Multiplayer Balancing - Will Arma3's MP be balanced?

[hellfire257 3]

I'm not sure I follow you guys here. Isn't balance something that is done by mission design in ARMA?

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

I'm not sure I follow you guys here. Isn't balance something that is done by mission design in ARMA?

What of the missions that utilise 100% of the resources: maps, units and all other assets?

Another point is Catch-22 really - example: OPFOR's AA assets consist of Shilka, Igla/Strela MANPADs and the Tunguska; if you remove the last one, you are left with an impotent team, incapable of neutralising AA threats and thus losing 99% of the time; if you keep the Tunguska in, you get an unfair game, or a stalemate at best.

There needs to be moderation, a middle ground and not the extremes of either cases.

Edited July 4, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin

[maturin 12]

What of the missions that utilise 100% of the resources: maps, units and all other assets?

Missions will always be able to break the game. I can go and make a PBO with 100 tanks versus one invincible militiaman if I want to.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Missions will always be able to break the game. I can go and make a PBO with 100 tanks versus one invincible militiaman if I want to.

Only now, you can break the game by simply including the Tunguska in the mission, otherwise OPFOR doesn't stand a chance against copters and VTOL jets - there is not substitute for this particular unit with vital specialisation.

BIS either defines a coherent list of units for each team, leveling technological playing field, or they don't - and we continue to TAB+click in ArmA III and sing praises, while the PVP servers die off at the same time.

[onlyrazor 11]

About the Tunguska: Why not include an infantry team to take it out? Arma is about combined operations - an infantry squad clearing out the AA for support sounds perfect for it.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

About the Tunguska: Why not include an infantry team to take it out? Arma is about combined operations - an infantry squad clearing out the AA for support sounds perfect for it.

Well, if my reasoning fails, then I don't want to continue this anymore.

Why not include the S-300 with 250 km coverage radius and use the same SF squad to neutralise it prior to commencing combat operations? :rolleyes: Realistic, hardcore, et cetera.

What about nuclear missiles? Realistic, hardcore et cetera - ooo, nuclear threat implies diplomacy prior to the start of a war - how about a diplomacy mini-game? Realistic. ;)

Overly complicated, you see.

And another thing: if I know the parameters of the mission, you will not destroy me in a Tunguska, ever. A tracked, self-propelled AA battery with 8 missiles capable of reaching several Mach speeds within 10 km radius on a map which is only 15 km across (Chernarus). Playing against bots is one thing, if you give a player such a toy, there won't be any survivors.

Edited July 4, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin

[onlyrazor 11]

Well, if my reasoning fails, then I don't want to continue this anymore.

Why not include the S-300 with 250 km coverage radius and use the same SF squad to neutralise it prior to commencing combat operations? :rolleyes: Realistic, hardcore, et cetera.

What about nuclear missiles? Realistic, hardcore et cetera - ooo, nuclear threat implies diplomacy prior to the start of a war - how about a diplomacy mini-game? Realistic. ;)

Overly complicated, you see.

If the mission maker decides to include some rock-paper-scissors, military style, that's up to him. Even nukes. Not diplomacy, though. Diplomacy sucks :bounce3:

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

If the mission maker decides to include some rock-paper-scissors, military style, that's up to him. Even nukes. Not diplomacy, though. Diplomacy sucks :bounce3:

All, or most PVP missions, bar Warfare, were/are infantry based and rarely did you get proper prolonged tank/air engagements, because balance fvcking sucks.

[chortles 263]

NoRailgunner, as someone who DOES sympathize with the "mission designer sets the balance"...

I too agree (with the OP I guess, wow were people confusing) that the OPFOR should not get short shrift when it comes to what gear they CAN have in the game. After all, in Op/Arrowhead it was at least explicitly assymetrical (considering that it's evidently got Iraq/Afghanistan as areal-world analogue), while in ARMA 3 the very premise has a technologically advanced Iranian OPFOR on the offensive against NATO forces on the Aegean Islands... For PVP purposes, the "full spectrum" of what OPFOR has in the Editor when ARMA 3 ships should be comparable/equivalent and have at least "rough parity" to, again the "full spectrum" of what BLUFOR has in the Editor when ARMA 3 ships.

Then again, maybe that's the REAL reason why the Iranian OPFOR in ARMA 3 has stuff like the Merkava and the TAR-21? ;) Well, that and BI's better ability to get access to that than to ANY Iranian weapons specifications...

(I will add that apparently a bunch of the Op Arrowhead stuff was outdated "ComBloc" stuff even during the setting, and so far the Iranian OPFOR in ARMA 3 is EXPLICITLY not like that.)

[chortles 263]

Myke;2177763']And i really' date=' really dislike it to see other shooters taken as reference to compare ArmA with. Even more since i've watched a BF3 vid on YT where a player got into a vertical climb in a fighter plane, then jumps out of cockpit (still in climb), turns around and shoot the enemy plane behind him with his rifle and then get back into the cockpit and continue his flight. At this point i felt off my chair, LMFAO and closed the vid, asking myself how people can play such a crap.[/quote']I've personally seen a video where an ARMA player performed mine-clearing by driving a truck at a minefield, then chose "Eject" on the action menu, but due to netcode/visual rubber-banding it looked like his character's foot had gotten stuck in the door and he was dragged along with the truck right into the minefield that was set off... "asking myself how people can play such a crap" was just as applicable. Is ARMA somehow forgiven because this was happening with RV3 instead of Frostbite 2?

So, ArmA might fall a little short as a sim compared to DCS products or other flight sims, but it is lightyears ahead of any other FPS actually available.

In fairness, that's sometimes due to the limitations of the engine -- hey, I've read BISim's September 2010 "discussion paper" on how VBS2 1.4 on the RV2/ARMA 1 engine could do maritime simulation but also where the fidelity was limited.

[hellfire257 3]

I still don't follow. Don't include the Tunguska then and just give both sides MANPADS and no fighter aircraft, leaving in the A-10s and Su-25s.

[Tonci87 163]

I still don't follow. Don't include the Tunguska then and just give both sides MANPADS and no fighter aircraft, leaving in the A-10s and Su-25s.

Nah that would be to easy :j:

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

I still don't follow. Don't include the Tunguska then and just give both sides MANPADS

Ding, ding, ding. :rolleyes: Only, I would give Tunguska a downgrade to something more manageable, like the M6 Linebacker BLUFOR sports in OA.

As it stands right now, these missiles - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-19_Grisom#Missiles are OP in any non-coop environment.

Propellant Solid-fuel rocket

Operational

range 8 kilometres (5.0 mi) (10 kilometres (6.2 mi) 9M311-M1)

Flight altitude 3,500 metres (11,500 ft)

Boost time 2 stages: boost to 900m/s, then sustained 600m/s stage to range

Speed 900 m/s

Guidance

system Radio Command SACLOS

Tunguska is only one example in this debate. Either downgrade the payload, or find another hull for an AA platform, but I'm sure Iran will get their hands on something cool either way.

P.S. Check this out - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_95_SPAAA

The 25mm cannons have a rate of fire of 600-800 rpm each,and are gas-operated. About 1,000 rounds are carried. The cannons are used to engage targets out to a range of 2,500 meters and at altitudes of up to 2,000 meters. Additionally two QW-2 infra-red homing missiles can be mounted above the cannons on each side. The QW-2 missiles are based on a shoulder launched missile and can engage targets flying between 10 and 3,500 meters in altitude at a slant range of between 500 and 6,000 meters.

Much more manageable. :)

Edited July 5, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin

[Messiah 2]

Assuming I'm reading this correctly (pinch of salt please), that's what most people seem to fear though, why should you forcibly/knowingly downgrade a system from it's real abilities in a milsim title? If it's capable of doing such things, then it stands to reason that's precisely what it should do ingame. Liken it to saying that because an AK fires 7.62 rather than 5.56 (let us ignore the rather drawn out comparison of stopping power, tumbling, mushrooming, etc) rather than 5.56, then the AK weapons should have half the number of rounds? Or vice versa, etc, and so on, its the picture I'm painting that's more relevant than the validity.

On the face of it, it's a rather valid concern to voice, surely?

Rather BIS carefully choose something more appropriate instead (which is what you seem to be suggesting?) so that an, errr, 'natural' balance is maintained, rather than a forced one via altering characteristics (that makes sense somewhere in my mind)

Anyway, it's faily moot at this stage, given the near future setting, values can be set at BIS' discretion to ensure a blance across the board. The post about the sum of all parts being equal was the best in a long line of drivel (one system may outweigh another, but across the armory and vehicle list, it all evens out)

With that being said, some systems are far easier to maintain a balance across the board due to their variety in numbers (weapons, etc). AA tends to be a rather singular or limited item, so it also stands out when one side has a far more capable system.

Edited July 5, 2012 by Messiah

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Assuming I'm reading this correctly (pinch of salt please), that's what most people seem to fear though, why should you forcibly/knowingly downgrade a system from it's real abilities in a milsim title?

Concerning the Tunguska, it is what it is, the only problem - there is no substitute/lower tier platform in the Soviet/Russian arsenal, capable of performing similar tasks.

I proposed to find a different hull all-together, ideally you'd have missiles with infra-red guidance, as opposed to semi-automatic command line of sight, that the Tung sports, which are not affected by chaff counter-measures in RL, thus having a 99% hit rate against aircraft traveling at <1800 km/h.

Or would you people rather include the following in the game as well - http://saidpvo.livejournal.com/74710.html ? :) There needs to be a middle ground in this department, and 8 km coverage radius with 99% success rate is obviously an extreme case for PVP environment.

Edited July 5, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin

[mr burns 132]

There needs to be a middle ground in this department, and 8 km coverage radius with 99% success rate is obviously an extreme case for PVP environment.

There were loads of those pesky AA batteries in Lomac when i last played it, they were mostly easy to evade or kill from safe distance.

After some lessons learned (or editor play) you knew effective ranges and were able to utilise your planes sensors in order to kill/avoid danger.

If that gets applied to arma3 (changing some values to fit smaller landmass) then everything should be fine.

Get rid of the ridiculous TAB-click-BOOM mechanic asap, and we´re on a good way.

[De_little_Bubi 1]

why not counter that with "more realism"? i mean the reason this weapons are now that powerful is because the real life counter meassure is not implemented. whats with locking on enemies radar?

i guess there is something for every threat.

also making weapons systems more difficult to use - everybody can fire a rpg-7 but firing a javelin needs the pressing of some buttons at least. that takes up more time and therefore balances it out against its counterpart on the opfor side. (just as an example, the same applies to other game elements)

for uberpowered weapons which are in the game for the story or maybe because its fun it should be excluded in the serious pvp mission.

in call of duty you are also flying a c130 in the missions but dont have it in the mp (at least back in the days of modern warfare, dont know what happens now :P )

[antoineflemming 14]

why not counter that with "more realism"? i mean the reason this weapons are now that powerful is because the real life counter meassure is not implemented. whats with locking on enemies radar?

i guess there is something for every threat.

also making weapons systems more difficult to use - everybody can fire a rpg-7 but firing a javelin needs the pressing of some buttons at least. that takes up more time and therefore balances it out against its counterpart on the opfor side. (just as an example, the same applies to other game elements)

for uberpowered weapons which are in the game for the story or maybe because its fun it should be excluded in the serious pvp mission.

in call of duty you are also flying a c130 in the missions but dont have it in the mp (at least back in the days of modern warfare, dont know what happens now :P )

To correct your last statement, in COD4: Modern Warfare, you were playing as the gunner of an AC130 gunship in the Single Player Campaign, but it wasn't in the multiplayer. In MW2 and MW3, they added that as a killstreak in MP...

[niels95 1]

mp balance is a term that should be used only on forums for COD or battlefield. and if it were to be used here is should be in a discouraging form.

ArmA is all about realism, its a sim, not a Blockbuster style arcade game.

so if we are looking at a near future situation. it is most plausable that US will be technicaly far more developed that Russia,

just and only because the funding of each faction isn't combarable.

the American battle style is Technological Superiority

and the russians chose for Quantity rather then Quality.

i think if you are trying to simulate war with real players (thats what an mp game is)

the comanders should use the style of warfare, their equipment is ment for.

so when comparing the strength of 2 forces, there should not only be looked at raw firepower, but things like tactics are just as important.

and the factions should be played with using the correct battle form.

so i disagree to the statement that war isn't fair, it is. Just as fair as skill and play style of players is.

it is the same as comparing Bayern München to FC Barcelona, two completly different teams and styles. but in the Champions League final the match is fair

[[frl]myke 14]

mp balance is a term that should be used only on forums for COD or battlefield. and if it were to be used here is should be in a discouraging form.

ArmA is all about realism, its a sim, not a Blockbuster style arcade game.

so if we are looking at a near future situation. it is most plausable that US will be technicaly far more developed that Russia,

just and only because the funding of each faction isn't combarable.

the American battle style is Technological Superiority

and the russians chose for Quantity rather then Quality.

i think if you are trying to simulate war with real players (thats what an mp game is)

the comanders should use the style of warfare, their equipment is ment for.

so when comparing the strength of 2 forces, there should not only be looked at raw firepower, but things like tactics are just as important.

and the factions should be played with using the correct battle form.

so i disagree to the statement that war isn't fair, it is. Just as fair as skill and play style of players is.

it is the same as comparing Bayern München to FC Barcelona, two completly different teams and styles. but in the Champions League final the match is fair

How about getting informed before posting? Russio will not be the opponent in A3.

[dmarkwick 261]

mp balance is a term that should be used only on forums for COD or battlefield. and if it were to be used here is should be in a discouraging form.

ArmA is all about realism, its a sim, not a Blockbuster style arcade game.

so if we are looking at a near future situation. it is most plausable that US will be technicaly far more developed that Russia,

just and only because the funding of each faction isn't combarable.

the American battle style is Technological Superiority

and the russians chose for Quantity rather then Quality.

i think if you are trying to simulate war with real players (thats what an mp game is)

the comanders should use the style of warfare, their equipment is ment for.

so when comparing the strength of 2 forces, there should not only be looked at raw firepower, but things like tactics are just as important.

and the factions should be played with using the correct battle form.

so i disagree to the statement that war isn't fair, it is. Just as fair as skill and play style of players is.

it is the same as comparing Bayern München to FC Barcelona, two completly different teams and styles. but in the Champions League final the match is fair

I don't think you've been following the conversation.... :) There's no harm in implementing the possibility of balanced gameplay. It's not like it will jump out of the editor into your duckshoot :D (I think I already said that.....)

In any case, ArmA is a game first. Realism is all well & good, but the standard default realism is never enough for the people who demand it in any case. So realism nuts will ALWAYS mod it in. ArmA must be a great game first, with the flexibility to adapt to all kinds of gameplay.

Edited July 5, 2012 by DMarkwick

[antoineflemming 14]

mp balance is a term that should be used only on forums for COD or battlefield. and if it were to be used here is should be in a discouraging form.

ArmA is all about realism, its a sim, not a Blockbuster style arcade game.

so if we are looking at a near future situation. it is most plausable that US will be technicaly far more developed that Russia,

just and only because the funding of each faction isn't combarable.

the American battle style is Technological Superiority

and the russians chose for Quantity rather then Quality.

i think if you are trying to simulate war with real players (thats what an mp game is)

the comanders should use the style of warfare, their equipment is ment for.

so when comparing the strength of 2 forces, there should not only be looked at raw firepower, but things like tactics are just as important.

and the factions should be played with using the correct battle form.

so i disagree to the statement that war isn't fair, it is. Just as fair as skill and play style of players is.

it is the same as comparing Bayern München to FC Barcelona, two completly different teams and styles. but in the Champions League final the match is fair

All this from the guy who's been here for a day... As has been said, Russia isn't OPFOR in ArmA3. It's the Iranians. And, in this scenario, NATO and Iran are more closely matched. Iran might be ahead of NATO technologically. I understand what you and others have been saying, that BIS should not cast off realism for the sake of balance. But the existence of balance doesn't imply an unrealistic game. Yes, war isn't a perfect balance of sides. But not all war is asymmetrical. Most wars have NOT been asymmetrical. Take WW2 for instance. That war wasn't that asymmetric. Not like the current War on Terror. The point of balance isn't that the Iranians have their own version of an LAV-25 for example. It's that each side actually has stuff. Like each side has a tank for example, or an armored personnel carrier, or something like that. That equal time and effort is spent on each faction. And, especially given ArmA3's scenario where East and West ARE closely matched technologically, that definitely implies that there is a sort of balance. And that fits the story quite well too. That supports a story where Iran conquered Turkey and took part of Greece, where the West was unable to stop Iran's conquest of a NATO member. This sort of balance very much ties into the campaign. So it's not done just to do it. Nor does it overlook realism. Thing is, this is a conventional war, as opposed to asymmetric warfare, which really only applies to fighting guerillas or militants/insurgents. Asymmetric warfare is really very much similar to guerilla/unconventional warfare. It's just that asymmetric warfare is the term used by the non-guerilla/unconventional faction.

[Tom1 10]

IF insurgents wearing civilian clothes with no visbible weapons (maybe hiden or just stored in a car[which could make use ofvehicle search like vbs]) are not recognised as enemies, arma 3 will be assymetrically balanced.

USA vs Russia/China/Armaverse Iran - Conventional Warfare, both have ultra-modern equipment and use similar tactics. USA may have slightly more advanced and technologically superior equipment BUT Russian equipment is still good but a lot cheaper due to the need to mass produce (e.g. T90 tank still very good at the same time as being a lot cheaper than an abrams). From what I know Russian equipment has heaps of firepower anyway easilly enough to balance out even number battles (but russians will usually have more numbers anyway) it is their electronics that have their equipment slightly lacking behind US equipment in these days of technological/electronic 'SMART' warfare. China is similar in this sense and if Iran was to build up their 'empire' and take over surrounding countries and become more powerful I suppose for game purposes they would also be similar to Russia and China.

Guerillas are more mobile, are usually (initially) on the side of the local population (which asking for help from actually proveds quite helpful in large warfare style missions) and can (hopefully) blend in with civilians if the hide/ditch weapons and are wearing civilian clothes. It is believed by some that to win as a guerilla you just need to outsmart the tougher, superior side in conventional warfare, which is very difficult and unfair if they are both technologically and tactically superior. Wrong. Guerillas need to fight like they would in boxing or mma: with a gameplan that plays to their strengths and their enemies' weaknesses. E.g. No vehicles? Small numbers? Use the environment to your advantage to actually make the use of vehicles unadvisable (e.g. dense forest/jungle, urban terrain or mountainous terrain) and then use hit and run tactics, where you're more mobile than the larger and heavier (body armour and additional equipment) you can hit and then escape easilly ready to do it all again. I don't know, steal their uniforms and IR strobes to avoid their attack helicopter... Think outside the box, no matter what technologically inferior guerillas will always have the element of suprise in well made missions.

For all of that to work a standard and more accessable game mode similar to warfare but easier to set up, more user friendly, able to be played on both small and large scale (without difficult set up in the editor- i.e. a simple warfare mission can be made using in-module dropdown menus instead of external functions and processes to be called upon) where you are actually able to be given or chose from a list of roles such as artillery team and you start with your side and are tasked with setting up an arty base close to the HQ then awaiting fire missions from players/ai. I know all of that can be done with scripting experience but it would be really cool if it was all possible with drop down menus and placeable game logics only. You still would have the freedom to piss off and go lone wolf and shoot at people if you wish but the gamemode would be more user friendly and easier to coordinate online in public matches because you don't all just spawn and have to talk to everyone else to allocate roles and callsigns and radio channels and objectives - Everything like that is already taken care of and ready from the get go. You could have clan like matches in public servers!

All of that is a much better way to balance the game then using unrealistically modified stats. E.g. UK vs Takiban in arma 2. Takiban have T55, UK have challanger. BF style balancing would give the T55 upped stats and the Challanger reduced stats to even everything out, the T55 may be a bit faster and harder to hit, the Challanger might be a little bit better armoured with better weapons but slower and easier to hit.

In Arma 3, the tanks will be as they are in real life, with the T55 being at least 5 times cheaper to produce and a lot faster to produce as well. This keeps public warfar, CTI and RTS games assymetrically balanced while keeping the realism. Custom coop missions (with specifically scripted objectives and no warfar/construction modules in play) or (team)deathmatch/ capture the flag, sector control, domination or AAS would rely on the mission maker to keep things balanced, usually by giving the inferior force greater numbers or an easier objective or an unconventional advatage.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

why not counter that with "more realism"? i mean the reason this weapons are now that powerful is because the real life counter meassure is not implemented. whats with locking on enemies radar?

i guess there is something for every threat.

also making weapons systems more difficult to use - everybody can fire a rpg-7 but firing a javelin needs the pressing of some buttons at least. that takes up more time and therefore balances it out against its counterpart on the opfor side. (just as an example, the same applies to other game elements)

To successfully counter such efficient systems, you'd have to use ECCM on your planes - realistic? Yes. As long as we operate under TAB+Click=Boom mechanics, there must be downgrades of certain units.

for uberpowered weapons which are in the game for the story or maybe because its fun it should be excluded in the serious pvp mission.

There is no substitute for the Tunguska, you go from Shilka to... Tunguska - no middleground, like the HMV Avenger or M6 Linebacker for OPFOR.

We welcome more realism, is BIS going to provide it? Proper armour simulation, ECCM systems, render-to-texture forward looking scopes for helicopters and airplanes to guide/designate targets, although I have a tingling suspicion that it's far easier to replace certain units. :rolleyes:

Edited July 6, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin

[Messiah 2]

Still need to get out of the mindset that it's US vs Russia and it's 2012 if you're thinking of replacements ;) A widely expanding and growing Iran could feasibly have 'borrowed' technologies from other nations in that time, especially as if they're using the Merk, then one assumes they've already rolled over Israel (Although I fear most of the current Israeli systems would also be a case of a one hit wonder)

You get the drift, I'm sure.