Multiplayer Balancing - Will Arma3's MP be balanced?

[Timnos 1]

The main factions are going to have a impressive array of weapons, firepower balance shouldn't be an issue -

â– You will be equipped by the state-of-the-art weapons technology.

â– Prepare to operate wide range of personal weapons: pistols, ultramodern assault and sniper rifles, machineguns, missile launchers and even some experimental weapons.

â– Multitude of gadgets may give you critical advantage in the battlespace. Explosives may give you the necessary edges over the superior enemy numbers.

â– Many military vehicles sport additional armament.

â– Unmanned Ground Vehicles are frequent inhabitants of modern battlefield. You may expect small reconnaisance drones as well as independent fighting machines.

â– The most recent weapon platforms using some of the newly developed arms technology can be expected to appear in the battles.

â– Your firepower and tactical possibilities will be extended by the precision-guided ammunition.

â– Several machineguns and grenade launchers are available to serve as defences. Some of the weapons are based upon the newest research in the arms industry.

â– Some of the weapon platforms can be remotely controlled or may operate independently. Save your troops for real action by creating automated defences around bases and perimeters.

http://www.arma3.com/arma-3-overview/armory/

[Tonci87 163]

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 )

This would be the best way to balance it.

AA to powerfull? OK include HARM Missiles and include the option that the AA is able to switch off radar to avoid being killed by HARM.

Almost every real life Weapon system has a counterpart. Implement them.

[Hartmann 10]

You guys do realize that you can only talk about balance if there's a standardized PvP gamemode right.

[-Paladin- 10]

He is right to ask to balance the weapons in Arma 3.

In RL there are many restrictions to the weapons and units that we don´t have in arma.

Minimal lock on, setup time or dont use it in close rooms, broken equipment and and and....

But this word balance sounds like, World in conflict comes in to mind, every thing the same but different skin.

Arma 3 will be a game and expecting from a gamer to understand the different equipment and how to use it is impossible, not mention that they have to build a mission or god may have mercy on us, read and learn something about the editor or the equipment.

You can Balance missions by restricting ammo for op weapons, you can balance with a ticket system and objective game play without the KD info or amount of players in the teams (10 players versus 20). Or you just make it easy and do a 1:1 to all units.Balance is also achieved by the terrain you fight on. The weather and time, in one point he is right to ask to balance the weapons in Arma 3.

But this is again up to the mission maker and to use it you have to invest time and gamers dont have time they just want to blow up shit.

So if Arma 3 has to appeal to a broader audience balance is important, gamer-zombis dont like to think.

The devs have that to do for them and the mission makers.

[celery 8]

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.

Thought I'd post this again. :)

[NoRailgunner 0]

Just an example: A3 OPFOR could have something like upgraded BMPT should A3 BLUFOR players better ragequit + forumwhine because there is no comparable equal/balanced vehicle on their side? Or should someone take him by the hand and show him AT launchers and the SUAS and how to use them? Should BLUFOR get a Blue BMPT just for the sake of "equal", "balanced" and "(exact) counterpart"? Imo the difference is the salt and the motivation why players like to experience the other sides/factions of a game not the comparabel or similar stuff. ;)

[crazyjake56 10]

Personally I think balance should just come from countermeasures. As long as someone has some way of countering a weapon or vehicle on the opposite side I would be satisfied with the balance. I only hope they get around to pvp this time.

[antoineflemming 14]

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.

They haven't rolled over Israel. The Peace Accords that halted Iran's advance through Greece were brokered in Jerusalem. Thing is, the West and Israel could have supplied a secular Iran with technology and military hardware, believing that a secular Iranian government would be more peaceable than a radical religious Iranian government.

That said, people need to get in the mindset that it's 2035, and that things do change, technology does advance, nations that weren't powerful 20-30 years ago are more powerful now, and nations that were powerful 20-30 years ago aren't powerful now. Status quos today don't stay that way. Conventional wars were commonplace 50 years ago. Today they are asymmetric. And tomorrow (future, not literally tomorrow), they will go back to being conventional. Nothing is guaranteed to stay the same, and thus we can't look at technology, or the current military strengths of nations, or the specific vehicle hardware, or anything like it is today.

When considering things in the future, you have to recognize that things do change, and that some of the limitations of today won't be there tomorrow. Things like underwater weapons that are reloadable, helicopters like the MI-48, Iran and NATO being closely matched in military strength and hardware, all those things are possible by 2035. Laser beams are possible by 2035. Especially during wartime, during which the rate of technological advancement increases.

Edited July 6, 2012 by antoineflemming

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

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.

Indeed, though I'm looking back on Soviet tech as people don't have a frame of reference, if you start discussing specs of Chinese, Iranian units. :) There's no doubt, that a country capable of pushing NATO back out of the Mediterranean and Balkans has some pretty sneaky technology in its hands.

I guess, they could borrow from the Chinese, if they don't want to go ultra-futuristic with KA-MI-69 Hamok helicopters, because I don't see a substitute apart from this and Israeli tech, which Iran shouldn't be possessing, unless they've captured it! ;)

[HKFlash 9]

...unless they've captured it! ;)

Captured & reverse engineered maybe?

[Messiah 2]

They haven't rolled over Israel. The Peace Accords that halted Iran's advance through Greece were brokered in Jerusalem. Thing is, the West and Israel could have supplied a secular Iran with technology and military hardware, believing that a secular Iranian government would be more peaceable than a radical religious Iranian government.

That said, people need to get in the mindset that it's 2035, and that things do change, technology does advance, nations that weren't powerful 20-30 years ago are more powerful now, and nations that were powerful 20-30 years ago aren't powerful now. Status quos today don't stay that way. Conventional wars were commonplace 50 years ago. Today they are asymmetric. And tomorrow (future, not literally tomorrow), they will go back to being conventional. Nothing is guaranteed to stay the same, and thus we can't look at technology, or the current military strengths of nations, or the specific vehicle hardware, or anything like it is today.

When considering things in the future, you have to recognize that things do change, and that some of the limitations of today won't be there tomorrow. Things like underwater weapons that are reloadable, helicopters like the MI-48, Iran and NATO being closely matched in military strength and hardware, all those things are possible by 2035. Laser beams are possible by 2035. Especially during wartime, during which the rate of technological advancement increases.

Sorry, my A3 timeline knowledge is a little rusty :P but same result in any case, we can agree on that a future/seperate timeline does allow for new systems to be adopted rather than the traditional Iranian, Warsaw, etc selection. This should allow for a selection of more balance counterparts, without the need to start 'inventing' stats in the config to suit.

the sum of all parts should be equal and all that.

[jumpartist 0]

SO I just got done playing some ARMA 2 PvP. Valhalla was the mission, and once a guy was able to afford a jet all he did was hold down his right mouse button and it illuminated even enemy soldiers. WTF. This is what Im talking about. Thats the kind of thing I want removed so we can have a natural balance in the game. Not these retarded exploits of terrible features that BIS left in to aid the Single/COOP player. If we can get silly things like that removed and more proper simulation of things that use radar, than I thin ArmA will elevate to a whole new level.

[On_Sabbatical 11]

This would be the best way to balance it.

AA to powerfull? OK include HARM Missiles and include the option that the AA is able to switch off radar to avoid being killed by HARM.

Almost every real life Weapon system has a counterpart. Implement them.

So,you like nerfing things instead of dealing with it ?

Why not making PvP missions with all the technology the game offers and play with that,instead of having soldiers running around with AK47 and M16 and shooting at each other ... like any traditional game out there ?

We need various PvP style missions in this game ... PvP doesn't mean necessarely Infantry only !

[Tonci87 163]

So,you like nerfing things instead of dealing with it ?

Why not making PvP missions with all the technology the game offers and play with that,instead of having soldiers running around with AK47 and M16 and shooting at each other ... like any traditional game out there ?

We need various PvP style missions in this game ... PvP doesn't mean necessarely Infantry only !

Hmm counterpart was the wrong word, lets call it countermeasure. Like using HARM Missiles against active AA

[zukov 490]

Arma 3 is the most balanced game in the entire Arma series, the underwater warfare makes this game unique and probably the only choose for modders and mappers from other game engine. if the developers will put some template for generic game modes (like dominion, capture the flag etc) there will be a giant player base.

the tastes of players are different and this game could satisfy all them.

i hope that the developers have the MP part clear in mind.

[Timnos 1]

i hope that the developers have the MP part clear in mind.

In a E3 video Jay said Ondrej is working on the new MP system, I'm confident it will be very well planned and executed.

[lolipoyi 10]

Has nobody seen it says BalaCing in the thread title? :D

[zukov 490]

Has nobody seen it says BalaCing in the thread title? :D

yes "balancing in multiplayer", and i wrote that this game format in a near future is good for balanced game in terms of teams, plus i wrote that if developers will improve the mission editor with a generic game modes would be a perfect way for all type of gamers (casual, hardcore, milsim etc)

[[frl]myke 14]

Has nobody seen it says BalaCing in the thread title? :D

§5) No Spam

We deem spam as making a thread or posting a reply that has no real worth, is irrelevant, useless and offers nothing to a discussion. Messages of banned members are also considered as spam. If your post/thread is not able to illicit or sustain an in depth conversation then it's spam. This also applies to other areas of the forums such as leaving visitor messages on people's profiles. Spam may be dealt with by post count reduction, PR and/or WL.

Someone who can't follow simple rules shouldn't make fun of typos made by others. +1 Infraction since it can be considered offensive.

[ArcherSix 1]

To be fair, I'd wait to see how Bohemia makes would be a prudent venture rather than already damning it.

Plus, it's always a bit of fun to be the underdog.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

Accuracy and authentic feel of equipment outwieghts any PvP balancing IMO.

[Deadfast 43]

Once again, the two are not mutually exclusive.

[MrNicklebe 1]

I hope that the weapon systems are fairly realistic. I doubt there will be any major imbalances as they seem to be taking some liberties with what the armies are using. Either way it wont matter I think, because in my experience with Arma 2 Public PvP everyone wants to join the US team to use M4's and Apaches whilst Russian team wins most rounds anyway :S. I always thought that said a lot about the players on each team :p.

[ricnunes 0]

I want to say that I'm against "artificial balancing" in the sense of making units from both sides to have similar performance/strenght/whatever since these games (at least up to ArmA2: Operation Arrowhead) are definitly made to be REALISTIC - These games are in fact "milsims" at least regarding infantry combat (I agree that vehicles are a bit on the "arcadish" side).

And regarding the Assimetrical Warfare in real life, I want to say this:

- Many here have said that the one side which is the strongest (NATO in the Aghan war for example) are vastly superior (technology, weaponry , etc...) and are basically "invincible" in a "conventional head-to-head battle/war" while the other (Taliban in the Aghan war for example) must use "guerrila" tactics to survive and be able to inflict loses on the enemy and the ones that say this are in fact correct! But most here seem to forget (I admit that I haven't read all the post in this thread - very long thread) one very important advantage that the "weaker side" such as Taliban or Sadam era Iraqi army in real life (which could be modeled for Takistan army and militia in ArmA2:OA ) has over the "stronger side" (USA and NATO for example) which is the ability to take loses -> If the stronger side (again NATO in the Aghan war or USA in Vietnam for example) in an assimetrical war takes some loses and in the case of those loses being from western countries the public oppinion will stop supporting their countries envolvement in the war and thus with the final result that the "stronger side" will actually lose the war (this was what happened with the USA in Vietnam and Somalia), while at the same time the "weaker side" have the ability to sustain much more loses without losing their "will to fight". Also the "weaker side" could potentialy have more manpower imediatly available (in terms of infantry) and will certainly have a much bigger capability to replace loses.

How can this be modeled in a game like Arma for a MP TvT session/mission:

- Together with objectives make a death threshold for both sides (if that threshold is surpassed than that side will lose the game/mission). The "death threshold" for the weaker/guerrila side would be much higher than the one for the "stronger side". Basically the main objective for the weaker/guerrila side could be to inflict considerable loses on the enemy while the stronger side much acomplish several sets of tactical and strategical objectives in order to win the mission.

Actually this is what actually happens in my favourite RTS game - Combat mission Shock Force which is the most realistic RTS ever made (at least IMO).

But in the case of ArmA3 and since this game scenario will be a futuristic and near-sci-fi (IMO completly sci-fi) I wouldn't surprise a bit to see completly balanced units for both sides!

[Timnos 1]

Also the "weaker side" could potentialy have more manpower imediatly available (in terms of infantry) and will certainly have a much bigger capability to replace loses.!

Immediately available? If what you are trying to say is that Guerrilla forces can instantly rush reinforcements into battle within the time frame of a 30 minute - 2 hour firefight, well NATO forces can also bring in reinforcements within that time frame.