU like it should, leaving the CPU to direct. And the game scales across multiple cores on the CPU. What Arma 3 should have been.

---------- Post added at 21:37 ---------- Previous post was at 21:35 ----------

Lol, Pro, I think your starting to wake up and smell reality here. And it has quite a stench.

Wow, it seems Arma finally has a game competing against it. Though it seems like it could fail.

---------- Post added at 01:01 ---------- Previous post was at 00:42 ----------

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?168212-Outerra-is-Arma-s-first-major-competitor

Edited November 7, 2013 by ProGamer

[Harry Canyon 10]

Nah, been around for a few years now. Its being slowly and carefully developed. They just released an alpha to the public last year ( basically, a sandbox editor ). There's a demo, and for $15, you can a copy of the alpha game.

www.outerra.com

EDIT: Oh, just saw your post. Nice.

[byku 13]

It seems that T-100 might receive a coax machine gun. I compared photos of the model from earlier builds and current 1.04 and it appears that coax model had been added at the lower part of the gun mantled right side, however it is still not added in config.

Indeed it is! THANK YOU BIS! :)

[progamer 14]

Nah, been around for a few years now. Its being slowly and carefully developed. They just released an alpha to the public last year ( basically, a sandbox editor ). There's a demo, and for $15, you can a copy of the alpha game.

www.outerra.com

EDIT: Oh, just saw your post. Nice.

Wonder what the chances are of Arma 3 getting JSBsim for our flight models? Current model could be easy difficulty.

---------- Post added at 01:51 ---------- Previous post was at 01:38 ----------

Indeed it is! THANK YOU BIS! :)

Hopefully it fits with the real life version of whatever tank they modeled it off of.

---------- Post added at 02:00 ---------- Previous post was at 01:51 ----------

I don't think this company is interested in "Arma" any more. Everything looks like its being developed for DayZ and were just being tossed the "ports". I've about ditched this game. I'm looking to the future and Outerra now. Outerra is going to be amazing. It tosses everything to the GPU like it should, leaving the CPU to direct. And the game scales across multiple cores on the CPU. What Arma 3 should have been.

---------- Post added at 21:37 ---------- Previous post was at 21:35 ----------

Lol, Pro, I think your starting to wake up and smell reality here. And it has quite a stench.

The game is now supposed to be "authentic" and the word Milsim from Arma 2 is now apparently non-existent. People bought Arma 2 hearing the word Milsim, not the word authentic.

It does feel like a lack of enthusiasm by going 2035 so they can make all three factions perfectly balanced, unrealistic and use whatever vehicles and weapons they want.

Basically Arma 2 was giving us a unique flavor of cake using organic ingredients, while Arma 3 gives us a generic chocolate cake made from processed chocolate. A large group of people bought Arma 2 for that unique realistic flavor of cake, then expected a better taste for Arma 3. But instead the forums are filled with, unique flavors suck, and a processed chocolate with a generic balanced flavor is better.

Edited November 8, 2013 by ProGamer

[Doomfarer 10]

So I messed about with my long awaited tanks and found them.... Kinda weak...

Im not gonna go into too much detail but the what happened is I took both tanks to a drive and fired the main guns at the Wheeled ifvs and it barely did anything... Both heat and armor piercing... Im not really sure ho much armor those things have but Im pretty sure a tank should be able to blow them up with 1 heat shell...

Also Seems weird that the T-100 gets a commander gun but no coaxial gun and the slammer gets a coaxial gun but no commander gun even though the mount is there...

Overall the performance of both were underwhelming if not disappointing... Im not sure why you guys made it like that but if there is a reason I would like to know...

(Love the back space in the slammer though good job guys)

Ya I'm totally disappointed by the vehicles in ArmA 3, in 22 yrs BIS thinks the best the military can do is a revamped m109(m4 Scorcher), a lack luster m2a1 Slammer(lest the name is cool.)(a2 : oa ace2 has the m1a1 tusk scamm far better front line MBT than the slammer), the uav are well meh. When playing on a server running Natojo domination that Mi - 48 always kills em. I was really hoping for something awe inspiring. Ah well here's to hoping the modding community can pick up BIS's slack and make A3 truly great.

AMD FX-4350 Vishera 4.2GHz

G.SKILL Trident X Series 16GB (4 x 4GB)

2 x HIS IceQ H785QT4G2M Radeon HD 7850 4GB

Crucial M4 CT256M4SSD2 2.5" 256GB SSD

2 x Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 ST3000DM001 3TB

[Damian90 696]

If I can calm down whiners, I can say that I talked with zGuba, and vehicles are still WIP, there will be a lot of changes, however many of them, might not be noticable for players.

[progamer 14]

If I can calm down whiners, I can say that I talked with zGuba, and vehicles are still WIP, there will be a lot of changes, however many of them, might not be noticable for players.

Hopefully we will see the vehicles acurately reflect the real life versions. Including the special quirks many of the vehicles in game have in real life like: the Comanche flying sideways, the fennek/ strider having the comander camera raised and lowered, the Merkava/ slammer getting a mortar, correct caliber on weapons, active protection systems and many other things.

[maturin 12]

The game is now supposed to be "authentic" and the word Milsim from Arma 2 is now apparently non-existent. People bought Arma 2 hearing the word Milsim, not the word authentic.

Jesus fucking christ, you're whining about marketing. And cake. Oh, ewwww, they changed the color of the sprinkles on my cake! Who cares that the ingredients are basically the same and it tastes objectively better?

Just stop. Please. It's like listening to a bunch of little girls. The devs insulted your illusions and preferences. Drop your emotional attachment to them and try to actually evaluate what they have really done with the game. Yes, the tanks suck, but so did the ArmA 2 tanks. We all can't remember anything before ACE.

ArmA 2 was not a milsim. That description is a fucking joke. ACE makes it a sort of sim, but the vanilla game doesn't deserve the label. They've just started describing the game in more accurate terms, and once again, the aggregate change is still towards more fleshed-out realism, with the removal of 'realistic' features that were mostly bullshit anyways, making the gameplay frustrating without adding any real depth.

[Rydygier 1302]

At this point (1.04) about armored vehicles in Arma 3 I can only say, that to destroy "T-100" by shooting with 6.5 mm ammo at frontal armor you need (about) 17776 rounds (less than 600 magazines). In other words, with enough ammo, 30 riflemen should be enough to destroy that tank in one minute (not counting reloading time).

Edited November 8, 2013 by Rydygier