There is no mechanic and I doubt we will ever see one where continuous fire in one single area weakens a material and alloes it to be penetrated.

https://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/mg/50_ammo.html

For the record, you are flying very low and getting many hits from small arms fire. A huge portion of downed helicopters during the vietnam war were due to small arms fire.

millitarecho, I have heard that they're going to "fix" this next patch. No idea how. I kind of felt that fragile rotors was realistic.

https://report.bistudio.com/projects/arma-reforger/experimental-feedback/AREXP-327

was reported when they released it into exp, but they only had it out for two weeks and immediately pushed it to main branch without fixing any bugs

Timer maybe, but "spawn zone" is a terrible idea because it nullifies the effect and turns a costly defence into a cakewalk.

Point loss is not very much. Less than a teamkill. There are a multitude of ways of gaining exp and I really think all this concern is unwarranted. Let the game play out and see how you actually feel in a week or so.

This change seems to be entirely related to
"Removed: Rotor hit chance mechanic commented out"
Basically, previous behaviour was that sometimes hits to the rotor blades did no damage. It seems now the damage is consistent and damages every hit. Projectiles seem to only collide with the rotor in a smallish area around the centre whilst it is spinning.

Are you certain? if you provided a video it would be easier to see what was going on.
I tried to replicate this issue but it took 9-11 shots from an m60 to destroy a huey rotor in both 1.8 and 1.7. Additionally, the health of the rotors has not changed between patches..

I have to admit I am so very tired of the poor driving skills of the ai. More time and effort needs to be poured into this area, it is very subpar.

"mark identified targets" means when friendly ai spots enemies and engages them, they put down markers on the map. It's not giving the friendly ai markers on your map.

1000m away with 14.5

the recoil is definitely not right for being on a low tripod. I know that depending on the mounting the recoil behaves differently, in real life

LAV-25 stands for Light Armoured Vehicle
BRDM-2 is an armoured scout car.
BTR-70 is an armoured personnel carrier.
You misunderstand the game. There is no problem. If a vehicle in real life can stop an AP round at xy distance then in the game it will. If it can't then it won't. it's a milsim game. Same for stopping HEAT rockets. The LAV-25 carries a 25mm chaingun. Both the BTR-70 and the BRDM-2 have very thin armour. Something like a max of 14mm at the front, enough to stop .50 ball ammunition most of the time. The sides are half that. Comparatively, the LAV-25's gun is massively powerful (25x137mm), it's also firing APDS, which is a subcalibre projectile. Not just that, the projectile is made of tungsten. It is absolutely not out of the ordinary for one shot from that to decimate either soviet vehicles crews with shrapnel and projectile core. However if you were talking about rockets, I don't think that's unusual either. The spall is highly likely to hit most if not all of the crew.

For vehicle torque/handling they've just rewritten the code and are still making changes so I don't doubt things will constantly be adjusted as they bring it back up to speed. I definitely think they have made some vehicles much weaker than they should be.

For the record, I don't care for comparing hours, but I have owned the game since release.

There are no 'heavy armour vehicles' or tanks in the game.

AT weapons only typically set the vehicle on fire (therefore destroying the vehicle) if they hit fuel or ammo. How many rockets a vehicle can take is most dependent on where you are hitting the vehicle.

I think No. 2 is the most interesting, but not going to be implemented in reforger. I mostly don't agree with the others.

I don't think bohemia wants this and I don't want it either. Part of the charm is the freedom to do whatever whenever inside the conflict gamemode. It wouldn't go down well with experienced nor new players.

To be honest, I would be open to having a player tag system with tags like 'Instructor' and 'experienced' and 'completed tutorial'.

Potentially if new players can seek out more experienced players more easily, it might set them up properly for quickly getting into the swing of things under the guidance of a experienced player or a player who is good at/wants to teach.

At the end of the day, match losses come from the quality of player making up each team. I've seen american teams field every 'advantage' they have through almost the whole game (LAV-25 at range, huey rapid insertion, and targeting ai logi with their more accurate/controllable rocket hueys) but they still lost due to poor teamwork.

The biggest problem is not the assymetrical equipment balance - though they really ought to add a reloadable rocket launcher for US, and a vehicle with a cannon for SOV - it's the fact that player quality has plummeted due to consoles and 'casual' players, and there are not enough in game tools to alleviate the knowledge discrepancy or they are simply bypassed because they are not mandatory. Field manual, tutorial. It should be that players can gain necessary knowledge just by playing normally but conflict doesn't teach that well as a gamemode. I imagine everyone has the experience by now of a new player spawning a car at a frontline base, driving off as the only occupant, only to die 400m down the road to repeat the process until they burn all the supplies.