- Tue Aug 15, 2017 10:40 pm
"There are players who actually use the weapon well, and use it to defend towers or engage players easily at roughly 300-400 meters. The gun is in no way in a state of "run-and-gun," however, people will, unfortunately, use it that way. "
Ok. So first of all, I don't play on tower servers, so there's no opportunity for me to camp in an elevated and near-impenetrable building. Second, I play on Malden, so the opportunity to engage at 300-400m comes far less often than on Altis, unless I'm in a elevated position at the edge of or outside of the AO. I intend on being always in the thick of it, keeping the enemies on their toes and wiping out any of their reinforcements that are moving in. Third, I don't use third person, so I don't have the security that comes with the foresight that most players have.
"Probably why it is, to you, a "run-and-gun" weapon."
Indeed, it's an excellent close quarters squad automatic weapon, but I'm not going to run off doing that unless I have someone backing me up. I use it to watch the back of friendlies. The running is mostly just me moving into a defensive position. Sometimes people rush in while I'm repositioning, and the rapid fire rate of the Zafir allows me to better to take them down before they kill me or flank my teammates. If required I'll take point to breach a building, but I'm usually the first to go down anyways if that happens.
"People should use it more often then, instead of running around with it like it's a goddamn submachine gun. Newer players usually don't. They just run around with a Zafir shooting everyone as if it's Call of Duty."
I use the bipod to set up hasty ambushes, and so I usually won't be engaging further than 200m in a map like Malden. Otherwise, I'm usually stuck in an urban environment, where enemies can come from any corner and you'll never know what's to your rear. In these situations, I'm always going to be crouching and staying away from potential lanes of fire. If a building looks useful, then I'll take cover inside it. Again, I don't use third-person so my sight and hearing are taxed to the max.
I agree that there's a lot of things wrong with ArmA that KoTH accentuates, but your comment would not just apply to the Zafir, but the Mk200 and LIM-85, and a lot of assault rifles as well. I can do the same thing to a lesser extent with the Katiba, which is my only other weapon. All of this running has to do with the avatar movement in ArmA. Furthermore, KoTH uniforms gives you the ability to run 10-20% faster than the average soldier under load. Frankly I'm grateful that there exists a weapon in ArmA 3 to counter that mechanic.
"No, it allows you to kill targets through the walls. That's a big difference. The gun doesn't "suppress" a target, it kills the target, even behind large, white stone walls. It's absolutely ridiculous, especially considering the fact that neither the Cyrus nor the MAR-10 will puncture the white-wall. The MAR-10 won't even go through the wall of a regular house. The Zafir will puncture the wall, and furthermore, it is able to tear down buildings, literally, with relative ease. For a "support weapon," it does much more than suppress, it's a demolition weapon as well."
The whole point of suppressing fire is to be able to fix the enemy in position while others can flank them from behind or the side. In a three-dimensional environment, that enemy can be above you or under you, behind cover or in the open. You cannot fix the enemy inside a building if you cannot penetrate the walls and cut off their escape route. More often I see enemies die because they foolishly decide to stand up and run to safety, not because they stay low and try to crawl away. They should alert their teammates, who would tried to locate the source of the suppressing fire then coordinate action to flank it. Going slightly off-topic, but you should be more concerned that there are not enough infantry weapons in ArmA 3 that can penetrate material, because a lot of their real-life equivalents have no trouble doing so. It's surprising that a fundamental aspect of modern warfare like bullet penetration is so hard to find in a so-called milsim. As for the demolition part, that's not really something users of the Zafir would take into account, as by the time they've shot hundreds of rounds into a structure, enemies in the area would have already been alerted to their presence and begun to flank them. If they decide to shoot rounds into a weak structure, it's probably because there are enemies inside it, not because they want to destroy it and deny it to the enemy. All in all, the implementation of structure demolition with bullet rounds is very poorly done by BI.
"That is unfortunate. Inner-city such as Malden, I can understand, however, in a large city such as Kavala, I am a little skeptical that someone needs to run around with a Zafir and gun people down. You can do just as well with an AKM, Spar-16, or MK-14. There's no need to allow every single person to run around the map with a Zafir. There have been games where the only weapon I have been shot by is a Zafir, and it isn't the same person. Every single time it's that damn gun. Other people on all sides have had these exact same complaints, that the Zafir should be elevated to a higher level than it is used now, because every person is beginning to use that gun. It is absolutely ridiculous."
I don't like any of these weapons. The AKM has a low rate of fire, the Spar-16 has inadequate penetration of both armor and walls, and the Mk-14 has sub-par accuracy compared to other marksman rifles. KoTH infantry mode favors mobility and allows very little time to realistically hold a position, and I can't think of any weapon available which is better than the Zafir for that purpose. If you want to remove the incentive to use the Zafir, then you need to change KOTH's overemphasis on infantry mobility to give more value to marksmanship, unit cohesion, and holding ground. Simply raising the level cap will not help. After all, how infrequently do you see players running around with ASP-1s and ACOs?
"So you need a light machinegun which can tear down buildings and shoot through walls in order to kill your targets? If the target is not easy to engage for you at fifty meters, then instead of simply "firing from the shoulder without even using the sights," start using the sights."
Pray tell me how you can lead and engage a target in KoTH running at 10% additional speed and near perpendicular to you with a weapon which has a) poor penetration or b) low muzzle velocity or c) low rate of fire. Even if your rounds actually hit the target in one location, the hit may not be registered or simply registered at another part of the target's body, which may be protected by heavier armor. Otherwise the target will just appear to teleport forward when you begin to pull the trigger. This has been the case since ArmA 2, and I don't expect this to change in ArmA 3.
At some point in the past I bought all the weapons so that I could roleplay the different infantry roles. What I've found was that there is little value in making well-placed shots when inside the AO. It doesn't make you much money, and your faction isn't going to get that much of an advantage from a kill or two. The enemy doesn't recognize you as a force, but a nuisance that needs to be crushed. Moving rapidly towards the enemy, overwhelming them with fire, then flanking them as they're stunned, is the most effective way to earn money and win KoTH. In an small urban environment like most of Malden's AOs, weapons sights or optics are hardly necessary to accomplish this.
"So your justification for the Zafir is this: I can't hit my targets over 50 meters because I refuse to use a gunsight and bipod, so the targets are able to get behind me and kill me, and I presuppose that it is the internet connection that is giving infantry an advantage. It's dishonest to suppose that all people's connections are hurting your ability to play and engage targets from farther than fifty meters. Secondly, you only mentioned lightly armored and unarmored targets. Don't forget the extremely armored targets which can be shot once or twice from a Zafir and killed immediately. Even worse is the capability for the Zafir to kill all targets through the sides and windshields of Ifrits, Hunters, and Striders. And the worst part is, the gun is used by way too many people. If it was maybe twenty people on the server using the gun, of course it's not a problem. But when the Zafir is the only gun that anyone is using, and others are saying that the only gun they've been killed by is a Zafir, and they're being shot through walls and their buildings are being destroyed by a Zafir, something has to be done."
I've played ArmA for too many years to doubt that it's definitely not great for urban infantry battles. It's fine in co-op where the AI is dumb and slow to act, but when you have to make split-second decisions against other players the engine and netcode simply do not have your back. Also, if I wanted to rely on sights, then I wouldn't be using the Zafir, or any machinegun for that matter.
Being able to kill vehicle crew is definitely a plus, but it's not one of my reasons for choosing the Zafir. With any 6.5 cal weapon I can quickly demobilize MRAPs and technicals by shooting out their tires. Providing a wall of bullets to fix dismounting crew can help reduce potential friendly casualties, but that's just another infantry engagement. As for the heavily armored players, I don't think they have any advantage in KoTH infantry as it currently stands.
I definitely agree with your last point, but short of removing the Zafir altogether, a lot of changes will have to be made to KoTH to disincentivize users from gravitating towards it.