Multiplayer Balancing - Will Arma3's MP be balanced?

[metalcraze 290]

So what Celery? Just give the underdeveloped side more vehicles and more people.

Real warfare isn't 10 vs. 10 or 20 vs. 20 or 30 vs. 30 either. Numbers are never equal as well.

I played my share of PvP too. An asymmetrical one as well. Like in one mission we had regular army troops with superior equipment vs. takiban. Takiban won actually - by sneaking around into our rear instead of charging a well defended position of ours (but they had some guys shooting at us once in a while to make us shoot back and focus on these decoys). Guys on an underdeveloped team simply adapted to their conditions and used them to best advantage (we expected a more direct firefight vs. them and they knew it).

Edited June 24, 2012 by metalcraze

[neokika 62]

So what Celery? Just give the underdeveloped side more vehicles and more people.

Real warfare isn't 10 vs. 10 or 20 vs. 20 or 30 vs. 30 either. Numbers are never equal as well.

Exactly. ;)

[dunnobe 10]

Agreed metalcraze. Look at PR Insurgency missions, the BLUFOR have all kinds of fancy guns, but it' still hard to win for them due to OPFOR tactics and the mission.

[sirscorpion 10]

@ Myke

Its funny that the point a criticized is exactly what you come back as a counter argument. let me clarify it for you and with all intended respect. the people who compare "what arma is" to other games ARE the Arma community most of the time, such arrogance, and fandom from the Leaders and moderators when it comes to questions about MP always result with the same 3 arguments (this is a Mil sim, war is not fair, My team is better than yours, Its the mission makers fault)

now stepping back, just for a second taking it as a person who enjoys Arma since OPF; i take 3 points out of this which if i solve i can Greatly enhance the game, make it popular with Mplay instead of what has now become a fragmented toy box.

1. a Standard MP game, warfare comes close, this is a great system and Idea for casual and hardcore, covers a wide range of possible interactions and using almost every thing the game can offer in a single serving. a standard game mode increase the game popularity, but it needs to be balanced, and by balanced i mean in the most "milsim" way possible, a proper Mil-Sim or "Realistic" game will take more options into account, taking the example of one of the posters here about the Tiger tank which had "120mm" not 180mm armor as a perfect example, is the tiger Fair? yes, 100%, it was a a bad tank on a strategic level, it was slow, prone to huge amount of breake down, a logistical nightmare, costs the same amount as 2 panther tanks, and almost 10 T34 tanks, not only that it was soo complex and used huge amount of time ending up in the production of 1350 tanks Only! while T34 was over 70k added to that another 70k Sherman tanks and about 4k IS heavy tanks.

MY point is what you think is not Fair is a matter of fact Fair. T72 and BMP are crap and death traps, yes we all know that however non of those where used in proper doctrine, the USSR tank Divisions estimated the life expectancy of a Spear Head t72 attack into Europe will be around 11min, they knew that, but it was acceptable in the larger picture b/c they can build 5 to 1 NATO advanced tank. balance does not mean symmetrical you need to take EATCH and every eliminate and "simulate" it in game, How much you want to do that depends on how much "Fidelity" i Do not however argue of high fidelity as that will cost a bit, however a whatever is needed to balance the game from a fidelity point of view needes to be integrated into the "Standard MP" which BIS wants the game to run.

2. Make it more Milsim, by both the Devs and the mod makers, how? a standardization document by the Devs to what are the "wish list of tools", how they should act, and what level of realism should be standard.

3.If both the above are taken into consideration and standard MP game is adopted then a Team/Clan stats system tracking must be in place, and not for what it is used now to unlock fluff, but to help teams find fair teams to battle instead of noob stomping people out of the game.

i played a lot of games which where balanced and not symmetrical, Men of War "*Assault squad" is a great example, a facing factions are so different, yet the games are brutality balanced, with a little smart thinking that can be achieved, lots of mods and other game mods, but there is a Standard game mod which you play competitively.

and Myke, what happens if i shoot a house with a grenade launcher or tank in Arma? does it lose HP? i saw a vid of a dude shooting a house with a tank and it didn't make a hole in it?! "see what i did there"

take it easy and cheers o7

[giorgygr 61]

So what Celery? Just give the underdeveloped side more vehicles and more people.

Real warfare isn't 10 vs. 10 or 20 vs. 20 or 30 vs. 30 either. Numbers are never equal as well.

Nope..plain wrong-because the setup of ESL or ESL-style matches (and lots of us are eager for this) doesn't work this way-and IF you love ARMA-you want to see it participate in ESL (again)

[Timnos 1]

Real warfare isn't 10 vs. 10 or 20 vs. 20 or 30 vs. 30 either. Numbers are never equal as well.

You have never been more wrong.

VdDvDeT1mcQ

ANPgVMia0PU

[Messiah 2]

Nope..plain wrong-because the setup of ESL or ESL-style matches (and lots of us are eager for this) doesn't work this way-and IF you love ARMA-you want to see it participate in ESL (again)

So for the sake of ESL matches, we should forego all sensibilities and perfectly balance both sides, regardless of realism? And should we not think so, we therefore do not love ArmA?

Yes, there will at least be rigorous mission-side balancing in Arma 3's multiplayer.

Which is predominantly editor side balancing, no? Balancing missions to reflect an inbalance in sides is a perfectly reasonable request/solution, that or design the missions in such a way that the the 'lesser' side gains certain advantages if they play to their strengths. Balancing the actual units in the game is the main point of contention here. Should BIS do that, they've sold their soul quite frankly.

[JdB 151]

The only problem was always with the heavy tanks and their toughness - western tanks were always superior to eastern and that usually hurt. But I believe even this can be compensated easily by a mission maker.

Historically speaking during the cold war the ratio of tanks was 3 - 1 in favor of the Soviets, even more so outside of Europe, but many were older vehicles and in many cases technologically inferiour. Many nations will still be able to field more tanks than the US early on in a conflict, especially if the conflict is happening unexpectedly and far away from the main US bases. Putting in a larger number of Soviet/Russian/OFPOR tanks is a good way to balance a mission, making the vehicles perform like the western counterparts is not imo, it has nothing to do with ArmA gameplay.

[[frl]myke 14]

Its funny that the point a criticized is exactly what you come back as a counter argument. let me clarify it for you and with all intended respect. the people who compare "what arma is" to other games ARE the Arma community most of the time, such arrogance, and fandom from the Leaders and moderators when it comes to questions about MP always result with the same 3 arguments (this is a Mil sim, war is not fair, My team is better than yours, Its the mission makers fault)

First, let me point out that i've stated a personal opinion. It wouldn't be any different without the Moderator status. Just to clarify.

1. a Standard MP game, warfare comes close, this is a great system and Idea for casual and hardcore, covers a wide range of possible interactions and using almost every thing the game can offer in a single serving. a standard game mode increase the game popularity, but it needs to be balanced, and by balanced i mean in the most "milsim" way possible, a proper Mil-Sim or "Realistic" game will take more options into account, taking the example of one of the posters here about the Tiger tank which had "120mm" not 180mm armor as a perfect example, is the tiger Fair? yes, 100%, it was a a bad tank on a strategic level, it was slow, prone to huge amount of breake down, a logistical nightmare, costs the same amount as 2 panther tanks, and almost 10 T34 tanks, not only that it was soo complex and used huge amount of time ending up in the production of 1350 tanks Only! while T34 was over 70k added to that another 70k Sherman tanks and about 4k IS heavy tanks.

Which in facts means, BI should make the assets as realistic as possible and Missionmakers have to keep an eye to the balancing. IIRC this is exactly what BI does. Ofc they will fall short at some point as making it 100% accurate, ti would need much more personel, money, information sources and whatnot. There are limits how far they can go.

2. Make it more Milsim, by both the Devs and the mod makers, how? a standardization document by the Devs to what are the "wish list of tools", how they should act, and what level of realism should be standard.

Don't quite get what you mean but i blame it on my lacking knowledge of the english language. I would appreciate it if you could explain, if you don't mind.

3.If both the above are taken into consideration and standard MP game is adopted then a Team/Clan stats system tracking must be in place, and not for what it is used now to unlock fluff, but to help teams find fair teams to battle instead of noob stomping people out of the game.

Personally i don't think that BI has the financial or personel resources to build and administer the required infrastructure. But this isn't much more than a educated guess.

and Myke, what happens if i shoot a house with a grenade launcher or tank in Arma? does it lose HP? i saw a vid of a dude shooting a house with a tank and it didn't make a hole in it?! "see what i did there"

Well, my guess is, if BI would include absolutely everything that would make A3 being a 100% accurate milsim with every detail, i'm absolutely positive that we could run the game on NASA high end supercomputer with stunning 5 frames per second.

[metalcraze 290]

You have never been more wrong.

Am I?

Also what are you trying to say exactly with those videos?

and Myke, what happens if i shoot a house with a grenade launcher or tank in Arma? does it lose HP? i saw a vid of a dude shooting a house with a tank and it didn't make a hole in it?! "see what i did there"

In DCS A-10 I saw a house being shot with Warthog's MG and there was no hole. See what I did thar

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

ArmA 2 at launch was balanced... Until people discovered the 256M-Tunguska, which could neutralise all air threats within 7 km radius (No CM flares at that time FTL), along with being able to take out M1A2 TUSK tanks with its 30 mm cannons in under 8 seconds, or several hundred rounds. (hitpoint system FTL).

We're talking core systems, not AK74 w/ ironsights vs an M16 with an ACOG-type balance. A single vehicle can break the game - make sure it doesn't happen in ArmA III.

[Messiah 2]

In fairness, a huge part of that is down to the archaic hit-point system.

[dmarkwick 261]

The usual hysteria and dick-waving :) seriously folks, try acting like rational beings :D

I've seen a few rational posts here though, from the usual rational people, and the usual irrational posts from the usual irrationals ;)

1. Balance comes from mission design.

2. There should be the possibility to make a balanced mission :)

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

In fairness, a huge part of that is down to the archaic hit-point system.

TAB+Click mechanics with such powerful weapon systems as the Tunguska doesn't help either.

[Messiah 2]

TAB+Click mechanics with such powerful weapon systems as the Tunguska doesn't help either.

True, true.

The usual hysteria and dick-waving :)

It's what sets us apart from the Chimps.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

1. Balance comes from mission design.

Question: should the Devs structure their game mechanics & various unit inclusion based around: A) a Single-player campaign; B) Multiplayer PVP; C) Multiplayer Co-op - although B & C can be merged into one, since people playing against bots won't feel the great injustice undertaken against the other team. (Read C) is irrelevant)

Question 2: who is going to balance those online PVP missions - ah, the community... :D Hello, Benny. :D

[tremanarch 6]

But really for ESL there are easy solutions: just use the same army and same weapons.. (red vs blue Opfor or red vs BLue BLufor..) ESL should be minor priority it is easy to solve...

And Balancing includes false thinking.

YOu cannot balance everything..

Why do you believe a gunner should 1:1 vs 12 jets?

no...

It is not about highscore or crap it is about doing the best you can within the situation. And if the situation is not fair it makes more fun!

to trick a tank in searching you in a city for 10 minutes is much more win than 1:0 is lose... So in my eyes the highscore should go and maybe implemented should be a reputation system...

people can give other people points cause they helped them, or they tricked an enemy army in going to the wrong town, or they found the enemy base etc etc etc

this is what its alla bout not the stupid kill death ratio...

example:

if there is a guy who follows me and sity there and tells me where the enemy is in a town and i shoot them, and then he gives me ammo or whatnot, this guy has done a fair good job even if he has 0 kills... it is not about kills only.. I would give this guy a +1 - and on it goes...

But even that is unnecessary. I see what people are doing and I can help them or send them money already in arma II if I appreciate that. So doing a rep system or highscore is only for the e-pen and though not _really_ needed but welcomed by many people....

Edited June 24, 2012 by tremanarch

[Bee8190 10]

Ya, TAB assistance and teh magical radar should go.

Anyways, all I would ask is the possibility to even up player count in the lobby, so that the server forbids 20 bluefor guys on one side and 12 opfor guys on the other side, because, as mentioned, kids gotta have em shiny weapons.

[Messiah 2]

Or just give OPFOR the exact same weapon choices/loadouts. All these 'issues' are all rather very tedious in their reality. Again, its mission based, not game based.

[giorgygr 61]

So for the sake of ESL matches, we should forego all sensibilities and perfectly balance both sides, regardless of realism? And should we not think so, we therefore do not love ArmA?

Yes..because ArmAIII has Nothing to do with realism regarding to scenario.

I said it before..but maybe my humor (or my lousy Engl. grammar) isn't easily understandable.

The BI's selection IRAN as Uber-future opponent its FAR beyond realistic-and it only purposes to promote sales based at

Real life's recent events. (Same as ArmAII-Russia-Georgia)..which it don't bothers me *much -but don't start the argue with the 'realistic' cr@p.

(*If you wanted realism..you should have vote for China i.e)

Want this game to go even higher?

Myriads of people crying for years here about MP issues.

(advice free of charge *only Sundays*)

[celery 8]

So what Celery? Just give the underdeveloped side more vehicles and more people.

Real warfare isn't 10 vs. 10 or 20 vs. 20 or 30 vs. 30 either. Numbers are never equal as well.

How do you propose that someone who just joins some game knows that he isn't supposed to join the side with "only" 40% of the total players? How do you balance the vehicles in a scenario that could and will be played by only 10 players or less? In that case the side with more vehicles will have more vehicles in play and only a couple of infantry. Additionally, two inferior vehicles are more than likely to get the better of one with a few superior features, and the imbalance would just switch to that side's favor. If the vehicle catalogue (note that I'm talking about vehicles, not their depicted qualities) is imbalanced like in Arma 1, it means that certain kinds of scenarios become excessively difficult to make enjoyable without addons.

I played my share of PvP too. An asymmetrical one as well. Like in one mission we had regular army troops with superior equipment vs. takiban. Takiban won actually - by sneaking around into our rear instead of charging a well defended position of ours (but they had some guys shooting at us once in a while to make us shoot back and focus on these decoys). Guys on an underdeveloped team simply adapted to their conditions and used them to best advantage (we expected a more direct firefight vs. them and they knew it).

And here we see the classic faulty argument of use better tactics if you're the underdog. What if the side with the better equipment did utilize better tactics? They would have just stomped OPFOR, and if both sides were equally skilled, the one with the better equipment would still have a tendency to win. Just having worse equipment doesn't mean that you gain +5 tactical thinking: you're just more likely to be killed in a way that you could have done little to avoid or inflict upon the enemy instead.

Notice that I don't oppose deliberately asymmetric scenarios where each side has different victory conditions, rather the difficulty of making scenarios of the opposite type caused by a badly balanced vehicle and weapon catalogue.

[Messiah 2]

Yes..because ArmAIII has Nothingto do with realism regarding to scenario.

I said it before..but maybe my humor (or my lousy Engl. grammar) isn't easily understandable.

The BI's selection IRAN as Uber-future opponent its FARbeyond realistic-and it only purposes to promote sales based at

Real life's recent events. (Same as ArmAII-Russia-Georgia)..which it don't bothers me *much -but don't start the argue with the 'realistic' cr@p.

(*If you wanted realism..you should have vote for China i.e)

Want this game to go even higher?

Myriads of people crying for years here about MP issues.

(advice free of charge *only Sundays*)

Just because the subject of the campaign is quasi-fictional, doesn't mean that everything else in the game has to be. There are games built specifically to cater for the 100% balanced gameplay, everyone has the same weapons, avatar, vehicles as each other, the vast majorty of ArmA players don't wish to see A3 turn into another one.

ArmA fills a niche in the market, and succesfully so. At any rate, you can have 100% balanced MP games, just give both sides access to the same vehicles, weaponry and equipment, it's not beyond the limits of anyone's mission making abilities to do that.

So again, balance in ArmA 3, however you may define it, is mission based, not game based. It's in your own hands to define it, that's ther power of a sandbox game, not imposing limits or values.

And please, stop resizing individual words, we're not all so infintile that we can't grasp the nature or emphasis of your remarks ;) Your english is fine though, no problem understanding you :)

[edit]

In light of celerey's post, I should emphasise (without the need for large letters) that I'm merely debating the idea of identical units in different guises for the sake of balance. Having a varied vehicle and equipment roster across the various factions so that overall the sides are balanced is quite right, and something BIS has attempted across the various titles (besides the odd slip up with the inclusion/omission of various equipment)

Edited June 24, 2012 by Messiah

[Mr. Charles 22]

Balance by Slots?

Other possibilities would be all Blufor soldiers on both sides with the same F2000 with ironsights.

[pd3 25]

If combat turns out fair, you did it wrong.

Balance is something for boardgames and competition, E-Sport type titles. This is a milsim. Combat is unfair. Deal with it. Or as they teach the people in the military: Assess, Adapt, Overcome.

Yeah, I hate quake style games, and I hate quake style variations of military shooters, the market is flooded with them.

What I love about this series is that strategic planning is always going to determine how long you survive, this game is not about making combat as accessible to every Tom, Dick and moron that want to twitch their way through a game.

As mentioned, there's plenty of those games out there.

This game rewards people who think before they dive into an encounter armed only with a pistol, and I like it like that.

[sirscorpion 10]

Myke;2177880']

First' date=' let me point out that i've stated a personal opinion. It wouldn't be any different without the Moderator status. Just to clarify.[/quote']

that's fine every one is entitled to that, however that does not mean you and others people with a huge amount posts, or mod makers and community leaders all have a responsibility to this game, while a zealot approach to defending it seems to be the standard, it does not mean its right.

Myke;2177880']

Which in facts means' date=' BI should make the assets as realistic as possible and Missionmakers have to keep an eye to the balancing. IIRC this is exactly what BI does. Ofc they will fall short at some point as making it 100% accurate, ti would need much more personel, money, information sources and whatnot. There are limits how far they can go.[/quote']

yes there is a limit to how far you can go, but making a pretty model and insuring the sounds and guns are right is not enough, however some important eliminates needed to be taken into consideration are some times neglected with massive amount of consequences in Mplayer, you cant for example put in a Tiger and put a T34/85 as a counter and call it a day, it needs to be at least 2 T34/85 on the other side, a mechanic should be in place to simulate that such as pricing. failing that then a Tiger need to have a % in which it breaks down. another example a Tunguka M1, costs about 20Mil USD, that's more than twice the price of an M1 tank, another example a right click Lock kill system is not sufficient, it makes any modern weapon system so overpowered, a locking and firing process added with percentage of hits are important game elements. which Both Balance out the tool, and adds realism. i am asking for a few extra layers based on "realistic" capability's and limitations. and its been done by moders ages ago, the ACE artillery system for example balance it out, and m109 Paladin add-on adds to that as well, however the Vanilla Artillery computer just breaks the game for any other unite in game, as it suffers none of the limitations of real world arty in terms of targeting.

Myke;2177880']

Don't quite get what you mean but i blame it on my lacking knowledge of the english language. I would appreciate it if you could explain' date=' if you don't mind.[/quote']

sorry i think My lack of English skills is whats to blame here, let me try and explain, ever game designer, especially when it comes to Mplay will need a quality control document which is important in indicating what is the standard and what will be fair in terms of tools for each team to use, its a concept from flight simulators you have a lvl B which is less fidelity simulating things like flight model, tools and gadgets, up-to a lvl D which is high fidelity simulating things like fan blade temperature.

This document is a guide line, a base line to what can be added to the "once more" standard MP game model, the document will indicate items which insures unites are balanced on a set amount of dimensions and complexity, the more you have the harder it is to follow the document, but on the other had you get authentic tools witch are far more easier to balance, an example of lets say a tank dimensions document,

Tank Standardization document:

Primary ( important, Unite will not pass if not achieved)

1. Shape/module, tank needs to look like the tank its supposed to be (M1 looks like an M1)

2. Sounds (self exploratory)

3. Armament: M1 needs to have a 120mm which has penetration values and an engagement range of (real world data), secondary Mgs, and associated sights.

4. weapon control system: M1 needs to have a laser range finder, ballistic computer, FILR, CPS, GPS etc.

5. Armor/ damage model, M1 has 1600mm of RAH on the turret face, 1200mm on the glaces, 600-700mm on the side and back, AMMO is not in the tank so it does not explode like t72, blowout doors. external or soft eliminates "sights, scopes, external Mg"

6.handling/fuel consumption, wight, turret speed.

7. external eliminates, cost, production numbers, limitations.

Secondary

1. Texture, how pretty

2. Versions, M1A1,A2, Tusk,ARV etc

other "fluff"

That document and a standard game set up added to that Quality Controlled aspect addons that meet such standard and have a Dev made guide will give a game that is simply epic. i can expand on this in huge detail if the devs are interested.

Myke;2177880']

Personally i don't think that BI has the financial or personel resources to build and administer the required infrastructure. But this isn't much more than a educated guess.

Men of War assault squad did this and it has a developer of 1' date=' establishing a system like FOR a standard game is not hard. a Clan ELO and your done.

Myke;2177880']

Well, my guess is, if BI would include absolutely everything that would make A3 being a 100% accurate milsim with every detail, i'm absolutely positive that we could run the game on NASA high end supercomputer with stunning 5 frames per second.

no one wants that, i am just pointing out what you find an aspect that applies to MIlsim to be standard might not be in other games and vice vuersa. no game or Sim be it a Arma, DCS or 50Mil full lvl D simulator can do every thing.