Why:
MX SW doesn't have single fire mode and it's an excellent design choice. Each weapon in a family should have its purpose and be different from the others not only on the visual side.
Disagreed. Analogous weapon variants like Mk17 Sniper, HK 417 20" (precision) retain the auto-fire capability of base weapon. MXM is just such variant.
I was thinking about M21, Mk.20 SSR, SR-25 and M110 here. MXM differs visually from MX and doesn't appear to be just a MX with a longer barrel.
Even if all of them had full-auto fire mode, the other points remain valid. Limiting marksman CQB abilities would promote more tactical and team-oriented gameplay, as well as selection of right tool for the job.
You have a point... Just, in my opinion, it's not worth to change weapons characteristics based on "balance" viewpoint. But the rifles you mentioned give a good example, I agree. Mk.20 SSR even looks almost similar to MXM :) Changed my vote.
I agree. War isn't balanced, is it? ;) But this ticket isn't about balance. Without differences in weapons' performance and functions, all we would ever need, would be a single universal rifle for every side and every soldier class. That wouldn't be fun, which is why I prefer to have many different weapons for different missions, just like for real. And this is the thought behing this ticket.
Agree.
Also - exist automatic DMRs based on assault rifles.Like G3SG1.Haven't remember have full auto SAM-R,but this isn't matter a lot.
To be blunt, the MXM isn’t really supposed to be anything more than a long barrel “accurised” variant of the base weapon as opposed to say a carbine variant which may be issued for CQB.
So given it has 2 sights it would need to have semi and full auto so it can also fill the suppression role too, after all burst wouldn’t really be needed given marksmen are slightly more disciplined with the trigger and are generally better shots to start with.
@samogon:
Also EBR has full-auto, both real and Arma3 variants, whis is fine. I like, when same class soldiers/weapons have some differences between BLUFOR and OPFOR versions.
@b101uk:
Maybe there are differences in config values between MX and MXM, I don't know because I wasn't looking into the files. What I know, currently it doesn't matter, which one I have on the battlefield. I'd prefer to have at least some more pronounced differences between the two.
Sight used, apart from Alpha status, makes perfect sense from logistics point of view. Purchase and then maintain only one sight type, which is cheaper and simplifies supply chain.
I remember reading about something as silly as batteries in the current armies. It turns out, that every device there uses a different kind of batteries. Night vision, sight A, sight B, sight C, radio, other radio, laser, flashlight, IR flashlight, rangefinder, SOFLAM and the list goes on and on. A logistics nightmare and efforts are being made to standardize battery type.
I'll also suggest to use matched rounds mag.
It must be shorter,that standart(As well - lower ammo capacity).
Why?
As you can see any DMR have short mags,no one have something bigger that handle,because that easier to rest weapon on obstacles.
I'm ambivalent towards this. For example, in the U.S. Army, M16A4s were/are often used as SDM weapons, complete with retain burst-fire capability.
What. If the action is identical, and just the chassis and barrel are different, why should it not be fully automatic too? The fire control group is identical, the markings on the ejection port are identical, and the gas system from what we can see also seems to be identical: the only one that is visually different is that of the MXSW, which is full auto only.
I´d rather have a full auto mode on the gun than not, also since the EBR has this ability too.
EBR is a different story, because it belongs to a line of rifles evolved from M-14 battle rifle and has full auto capability in real life, as far as I was able to research this information.
Besides, it's good to have some variety between BLUFOR and OPFOR, so that they aren't exactly the same, only with different visuals.