RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)

[sammael 366]

It would be cool to have a chance of a tank crew's contusion when the projectile hits the tank

Something like RHS M84 stun grenade script..

[Damian90 697]

Such things do not really happen, especially in modern tanks with multilayered armors, that effectivelly absorbs waves that could create a stunn effect for crews. While in case of homogeneus armor, it's either hit by smaller calliber ammo that will not create such effect, or will be perforated by modern munitions with ease.

[-GMS- Eliree 11]

Heya there guys,

 

i am having an issue with RHS and ACRE2.

 

both mods work perfectly fine but whenever i step into a RHS Aircraft or Heli i have no long range radio. is there a way to fix this without putting a long range radio on the player?

 

this cause the pilot loadouts generally don't have space for a long range radio.

 

Greets Eliree

[kilrbe3 37]

I think what our dear friend Lex here is trying to say, and in his Russian ways, pretty much just he doesn't fully understand how RHS could be completely PVE focused. He comes from a CTi server that has just recently switched to RHS from CUP. The transition has been quite, the tackle so to say. Due to RHS scripts, damage models, and etc. The big thing the whole server notices is the balance is just not there across the board. 'It's taking awhile for players to see, and adjust to this new 'meta'. 

 

What lex, I think was just trying to get across was, at least I think, and I slightly wonder my self. When you guys were in long ago process of making RHS, did you guys decide to only focus on IRL system and realism, and just completely ignore any little bit of PVP play? Again, as you stated it is your mod. Please forgive Lex if he sounds harsh or front. Its your work, we just using and appreciate the work. But it has brought up even chats and questions in the group to just ask and shake heads at "Where is the any, littlest, tiny bit of balance here?" because there basically is none in stock RHS. The group devs are having to do lots of config changes to make a more balance PvP CTi experience. Work is progressing, but its work. 

 

Pretty much my question is, did you guys just really want to replicate modern IRL systems, and just completely ignore any sense of gameplay , and balance at some points? In some units, it shows that some got lots of love, and some just got 'eh its done' love. Then you get the difference in systems even with units of same age, but vary greatly. 

 

TL:DR its very hard for PVP, and most are just wondering, does the RHS team only ever touch PVE and never once a PVP match? Because overall it screams a pure PVE approach so far, after all these years seeing it from that. Then seeing it in a PVP environment, its drastically different. 

[zio sam 77]

PVP player since(and before) RHS comes out.Arma is a realistic military sandbox.It's up to mission maker to balance his missions to make them a pleasure to play.We did a lot of asymettrical scenarios(USA vs talib,RU vs rebels) or symmetrical and a lot of times the underdog became winner.It's up to you to shape a good mission and hit your enemy on his weakside and not viceversa.

We had battles in WWII where a single sherman destroyed more than 3 tigers.Just do not confront a Tiger with a a sherman head on.Same with talib vs AH64, you can always outplay your enemy in a proper tought mission.You can't ask a milsimmer to deny reality for balancing.there are tons of other games out there that are that way.Just don't ask to change RHS into a non realistic crap

[kilrbe3 37]

10 minutes ago, zio sam said:

PVP player since(and before) RHS comes out.Arma is a realistic military sandbox.It's up to mission maker to balance his missions to make them a pleasure to play.We did a lot of asymettrical scenarios(USA vs talib,RU vs rebels) or symmetrical and a lot of times the underdog became winner.It's up to you to shape a good mission and hit your enemy on his weakside and not viceversa.

We had battles in WWII where a single sherman destroyed more than 3 tigers.Just do not confront a Tiger with a a sherman head on.Same with talib vs AH64, you can always outplay your enemy in a proper tought mission.You can't ask a milsimmer to deny reality for balancing.there are tons of other games out there that are that way.Just don't ask to change RHS into a non realistic crap

No one was asking, I asked a simple question and you become very hostile and white knight appoarch. And not even a 10 min old post, and you have two more white knights 'Like this'.

 

Jesus no one was shitting on anyone. It was a simple question. But no, its not entirely up to mission makers, when its hard coded in RHS configs. But please, mouth off some more to act bigger as you seem to love. 

 

Nice mentaily I see 

 

Quote

You can't ask a milsimmer to deny reality for balancing.there are tons of other games out there that are that way.Just don't ask to change RHS into a non realistic crap

 

So if one thing isn't your way of doing things, it's just "hey piss off, go play another game"

 

ARMA offers a Milsim Sandbox, and other ways of playing. Before RHS and after. Since OFP FFS with CTi. So before you wish to go down that route, and tell me to piss off into another game. How about you open your eyes and see there is more to just being an armchair wannabe soldier in ArmA. 

[zio sam 77]

Before calling me an armchair wannabe soldier i would like to know your military experience,since i'm in the army since 2010 with a good average of  6 months each year spent in war zone from A'stan,Iraq and Somalia.

No one is shitting on how you want to play your CTI i simply stated that most of the milsimmer userbase that play with RHS  prefer realism over balance and i can bet some money that this approach was always endorsed also by RHS teams.So no problem to ask if something doesn't look realistic on your perspective but please refrain for asking about changing the scope of the mod to be more balanced and less real.

End of the off topic from me i don't want to upset the gods of moderation....

[unskilledfreak 6]

Balance leads to worse gameplay.

Skickat från min Nexus 6 via Tapatalk

[Damian90 697]

I think I can spoke here for entire team.

 

Yes, from day zero when RHS moved to ArmA3, one of the goals was to achieve maximum possible realism within the limits of ArmA3 engine, and I think RHS done it very well in my personal opinion. Artificial balance typical for arcade games was never within our scope, instead it was rather to go above and beyond what vanilla ArmA3 offers as already great and authentic military combined arms sim (well it's not a sim per se but you get the point), and implement many new features, like more realistic armor system, and "heavy" munitions, or features like more realistic FCS.

 

Will we change that?

 

No, especially considering how much hard work and how much time was put in to the mod already by all members. Anything we can do is only to further improve the mod within it's scope. 

 

Also to point out, what RHS was for ArmA2, or even older games, is not what RHS is for ArmA3, a lot changed and evolved.

[Savage_Donkey 243]

52 minutes ago, kilrbe3 said:

But no, its not entirely up to mission makers, when its hard coded in RHS configs.

 

I agree with the fact that there are a few imbalances, but all balance problems can be solved by the mission makers.  Weaker Opfor armor?  Increase the amount of Opfor tanks.  Faster US AT weapons? Well in general, US infantry squads have a lot less AT capability than Russian squads, but you can just add more Russian AT teams.    

[REFORGER88 144]

15 minutes ago, Savage_Donkey said:

 

I agree with the fact that there are a few imbalances, but all balance problems can be solved by the mission makers.  Weaker Opfor armor?  Increase the amount of Opfor tanks.  Faster US AT weapons? Well in general, US infantry squads have a lot less AT capability than Russian squads, but you can just add more Russian AT teams.    

I agree with this point in particular. Strictly speaking, hardware on hardware, no tactical maneuvering involved, NATO and the US in particular has always stressed its qualitative capabilities over the quantity of the Russian Federation and the Warsaw Pact before them. Given the right commander, Russian forces facing an American force equal in size may well prevail given proper tactical maneuvering, but the quantity of Russian military elements has historically always been a major factor in the planning of their tactical engagements. This should be considered when planning missions either PVE or PVP in nature. 

[PuFu 4600]

3 hours ago, kilrbe3 said:

I think what our dear friend Lex here is trying to say, and in his Russian ways, pretty much just he doesn't fully understand how RHS could be completely PVE focused. He comes from a CTi server that has just recently switched to RHS from CUP. The transition has been quite, the tackle so to say. Due to RHS scripts, damage models, and etc. The big thing the whole server notices is the balance is just not there across the board. 'It's taking awhile for players to see, and adjust to this new 'meta'. 

it isn't completely PVE focused. it's focused on realism, and balance is not part of that

Quote

What lex, I think was just trying to get across was, at least I think, and I slightly wonder my self. When you guys were in long ago process of making RHS, did you guys decide to only focus on IRL system and realism, and just completely ignore any little bit of PVP play? Again, as you stated it is your mod.

 

we are not in the business of ignoring or supporting one sort of gameplay over another. 

 

Quote

Please forgive Lex if he sounds harsh or front.

no, he sounds like an ass, but that's a completely different discussion

 

Quote

But it has brought up even chats and questions in the group to just ask and shake heads at "Where is the any, littlest, tiny bit of balance here?" because there basically is none in stock RHS.

yes, we don't do gamey approach

 

Quote

The group devs are having to do lots of config changes to make a more balance PvP CTi experience. Work is progressing, but its work. 

captain obvious, work is always work...

 

Quote

Pretty much my question is, did you guys just really want to replicate modern IRL systems, and just completely ignore any sense of gameplay , and balance at some points? In some units, it shows that some got lots of love, and some just got 'eh its done' love. Then you get the difference in systems even with units of same age, but vary greatly. 

for the nth time, we don't ignore gameplay, but we do not focus of balancing by having the exact same configs with 2 different models.

 

Quote

TL:DR its very hard for PVP, and most are just wondering, does the RHS team only ever touch PVE and never once a PVP match? Because overall it screams a pure PVE approach so far, after all these years seeing it from that. Then seeing it in a PVP environment, its drastically different. 

this sort of attitude really gets under my skin. there is no different between pvp and pve unless you want it mirrored, in which case, might wanna use vanilla assets, or cup for that matter

 

2 hours ago, kilrbe3 said:

ARMA offers a Milsim Sandbox, and other ways of playing. Before RHS and after. Since OFP FFS with CTi. So before you wish to go down that route, and tell me to piss off into another game. How about you open your eyes and see there is more to just being an armchair wannabe soldier in ArmA. 

why don't you play CTI using vanilla assets? BIS stuff is a lot more balanced from a gamey pov that RHS...

 

[R0adki11 3949]

Here is a polite request, any further flamebaiting/bitiching/moaning will result in been banned from this thread. The individuals in question know who they are. 

[lex__1 422]

That is realism:
- rocketeer OPFOR RPG, two times slower reloads a missile than a rocket BLUFOR. In 90% of cases the crew of light armored cars BLUFOR remains alive, povsednevnosti start of the second rocket.
In the game, +3 seconds more than once created the damage in the form of loss of benefits, loss of position, etc. Is very different from that
happens to BLUFOR, fast reload AT almost instantaneous death machines or crew cars OPFOR\RHSGREF.

- Abram tank still how to load a gun , he stands in place or coming. Charging psychic, knows what ammunition to hand in the gun, making it without the team commander?
At the T-90 autoloader, and loading produces the shooter by the team commander.
The supply of ammunition in the gun, must occur at the command of the commander, both in tanks, and OPFOR and BLUFOR. The difference needs to be at the time of loading the gun. BLUFOR tanks in motion on a rough surface will be slower to charge - the cost of manual loading.
I served three years on a military ship, can explain how pitching affects charging.
This provides a significant advantage to the BLUFOR team in the rapid progress on the map.
For all these reasons, the question of the overall balance of the parties.
I'm not real imagine?
What is the balance I want to break?
My opinion. It is a violation of some characteristics that affect the opposition parties BLUFOR and OPFOR.

[dragonfire43560 27]

Have you guys discussed changing the ATGM firing sounds? They all have some characteristic sound and delay irl before they fire. 

 

IIRC the konkurs has a characteristic "zooooop" sound before it fires and the TOW has like a thump. To to mention they have more bass in real life. 

 

I think its excellent you guys added the spiral flight path though. 

[reyhard 2082]

11 hours ago, lex__1 said:

- rocketeer OPFOR RPG, two times slower reloads a missile than a rocket BLUFOR. In 90% of cases the crew of light armored cars BLUFOR remains alive, povsednevnosti start of the second rocket.
In the game, +3 seconds more than once created the damage in the form of loss of benefits, loss of position, etc. Is very different from that
happens to BLUFOR, fast reload AT almost instantaneous death machines or crew cars OPFOR\RHSGREF.

You already got answer for this - we don't have animation for artist to create longer reload anim. Also note that Javelin have like 10x more mass than other missiles - perhaps remove carryall or bergen backpacks so reload need to be assisted by another team member?

 

11 hours ago, lex__1 said:

- Abram tank still how to load a gun , he stands in place or coming. Charging psychic, knows what ammunition to hand in the gun, making it without the team commander?
At the T-90 autoloader, and loading produces the shooter by the team commander.
The supply of ammunition in the gun, must occur at the command of the commander, both in tanks, and OPFOR and BLUFOR. The difference needs to be at the time of loading the gun. BLUFOR tanks in motion on a rough surface will be slower to charge - the cost of manual loading.
I served three years on a military ship, can explain how pitching affects charging

sorry but that google translate thing is impossible to read

 

19 hours ago, kilrbe3 said:

Pretty much my question is, did you guys just really want to replicate modern IRL systems, and just completely ignore any sense of gameplay , and balance at some points? In some units, it shows that some got lots of love, and some just got 'eh its done' love. Then you get the difference in systems even with units of same age, but vary greatly. 

Well, I agree that some vehicles got more love than others but does it mean those extra features should be removed in order to retain consistency with all other assets? Implementing all those extra bits which adds to realism & therefor to gameplay takes a lot of time & if I have to face dilemma whether to store some new feature for year or more just to have proper system for other side (which might look similar at first glance but some small details makes it much different), I would prefer to release it earlier to see feedback from community. It also allows me to gather some feedback over the time & hundreds of additional pairs of eyes also greatly helps with spotting some bugs.

 

After all, it's hobby for us that we do in spare time. Speaking of myself, I definitely take into account some "balance" based on realism, limitations of arma engine & time that can be spend on implementing new features. As for being unable to balance things which are hardcoded in configs - there is a lot of other way to balance stuff other than changing those values. You can change for example, as it was already mentioned, quantity or (in case of CTI) prices for given assets if you feel that one or another side is biased.

[lex__1 422]

Translator many breaks, I agree.

 

No animator, it's bad, but that's no reason to use a long animation. In Arma3 there is a short animation for the at recharge.
In the video, all recharges quickly, but not RPG.

The T-90 has the advantage that it can reload the gun in all conditions (moving and parked). In the game, the Abrams tank is not deprived of this advantage. In the game, Abrams as easily recharges the gun at high speed. This acquired characteristic of the Abrams, T-90 tanks, this is not true, and the game gives the tank a Abrams added advantage.

 

[R0adki11 3949]

1 hour ago, lex__1 said:

Translator many breaks, I agree.

 

No animator, it's bad, but that's no reason to use a long animation. In Arma3 there is a short animation for the at recharge.
In the video, all recharges quickly, but not RPG.

The T-90 has the advantage that it can reload the gun in all conditions (moving and parked). In the game, the Abrams tank is not deprived of this advantage. In the game, Abrams as easily recharges the gun at high speed. This acquired characteristic of the Abrams, T-90 tanks, this is not true, and the game gives the tank a Abrams added advantage.

 

I am pretty sure RHS will have decided why things are like that.Its no good comparing Arma3 vanilla with a mod.

[PuFu 4600]

1 hour ago, lex__1 said:

Translator many breaks, I agree.

No animator, it's bad, but that's no reason to use a long animation. In Arma3 there is a short animation for the at recharge.
In the video, all recharges quickly, but not RPG.

feel free to create your own config and change the animation speed or change the reload animation altogether yourself for the time being

 

Quote

The T-90 has the advantage that it can reload the gun in all conditions (moving and parked). In the game, the Abrams tank is not deprived of this advantage. In the game, Abrams as easily recharges the gun at high speed. This acquired characteristic of the Abrams, T-90 tanks, this is not true, and the game gives the tank a Abrams added advantage

you cannot have 2 types of reloads dependent of tank speed. but just as above, feel free to create your own config and change to the speed you prefer.

[dragon01 902]

Actually, speed-based restrictions on gun reloading would be nice to have. It's one of the advantages an autoloader has over a human.

[PuFu 4600]

3 minutes ago, dragon01 said:

Actually, speed-based restrictions on gun reloading would be nice to have. It's one of the advantages an autoloader has over a human.

https://feedback.bistudio.com/project/view/1/

[j0zh94 73]

22 hours ago, kilrbe3 said:

does the RHS team only ever touch PVE and never once a PVP match? Because overall it screams a pure PVE approach so far, after all these years seeing it from that. Then seeing it in a PVP environment, its drastically different. 

 

 

 

I play PVP in a relatively large community multiple times a week when able. So yes I play PVP frequently and try to fix every bug I spot throughout my playtime. RHS prioritises realism over balance and leaves the balance to the Mission Maker which is something at my community we take into account with each mission. If the mission maker needs to balance a mission he can adjust what assets are used and which are not. If anything is realistically broken that can be fixed within the scope of ARMA then we implore you to post bugs in the tracker so we can resolve them. We do not change things for game balance, though, there is nothing preventing you from adjusting this on your end. Abrams too OP? Add artificial setbacks; optics broken, no AP rounds etc. 

 

Finally, as Pufu said, if all else fails, you can simply create a config which overwrites our base config that adjusts these values to your liking for your community. 

[sargken 286]

14 minutes ago, PuFu said:

https://feedback.bistudio.com/project/view/1/

 

Tank DLC

[lex__1 422]

49 minutes ago, PuFu said:

you cannot have 2 types of reloads dependent of tank speed. but just as above, feel free to create your own config and change to the speed you prefer.

This did not prevent developers RHS block, standard Arma3, changing the type of ammunition in the gun of the tank So It creates some tactical features for the tank T. Abrams Tank tactical features has and can be used without any restrictions.
The developers RHS mod as close to realism. But some of the advantages and disadvantages are not taken into account. In the game, this will cause one side to act close to the realism of the environment, or not realistic conditions (lack of good animation). The other side, not facing the obstacles of realism, or realistic problems has not.
I without any constraint. But I don't know how to work with animation and code.
All these questions not a claim. Good mod RHS. This is a request to the Developers of RHS to pay attention to help in some problems.
This problem affects the game. The server creates an imbalance of players. Players do not want to experience problems. The preponderance of players on the side BLUFOR kills the game.

[M4NUM4N 47]

14 minutes ago, wsxcgy said:

"it's time to stop"

Yes please!

 

1 hour ago, lex__1 said:

This did not prevent developers RHS block, standard Arma3, changing the type of ammunition in the gun of the tank So It creates some tactical features for the tank T. Abrams Tank tactical features has and can be used without any restrictions.
The developers RHS mod as close to realism. But some of the advantages and disadvantages are not taken into account. In the game, this will cause one side to act close to the realism of the environment, or not realistic conditions (lack of good animation). The other side, not facing the obstacles of realism, or realistic problems has not.
I without any constraint. But I don't know how to work with animation and code.
All these questions not a claim. Good mod RHS. This is a request to the Developers of RHS to pay attention to help in some problems.
This problem affects the game. The server creates an imbalance of players. Players do not want to experience problems. The preponderance of players on the side BLUFOR kills the game.

 

Sry but it isnt their problem, I think you'll have to make changes to your server, for example give the Abrams less ammo or so.

There are so many possible solutions to it which are was more easy and other players wont suffer from it...