Multiplayer Balancing - Will Arma3's MP be balanced?

[NoRailgunner 0]

Did you read the first post?

I was wondering if there was anything mentioned on the subject of having equal (or near equal) technology for both east/west sides...

[dysta 10]

Let me guess: US uses F2000 with EOTech, while Iran use TAR21 with standard red dot sight. EOTech and F2000 are more advance, so Iranian weapon is unbalancing against US.

Wow... I dunno why nobody matter on what are those guns' ammunitions are using.

[batto 17]

If BIS would implement proper working radar/electronic warfare, communications/datalinks etc people would cry and moan even more about that A3 is "too hard", "too challenging", "too complex".

Are you trying to say that ArmA should be less realistic and challenging?

Casual players do like balanced MP because there is nothing too realistic or too advanced on each side/faction. For them the game is just simple fun shooting / killing for the stats and getting some bonus/rewards for "extraordinary" actions.

I'm causal player. Stop talking non-sense about me. You're no better than causal players.

By the way, wouldn't T-95 pwn Abrams?

[Timnos 1]

I'm causal player. Stop talking non-sense about me. You're no better than causal players.

So you prefer arcadish gameplay over realistic gameplay? because that's my definition of a casual gamer.

[rye1 21]

How do you play Arma arcade-ish and how do you play it realistically Timnos? Differentiate them and maybe he can come up with more of a logical answer to your definition.

[Timnos 1]

How do you play Arma arcade-ish and how do you play it realistically Timnos? Differentiate them and maybe he can come up with more of a logical answer to your definition.

Anyone who uses 3rd person view is arcade gamer, plain and simple. I don't have a problem with arcade gamers, each to there own, but it does distinguish the hardcore from the casual, and helps to explain why threads like this one are created.

[dekster 1]

Anyone who uses 3rd person view is arcade gamer, plain and simple. I don't have a problem with arcade gamers, each to there own, but it does distinguish the hardcore from the casual, and helps to explain why threads like this one are created.

3rd person is a compensation for tunnelvission, or does first give you a 180degree field of view like real life?

[Hartmann 10]

Anyone who uses 3rd person view is arcade gamer, plain and simple. I don't have a problem with arcade gamers, each to there own, but it does distinguish the hardcore from the casual, and helps to explain why threads like this one are created.

People play in 3rd person because Arma 2s situational awareness is absolutely horrible, and playing in 3rd person alleviates this somewhat. Arma 2 first person restriction has nothing to do with realism, its stupidly unrealistic in the sense that any untrained person has a better awareness of his surroundings in RL then anyone can have in Arma 2 first person. It's more realistic to play in 3rd person then in 1st person in arma 3, unless you walk around in RL with a box on your head with one side cut out.

But if playing like this makes you feel like a total hardcore pro (lol) then just go right on ahead.

[batto 17]

Anyone who uses 3rd person view is arcade gamer, plain and simple. I don't have a problem with arcade gamers, each to there own, but it does distinguish the hardcore from the casual, and helps to explain why threads like this one are created.

Causal player != arcade player. I'm causal player because I don't have time to be hardcore player but I enjoy playing same ArmA as you and I want it to be as realistic as possible with as little additional complexity as possible. This topic has nothing to do with arcade gameplay. And 3rd person view is a hack for looking around corners so I like it disabled in PvP.

Multiplayer has to be balanced or it's not fun. "Use better tactics" is stupid argument.

Isn't PvP arcade?

Edited June 26, 2012 by batto

[Timnos 1]

It's more realistic to play in 3rd person then in 1st person in arma 3, unless you walk around in RL with a box on your head with one side cut out.

Do I detect insecurities? He who has the most fun wins, for some of us realism is fun, for people like you unrealistic magical views is fun, so long as we are having fun all is good.

[dekster 1]

for people like you unrealistic magical views is fun, so long as we are having fun all is good.

Do I detect unsecurities in you avoiding my question?

[Haviv 10]

If you want balance, you could have 2 sides with different uniforms but with the same Russian weapons. No need to mess around with the weapon models.

[antoineflemming 14]

Anyone who uses 3rd person view is arcade gamer, plain and simple. I don't have a problem with arcade gamers, each to there own, but it does distinguish the hardcore from the casual, and helps to explain why threads like this one are created.

You are a typical example of a person who tries to seem like they are all so gung-ho on realism, when really you're just someone who tries to be elitist by saying you're "hardcore". I use third person 1) when I'm getting screencaps of the game, and 2) because ArmA's first person view sucks. It's not realistic. My eyes see a whole lot more than the box that ArmA gives me. And I don't buy the crap that "Oh, ArmA's 1st person is realistic given your distance from the screen". You should be looking through the character's eyes. You should see what he sees. That means the screen field of view should match as closely to possible to a realistic field of view. I've said it before, ArmA's view is basically zoomed in too far. If it's a camera with a position determined by x, y, and z coordinates, then the y or z coordinate (front/back) should be decreased, or moved backwards. Using the zoom out feature doesn't work because it distorts the view.

On another note, casual =/= arcade. Casual means you don't spend most of your time playing a game, as opposed to treating it as your hobby or something. It has nothing to do with how you play. Oh, and I've really only seen arcade gamers use the terms casual vs hardcore. So, what arcade game do you play?

[Haviv 10]

People play in 3rd person because Arma 2s situational awareness is absolutely horrible, and playing in 3rd person alleviates this somewhat. Arma 2 first person restriction has nothing to do with realism, its stupidly unrealistic in the sense that any untrained person has a better awareness of his surroundings in RL then anyone can have in Arma 2 first person. It's more realistic to play in 3rd person then in 1st person in arma 3, unless you walk around in RL with a box on your head with one side cut out.

But if playing like this makes you feel like a total hardcore pro (lol) then just go right on ahead.

There's a big difference between not having tunnel vision and being able to clearly see everything that's above and behind you (the ability to clearly see what should be fuzzy peripheral vision is also a big advantage). I'd say the unrealistic advantage of 3rd person is much greater than the unrealistic disadvantage of 1st person. Especially if you are wearing helmet or NVG.

Shacktac hud gives a much better sense of giving back some of that awareness without making it so ridiculously clear and detailed.

[Mr. Charles 22]

double press zoom out if 1st person is too narrow.

[antoineflemming 14]

double press zoom out if 1st person is too narrow.

Did I not just explain why that's not realistic? It's zooming out based on a camera that is positioned too far forward. Zooming forward or backward is still based off of that 1st person camera. Which is why when zooming out, the view is distorted.

My whole point is that, you can see more than your hands+wrist in real life. So why, in ArmA2, can I only see that? The camera should be moved "backward", meaning that the value of the camera's z coordinate (front-back direction) should be decreased. Basically, the player should be able to see at least his forearms (just before the elbow).

Edited June 26, 2012 by antoineflemming

[metalcraze 290]

3rd person is a compensation for tunnelvission, or does first give you a 180degree field of view like real life?

First person in ArmA is already a huge compensation for tunnel vision with 4x zoom out by default (double '-' is actually x8)

But of course - in real life you are a magical camera flying behind your body picking behind corners while you look at the wall.

My whole point is that, you can see more than your hands+wrist in real life.

Bring a weapon to your eyes and tell me do you see much more than your wrists? I mean you won't even see your right hand and yet you see it in ArmA unless you zoom in (which actually gives you the real non zoomed-out vision)

Edited June 26, 2012 by metalcraze

[feralcircus 2]

Did I not just explain why that's not realistic? It's zooming out based on a camera that is positioned too far forward. Zooming forward or backward is still based off of that 1st person camera. Which is why when zooming out, the view is distorted.

My whole point is that, you can see more than your hands+wrist in real life. So why, in ArmA2, can I only see that? The camera should be moved "backward", meaning that the value of the camera's z coordinate (front-back direction) should be decreased. Basically, the player should be able to see at least his forearms (just before the elbow).

We seem to be on the same wavelength :-) That's where this idea could come in to play...

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?125819-ArmA-3-Community-wishes-amp-ideas-NO-DISCUSSION&p=2089523#post2089523

[antoineflemming 14]

First person in ArmA is already a huge compensation for tunnel vision with 4x zoom out by default (double '-' is actually x8)

But of course - in real life you are a magical camera flying behind your body picking behind corners while you look at the wall.

Bring a weapon to your eyes and tell me do you see much more than your wrists? I mean you won't even see your right hand and yet you see it in ArmA unless you zoom in (which actually gives you the real non zoomed-out vision)

The character, in ArmA, DOESN'T bring the weapon to his eyes. Your camera moves DOWN to the weapon sight. You don't believe me? go crouch and then go into your sights, and keep switching in and out of sights. There is no animation for bringing up your sights to your eyes. When you have a rifle in your hand, you CAN see more than your hands. When you bring your weapon to your eyes, you shouldn't.

I want to see something more like this:

Where, if you're not sighted, and are holding, say, the CZ Scorpion EVO 3, that you can see a good bit of your forearm, and your right hand holding the weapon. That above, while a floating hand, is much more representative of how much of the weapon/hands/arms a normal person can see.

Edited June 26, 2012 by antoineflemming

[NoRailgunner 0]

Well lets get back to topic - Why should BIS make all the things "equal (or near equal) technology for both east/west sides" ? Are some players just too lazy to get familiar with weapons, vehicles and aircrafts or is it just that it can require a little more thinking, planning and communication before the mission (combat/battle) starts?? Or should any game where one can shoot be balanced by default just because its unfair to have to deal with certain/typical advantages and disadvantages? What's wrong having mission parameters/options where people/server admin can choose how they want to play?

[antoineflemming 14]

Well lets get back to topic - Why should BIS make all the things "equal (or near equal) technology for both east/west sides" ? Are some players just too lazy to get familiar with weapons, vehicles and aircrafts or is it just that it can require a little more thinking, planning and communication before the mission (combat/battle) starts?? Or should any game where one can shoot be balanced by default just because its unfair to have to deal with certain/typical advantages and disadvantages? What's wrong having mission parameters/options where people/server admin can choose how they want to play?

For me, I think balance really should mean only one thing: That BIS puts as much effort into designing and developing the East as it does the West. Honestly, the East and West would have different strengths. It's not about every little item being comparable, but about overall balance. Strengths and weaknesses of both sides should balance out. And, in ArmA3's case, ONLY because Iran and NATO are pretty matched. For one, the Iranians should have more naval vessels, being more readily supplied from Greece and Turkey.

[noubernou 77]

By far the most stupid thread I have read on here in a long, long time.

Whatever BIS does, the community will fix it and make it better, thats how its always been. If they want to make it super balanced there will be a dozen mod teams making sure that the realism that makes this game different is still there.

Also, this is a sim, you people that can't figure out how it is a sim are obviously incapable of playing a simulation, because a lot of simulation comes from the metaphysical aspects of the game, and that is especially true of Arma. Nothing really puts Arma in a different category from BF or CoD besides realistic weapons stats, the rest of the realism comes from the people who play it. You can run around and be a rambo idiot, or you can play seriously with people in some sort of actual organized play. The same can be done in any other FPS.

Also the the mods this community have developed make it a sim. Go try the artillery in ACE. There is literally no more realistic simulation of field artillery in any other game. You could sit down with the M119 in ACE and come away being able to use it in real life. VBS2, which the military uses to train, has nothing on a number of community made systems.

Before I go too offtopic, I have never seen Arma as a game, its always been a sim or even more precisely, a research tool. There are plenty of mission makers who make unbalanced missions, they do it intentionally, because they want to see how people can try and beat the odds, see how proven tactics can be disproven, etc. That is the fun in this game for a lot of people.

[Jaws2blood 1]

I just want equal numbers, not 40 NATO soldiers vs 10 OpFor like i sometimes saw in ArmA 2.

[antoineflemming 14]

By far the most stupid thread I have read on here in a long, long time.

Whatever BIS does, the community will fix it and make it better, thats how its always been. If they want to make it super balanced there will be a dozen mod teams making sure that the realism that makes this game different is still there.

Also, this is a sim, you people that can't figure out how it is a sim are obviously incapable of playing a simulation, because a lot of simulation comes from the metaphysical aspects of the game, and that is especially true of Arma. Nothing really puts Arma in a different category from BF or CoD besides realistic weapons stats, the rest of the realism comes from the people who play it. You can run around and be a rambo idiot, or you can play seriously with people in some sort of actual organized play. The same can be done in any other FPS.

Also the the mods this community have developed make it a sim. Go try the artillery in ACE. There is literally no more realistic simulation of field artillery in any other game. You could sit down with the M119 in ACE and come away being able to use it in real life. VBS2, which the military uses to train, has nothing on a number of community made systems.

Before I go too offtopic, I have never seen Arma as a game, its always been a sim or even more precisely, a research tool. There are plenty of mission makers who make unbalanced missions, they do it intentionally, because they want to see how people can try and beat the odds, see how proven tactics can be disproven, etc. That is the fun in this game for a lot of people.

But it IS a game... Even the devs have said as such. It's not the same as VBS, which is a true sim. It's kinda like a game-sim. That's why vanilla ArmA doesn't simulate everything realistically. Just the really important parts. That's why there isn't dismemberment. Certainly mods do make the game more of a sim. And you can approach ArmA as whatever you want because it's a sandbox. It's a sandbox and a toolbox. That's what's the core of ArmA. A realistic sandbox/toolbox.

[noubernou 77]

But it IS a game... Even the devs have said as such. It's not the same as VBS, which is a true sim. It's kinda like a game-sim. That's why vanilla ArmA doesn't simulate everything realistically. Just the really important parts. That's why there isn't dismemberment. Certainly mods do make the game more of a sim. And you can approach ArmA as whatever you want because it's a sandbox. It's a sandbox and a toolbox. That's what's the core of ArmA. A realistic sandbox/toolbox.

Have you ever played VBS2? Vanilla Arma2 is better in a number of ways still (thats not to say that VBS2 isn't over all a better training program though). ACE with Arma2 is miles and miles more realistic than VBS2.

VBS2 isn't striving for realism in a lot of areas, because its not important for a number of training applications that its used for.