Timnos

Something relevant to this discussion that really deserves careful consideration is Arma3's introduction of remotely controlled weapons systems and automated defense systems. This new equipment will allow your opponent to put direct fire on you whilst they enjoy virtual impunity.

Put it this way, most players on both opposing teams will want to use weapons that they consider are the best for gaining an advantage in combat. Now if for arguments sake BLUFOR's' arsenal is ridiculously superior to OPFOR's arsenal, then most people will play as BLUFOR, but for MP to thrive we also need lot's of people to play as OPFOR. For the people who disfavour the idea of weapons balancing because they prefer to play as the "underdog", the logical solution is to not select the best weapons available to your force.

This is seriously the finest footage you will ever see of the Syrian army in house to house combat - EXPLICIT CONTENT REMOVED Could someone please post this footage on Youtube.

I don't think anyone here would argue with that. Ideally each forces weapons should have their own distinct qualities, but neither force should have an arsenal that is superior to the others. We need an effective OPFOR with teeth.

WHAT?!?! They WILL make the old fanatics happy, or I WILL physically beat someone!!!

Exactly! A tactically competent team with superior weapons would dominate with brutal force, and this is the point that some people don't seem to understand.

Clever planning, maneuvre, weapon deployment and teamwork is what it's about. In other words clever tactics.

This is the point Celery is trying to make - Let's say for example that there was a multiplayer match between Team Chortles and Team Timnos, and all the players in both our teams were equally skilled in the art and science of military tactics. Which team would have an advantage? Obviously the team with the best weapons. We already know that we can defeat noobs even when we are armed with inferior weapons by simply using sound military tactics, but it's when we play against teams that don't have a noticeable difference in tactical skill that weapons balance is important

That's the exact opposite of what he said, read his post properly, I think you are a little confused because he quoted Igneous01 in his reply. What he is saying is that the intention of balance is to create two evenly matched sides so that tactics will decide the outcome, not weapons.

Clearly you don't understand the meaning of tactical proficiency. In a nutshell what it means is that the side that uses the best tactics will win.

They should have done it long ago because now it's going to bite them on the ass. The army is replacing VBS2, check out the date on this link my friend from Fort Polk sent to me - https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=381b5211ac79426be30287479138c4fd&tab=core&_cview=1

The last official word was they were in the process of migration from PhysX 2 to PhysX 3 but in no way guarantee that everything is going to react as it should. You can find those comments in Maruks post history.

BIS have already confirmed that the PhysX 2 work was stopped.

Quite frankly, I wouldn't be one bit surprised.