Multiplayer Balancing - Will Arma3's MP be balanced?

[celery 8]

In terms of simulation, BIs record on armament is superb, but it terms of balanced multiplayer gameplay its not, and arguably has never been for the sake of realism. This question has been posed in previous titles (OFP/Arma1/Arma2) but since BI has taken the liberty of extending the timeline of their next IP into the future, I was wondering if there was anything mentioned on the subject of having equal (or near equal) technology for both east/west sides since they have the liberty to stretch what is realistic and what is not.

There are some east players who enjoy being east, I get that, however, most flock to the west team in almost every server I join (arguably better AT, tanks, light vehicles, weapons/scopes) and I would (for once) like to feel like both teams are worth playing all the time.

Just wondering if this is how our defenders of realism saw the first post. :rolleyes:

[metalcraze 290]

He is pretty straightforward when saying that realism is a bad idea for a multiplayer gameplay he wants.

[celery 8]

He is pretty straightforward when saying that realism is a bad idea for a multiplayer gameplay he wants.

Thanks for confirming my theory. :)

[Panda_pl 0]

The setting and enemy allow to balance the arsenals of both sides without sacrificing realism, just like it was the case with original OFP, where all weapons had enemy counterparts and they were equally matched.

I think we are having a purely academic discussion here.

[Tonci87 163]

And is there a better way to achieve that than implementing comparable assets (and I'm still not talking about making them unrealistic) for the main sides in the game? After all, you could still make your mission as imbalanced as you could possibly want, with none of that OFP/whatever arcade nonsense about actual technological counterparts.

Implementing comparable asstes is fine as long as they are realistic. But it also depends on the scenario. Giving T-90s to the ChdkZ or to the takistani Army doesn´t sound really believable. Now with Iran vs. NATO BIS has the possibility to make comparable assets.

[dmarkwick 261]

The assets & equipments don't need to be believable. They only need to be available :) It seems to me that the "realism above all else" crowd fear that the extra assets & equipments will simply jump out of the editor right into their realistic duckshoot and spoil everything :)

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Implementing comparable asstes is fine as long as they are realistic. But it also depends on the scenario. Giving T-90s to the ChdkZ or to the takistani Army doesn´t sound really believable. Now with Iran vs. NATO BIS has the possibility to make comparable assets.

It has always been about the assets... Never have we once contemplated skewering the config to simulate unrealistic behavior. Depending with whom Iran is allied in ArmA III, Opfor could receive Sukhoi PAK FA T-50 or the Chinese J-20 jet, among other things.

The initial unit balancing post Operation Arrowhead was a joke, though I have immensely enjoyed hunting M1 tanks in my BMP-2... until being TAB+clicked by an Apache. :)

Edited July 3, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin

[VojtasCZ 1]

Balance ? ... Smells like mainstream shooters ...

[NoRailgunner 0]

It seems that some people are just afraid that BIS could increase the authenticity of Armaverse a little bit? C'mon it can't be so hard to read/inform yourself about advantages/disadvantages of certain A3 weapon systems/vehicles etc.... Maybe ask BIS for some better tutorial/demo missions for MP too? Or is it impossible/out of question to enjoy A3 training and practise on MP? :)

[BLSmith2112 0]

Balance ? ... Smells like mainstream shooters ...

ding ding! Your our 50,000 customer who doesn't read original posts. Here's your reward.

[VojtasCZ 1]

ding ding! Your our 50,000 customer who doesn't read original posts. Here's your reward.

http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/attachments/general-discussion/627272d1334635343-need-some-help-diggers-show-gun_barrel_05_lg.jpg

Thank you, but i just wanted to express :-)

[celery 8]

NoRailgunner, would you like to answer my question?

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

It seems that some people are just afraid that BIS could increase the authenticity of Armaverse a little bit? C'mon it can't be so hard to read/inform yourself about advantages/disadvantages of certain A3 weapon systems/vehicles etc....

Reading comprehension - level 0. We're talking about assets only - do you envision authenticity in the form of OPFOR having AK74 with ironsights as standard issue, while the other team sports all the latest gadgets?

We're talking World War III scenario here, not some cave sweep operation by a limited contingent in Arabistan against farmers with CZ550.

Maybe ask BIS for some better tutorial/demo missions for MP too? Or is it impossible/out of question to enjoy A3 training and practise on MP? :)

No amount of training will let you counter a 256-Tunguska in your A-10 prior to it TAB-Clicking you. :rolleyes:

[NoRailgunner 0]

Imo its all boils down to BIS refusing to make believable / authentic features for all the things out of the box but instead relying on community to fix and tweak all these things. Equalizing west and east side/faction would be just another step into mainstream/gamey place. What kind of technolgies should be comparable and which should be without an counterpart? Or should there be really no difference at all except only the visual appearance aka camo/color, signs/symbols etc? Maybe the OP is able to elaborate a bit more about what he means with "balanced", "equal technolgy for both west/east side" and "like to feel like both teams are worth playing all the time"? Maybe just some good examples for Arma3 Air, Sea and Land combat?

[celery 8]

Just a summary of the balancing in the previous games.

Operation Flashpoint

Small arms: different but neither side has functionality that the other doesn't, save for NATO's AR optics and the almighty G36

Cars: Light cars are fairly balanced: NATO has Jeep, MG Jeep and Humvee as opposed to USSR's plain UAZ, but USSR has the heavily armored BRDM

Light tanks: M60 is slightly inferior to T-72

Main battle tanks: Abrams is slightly superior to T-80

Helicopters: Quite balanced, although USSR's only version of Mi-17 has almost 200 rockets to spam all over the place

Planes: Quite balanced

Armed Assault:

Small arms: US has all sorts of toys, OPFOR's most advanced gun is the scoped AKS-74

Cars: General purpose cars are imbalanced to the better-armored Humvee's favor; US has a truck with MG

Tanks: Abrams is vastly superior to T-72, the best that OPFOR has

Helicopters: OPFOR's single-seat Ka-50 is a bit imba with its missiles, otherwise US has more variety and better specialization

Planes: OPFOR's Su-34 is inferior in both air and air-to-ground combat against US's specialized planes

Arma 2:

Small arms: US has a ton of toys for all occasions, OPFOR has only single attachments besides grenade launchers for its narrow variety of guns

Cars: General purpose cars are imbalanced to the better-armored Humvee's favor

Anti-air: Otherwise ok, but OPFOR's Tunguska is ridiculously overpowered

Tanks: Even the weakest Abrams is vastly superior to Russia's non-TI'd T-90, or indeed Takistan's pride, the T-72

Helicopters: OPFOR's Ka-52 has trolltastic missiles, but otherwise NATO's choppers clean house

Planes: OPFOR's Su-34 is inferior in both air and air-to-ground combat against US's specialized planes; Su-25 and L-39 are underequipped and stall easily; F-35 completely dominates every OPFOR plane

These are the facts that all mission makers have to deal with when they're making pvp missions with something more than just infantry. The problems are amplified the fuller you want the spectrum to be. I hope this clarifies the context of balancing requests that some people here interpret as attacks against realism.

NoRailgunner needs to read this again.

[jumpartist 0]

From reading EVERY post in this thread. It seems most Realism fanatics are confusing those BALANCE fanatics for 1 thing. Balance does not mean Mirror. In reality. It just means balanced think of five chunks of lead all different sizes on one side of a scale, and 5 TOTALLY different looking chunks of lead on the other side. They are balanced. One chunk might be sharp for stabbing while another blunt for plain old hard hitting ability. Etc. etc.

The Idea being you are not weighing 5 pieces of Lead to 5 pieces of GOLD. If you get my drift.

If BIS invests the time to get rid of very arcadey tab lock and fire gameplay, and commits to developing some near to real aircraft/ground targeting system, we might just have some BALANCE built right in that we can use on both sides of a conflict. No need to put a stripe on a M1A1 and call it a bad guy tank. Just get us a little closer to similar tech and let us go at it.

[NoRailgunner 0]

I still think it would be tenfold better if BIS would do something more about 'authentic' and cut the gamey/arcade part of A3. Question is how many casual pvp and coop players will like it? How many got just too comfy with gameplay of other popular games and how many people are interested in a different gameplay? Or will it be even possible to switch A3 into "casual" or "simulation" mode?

[chortles 263]

I still think it would be tenfold better if BIS would do something more about 'authentic' and cut the gamey/arcade part of A3. Question is how many casual pvp and coop players will like it?

Well guess who I am! :D

In any case, "simulation" mode is probably called ACE... I'm perfectly comfortable with the "gamey/arcade" part in the vehicle simulation.

[Timnos 1]

Or will it be even possible to switch A3 into "casual" or "simulation" mode?

It's already possible to switch between 3rd person view for casual gamers and 1st person view for hardcore simulation players, it's a good system that suits all.

[TheCrusader 10]

Honestly reading all of this thread confused me.

Obviously many ppl here post their opinions over and over without listening to arguments of the other side.

To me it all breaks down to this:

"Realism crowd": Technology is not equally distributed IRL and so shoud not be in the game, as this "feels more authentic". Herein also lies a more or less overt criticism of the way BI handles modern fire control systems.

"Balance crowd": Stuff should have a rough equivalent on the other side of the fence, so if ppl flock to the side with more tech (which always happens) you do not have numerical + technological advantage against you.

I fully agree with the criticism on the BI FCS implementation.

Seriously, look at mandos stuff. There was a lot taken from his ideas for OA. So plz BI go the whole way and implement all of his stuff, yes its that good.

But I cannot understand whats the problem with both sides having equal tech in the future?

IRL the problem with most tech is not availability but price.

You CAN have top rated tech from Russia or China which is equal (at least in the resolution of the game) to modern western equip, its just very expensive. That is why u dont see it too often. But in the future with peak oil etc. who is to say how much money a country like iran could invest in the newest gadgets?

I think that is what Celery is trying to convey, correct me if I'm wrong.

Just my 0,02€

Cheers

Crusader

Edited July 4, 2012 by TheCrusader

[NoRailgunner 0]

Its simple: if A3 is authentic then there will be some significant difference between sides/factions + their technolgies and the use of them in combat. Why should OPFOR start and continue a (world) war if they don't have any advantage or if all their military knowledge is just on par with Blufor? Guess Blufor will have something up in their sleeve too but that does not mean that everything need to have it's counterpart. Different politics and military forces, different doctrines and strategies.... :) On the other hand: If players don't want to recon the area before they go/fly in - they have to face the surprise. That's clearly not the mission makers or games fault.

[batto 17]

@NoRailgunner: Your taste in PvP is not really point in of this thread. We now understand that you like imbalanced sides in PvP because you like realisticness or whatever. You can create & play such missions with both imbalanced & balanced assets. So what exactly is your point? It seems to me that you're just trying to force your style of gameplay on others.

<--- say hello to miku

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

TBH, I get the impression he's arguing from Co-op side, because NO ONE that I know of liked the initial imbalance post-ArmA II/OA release, i.e. Tunguska vs. all aircraft in ArmA II; BMP-2s/T-55s/T-72s/Shilkas vs. M1A2 TUSKs/Apaches in OP Arrowhead.

There is a serious danger, now that the ArmA series has greater exposure, that upon release, if one of the sides gets anything similar to the Tunguska, that a lot of PVP games will be ruined, and whole teams will rage-quit, because it is a competitive environment.

[NoRailgunner 0]

batto just speak for yourself and don't use the "we" form like a 12 year old who think its valid to be the spokesperson of all pvp players. Did you read what I suggested eg "casual" / "simulation" mode or that not everything has to have an counterpart. Clearly some pvp players just try (again) to force their "balanced" gameplay or liking on all A3 players. Perhaps just simply ask BIS for authentic/'realistic' implementation of weapon + missile/gun guidance systems? Of course in 2035 all sides/faction could have + use a bit more advanced technology than in the 80's or 2009. Try to find some infos/facts about current systems in use and those which are in development. ;)

[batto 17]

batto just speak for yourself and don't use the "we" form like a 12 year old who think its valid to be the spokesperson of all pvp players.

Chill out. "we" means at least me and OP. And frankly, any serious PvP player.

Did you read what I suggested eg "casual" / "simulation" mode or that not everything has to have an counterpart.

It could be translated to "less assets = simulation mode, more assets = causal mode". I don't see any sane logic behind this.

Clearly some pvp players just try (again) to force their "balanced" gameplay or liking on all A3 players.

No, quite opposite. Comparable assets will not change your usual "imbalanced" hardcore (= boring) gameplay and you're clearly not a serious PvP player. But it's you who's bitching about things that will not affect you.