Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BLSmith2112

Multiplayer Balancing - Will Arma3's MP be balanced?

Recommended Posts

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.

you seem to have nothing better to do besides spamming each thread around here. Just checking your post history, 90% of that is done in A3 forums...What the hell has the above reply with the thread you pointed in.

Besides preaching to the priest like you just did regarding VBS, what was the point of the above, besides stating the fucking obvious?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

This is true enough. VBS2 doesn't strive for realism over usability. It's designed to teach procedure not soldiering :) soldiering can only be done with rifles, boots, rain, mud & verbal abuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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..."

Yes, did you? "Equal (or near equal) technology for both east/west sides" has no implications of identical vehicles or identical configs. He wants both sides to have assets that don't fall short.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

imbalanced sides are way more interesting. if both sides are almost the same it will be extremely boring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
imbalanced sides are way more interesting. if both sides are almost the same it will be extremely boring.

That's down to mission construction, but the ability should be there for an all-rounded MP ability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Celery do you know the definition of equal? Hint - the mathematical symbol is: " = " Guess few pvp mission makers/players just want hardcoded "balance" because its 10 times easier to make fun missions where one just can put 100 vs 100 players without thinking so much about their weapons/gear and other assets. Why don't they just ask/beg/cheer etc BIS to make reasonable realistic assets so they don't have to blame mission makers for releasing "bad" missions? Or is it better to be sure, safe and comfy that the opponent will not gonna have better/advanced stuff ever? No surprises, no challenges - just tacticool fastmoving?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Celery do you know the definition of equal? Hint - the mathematical symbol is: " = " Guess few pvp mission makers/players just want hardcoded "balance" because its 10 times easier to make fun missions where one just can put 100 vs 100 players without thinking so much about their weapons/gear and other assets. Why don't they just ask/beg/cheer etc BIS to make reasonable realistic assets so they don't have to blame mission makers for releasing "bad" missions? Or is it better to be sure, safe and comfy that the opponent will not gonna have better/advanced stuff ever? No surprises, no challenges - just tacticool fastmoving?

I don't think we're talking about the same things here, so it's probably fruitless to go on.

Edited by Celery

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@NoRailGunner

its simple, player made missions are not standard, and are "NOT" included in the scope of this discussion.

@Celery

just a comment and some questions on this discussion, i always see this throw back "balance depends on the mission maker" while this is true on player generated content, that is not the PVP "standard/official" of the developer made game.

Is there or will there be a supported "official PvP" game mode? the obvious answer is yes, however as many stated in the community "BIS will make the game and we will fix it as always" is quite a statement for a developer to get, most of the people advocating "it does not need to be the same to be balanced" are Also not taking the official game into account but taking what they see on an almost individual base what their sandbox or toybox is and using it as a base of experience.

will we all adore Arma to be our own personal playground, there is a Huge impact of it being a commercial Item, a game in essence, at most its now fragments with half mods, half balance, half bugs etc.

the ONE experience BIS needs to take from DayZ is that a standard game play mod with a well thought out mechanic will sell it self, and there for a system like that is Imperative to achieve, the thing that upsets me the most is that such a system is Not hard or expensive to implement. 3 Things needed by BIS, and you will have a deep, balanced and great Experience in PVP un-matched by any game out there.

1. a Standard game Mode "Warfare" a good one not the half baked vanillah one. that's the standard, the official game mode, where people measure to when entering any PVP discussion. the more complex the better, DayZ offers a presistant Mod that saves over days, Warfare will benefit Hugely from that. one unified mod with clear scope goals and objectives, to provide a set of parameters of showcasing what ARMA is about "example combat planing on "you select combat scale" logistic planing, combined operations etc etc"

2. a Standard quality and control document for addons,scripts,effects and process to be added to that standard official PVP mod: yes we like our addons, we like to have 3 thousand type of tanks and guns, and we love the mod makers, and they add soo much to this game , and provide almost all the tools for balance, problem is compatibility, quality and balance of those items them selves. think about a process that sets a list of items which will expand on the official game mode without fragmentation it, adding the to the balance and the toy box without having to side with one mod maker or the other, all you needed is a QC document and system, mod makers can chose to be in it, its an optional tool that people who make mods missions maps will aspire to, the add on assets will be shared, therefor a weapon Script for example can be shared by the modders who chose to be in that pool. just think of the huge benefit this will add, and with BIS at the helm the politics and Egos and Epeen swinging that foils this place will be significantly reduced. and oh god depth and simulations this will add so much to that, at a good price as well.

3.Stats Tracking, this prevents noob stomps, and shows clans and clan tags, insuring you know who you play with an ELO system works, simple and easy to make, not achievements and those Arcade tools, just a simple website. Also DayZ did it.

why on earth is such a system not done yet? this is clearly the best step forward for this series.

a Player made map like Flaujah, that has a proper balanced and paced battle that been raging for days with clans coming in and out, combined operations, Special operations behind enemy lines, large infantry combat over strategic locations, your progress means something, fighting over with an escalating tech tree of player / Dev made assets, balanced by price and research. yeah that sounds good ill pay extra for that, sad thing is its just 2 steps away and no one is going for it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
imbalanced sides are way more interesting. if both sides are almost the same it will be extremely boring.

I like being the underdog... and whooping arse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think we're talking about the same things here, so it's probably fruitless to go on.

You maybe aren't. But the people you try to side with - are.

Edited by metalcraze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its funny how in warfare it kind of balances itself.. normally you have like 20 people playing blufor and 8 ppl going opfor ^^

but opfor are usually vets while blufor are mainly dayz players.

its like this: young americans driving the phat loot (m1a2 stuff) and get blown up by some RPG Soldiers.. Or newbies standing in the open and getting shot. etc

hehe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is balanced - West has better technology, East may be in most times overnumbered

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I find it silly that "balance" is such a naughty word here that makes everyone go apeshit in a hasty attempt to be the one who sounds the most anti-arcade and, by extension, the biggest milsim fan because opposing other things is the hallmark of such fandom.

The usual strawman associated with balancing is that whoever even ever so slightly suggests balance wants everyone to have the exact same equipment, or at least completely unrealistic vehicle specs. That is, as I said, a strawman. It's also possible to pick the vehicles so that there isn't clear full spectrum imbalance like there is in Arma 1 and 2.

I wonder how many people who laugh at the concept of balance and say embarassing things like "USA vs. <undeveloped country's guerrillas> isn't balanced, your argument is invalid" have a tendency to play pvp missions that don't, for a change, revolve around asymmetric warfare or buying stuff. Asymmetric warfare is called that for a reason, and that is to differentiate it from warfare (the normal kind, remember?). I have played in large-scale pvp tournaments, and putting clearly imbalanced vehicles as counterparts can make a very big difference in the course of a 3-hour battle, and victory can be attributed to the superior vehicles if there wasn't much score difference, and the bad blood generated by it is all the more bitter the more obviously superior said vehicle is.

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

Thank you... a lone voice of reason from someone that gets it.

Edited by Victor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hehehehe,ofcourse balance is needed !

In ArmA 2,you find the latest West technology in a hand,and in the other hand the soviet era armement for OPFOR ... they need first to give us both sides assets, then, if one is missing something ,he has to live with that.

Just by comparing russia and USMC,you can find a huge difference in equipement while modern russian gear is similar to what USMC has in real life (RPG 29 as counterpart of SMAW/MAAWS,T90S/TUSK,SU47/F35C ,khrizantema/bgm tow etc ... ) ... Metis is a guerrilla weapon nowadays :D

Balance is possible,BIS just needs to update its calendar :S

Edited by On_Sabbatical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't dis ArmA II's OPFOR balance, Qaz. :p It's fairly even, with Ruski forces having the most mobility and concealment options, half of their units have lower profiles, compared to Western vehicles: T-90s, T-72s, BMP-3s and BTR-90, especially, is icing on the cake with its OP armaments. :cc:

The only thing I see out of place is the Su-34, as compared to the original Harrier and initial Tunguska dis-balance... (until Benny fixed it by sticking Tung missiles on the M6 Linebacker ;p)

Edited by Iroquois Pliskin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If, hypothetically, BIS armed the Iranians with captured Merkava's for the sake of multiplayer balancing people would then probably start complaining that the game is unauthentic...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If, hypothetically, BIS armed the Iranians with captured Merkava's for the sake of multiplayer balancing people would then probably start complaining that the game is unauthentic...

People'd complain about authenticity even without that. That's why there's a thread about authenticity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People'd complain about authenticity even without that. That's why there's a thread about authenticity.

And guess what the first complaint was about, yep you guessed it, the Iranian Merkava....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problem with equipment rosters per-se, however I have a huge problem with the idea of weapon systems themselves being modified with on the basis that multiplayer will suffer.

That's the main concern I have.

Simply put, altering the whole game on the basis that it won't make multiplayer enjoyable is the reason why its taken SO long for realistic shooters to gain a foothold.

Every retarded deathmatch oriented FPS out there sacrificed diversity for continuity (and thereby balance).

I would even go so far as to suggest one of two things:

1: make a separate set of addons for multiplayer variants that are flagged by the host of a server.

2: better yet, let the community do this so that it at least looks like BI isn't pandering to a lot of deatchmatch obsessed weenies migrating from other games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

Because that fits so well with what has been said in the thread, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
^

Because that fits so well with what has been said in the thread, right?

A few do fit. And a little smile wont hurt anyway, don't you think? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just give the east comparable AT, decent scopes on weapons, and aircraft that isn't akin to a wiffle bat vs. a titanium bat.
*Shakes head* .. SOMEHOW that statement ^ will be read as follows:
"OMG we need regenerative health, perks, and achievements like in COD/BF with 100% identical weapons and vehicles OMG!11!!."

You know that rediculous arguement people make about gay marriage, the one that goes: "If you let gays marry, whats next? Animal marriage?" That sounds like you when you say, "If you give a bone to the East side for a more balanced PVP experience, you're turning Arma into COD OMG!"

Fun fact: This game is set in the future. They are going to manipulate "reality" in dozens of ways already. So stop clinging to your flawed ideology that this idea simply will ruin BI's gameplay philosophy.

Edited by Victor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Balance comes from mission design.

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

This

....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×