Multiplayer Balancing - Will Arma3's MP be balanced?

[BLSmith2112 0]

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.

What exactly is realistic about "Warfare" anyway? Two teams with $0 dollars take control of towns controlled by brainless AI to somehow find money within those towns to build a state of the art army that pops out from (literally) thin air. It's a double standard so many people place on "authenticity" that really makes a tear come to my eye.

[dmarkwick 261]

What exactly is realistic about "Warfare" anyway? Two teams with $0 dollars take control of towns controlled by brainless AI to somehow find money within those towns to build a state of the art army that pops out from (literally) thin air. It's a double standard so many people place on "authenticity" that really makes a tear come to my eye.

I shouldn't worry about it. There are some people who will read a phrase like "possibility of balanced gameplay" and replace it with "all war should be fair and balanced all the time" :)

[zamani532 1]

Multiplayer is supposed to be based around skill not equipment, anything else isn't fair/not worth playing.

[hellfire257 3]

Skill can be a measure of anything, including using what little you have to its maximum effectiveness against a superior force.

[zamani532 1]

Skill can be a measure of anything, including using what little you have to its maximum effectiveness against a superior force.

Balance can be anything, such as terrain being balanced in place of iron sighted equipment or for example giving the one faction a slight AA and artillery advantage if they lack air support.

If a multiplayer designer does not check these onto his list he is not a very good multiplayer designer.

[celery 8]

So you don't think that anything is wrong when you want to make a multiplayer scenario of a specific scope, and in order to make it fair for both sides, you have to introduce assets outside the intended scope (to overcome some imbalanced asset), or remove some of the assets originally intended to be there (to nullify imbalanced counterparts), or hope that there is a location on the map that is just right to offset one side's advantages?

[zamani532 1]

So you don't think that anything is wrong when you want to make a multiplayer scenario of a specific scope, and in order to make it fair for both sides, you have to introduce assets outside the intended scope (to overcome some imbalanced asset), or remove some of the assets originally intended to be there (to nullify imbalanced counterparts), or hope that there is a location on the map that is just right to offset one side's advantages?

If your intended goal is for the playerbase to be satisfied no matter which team they join yes.

[Timnos 1]

I was thinking, the game is set in 2035, so the developers need to create weapons that at this present moment in time don't actually exist, so the developers can create basically equivalent weapons for the main factions because nobody even knows exactly what weapons will be used in 2035 anyway right.

[celery 8]

If your intended goal is for the playerbase to be satisfied no matter which team they join yes.

And that is the crux of the problem. Imbalanced assets limit the variety of scenarios you can make.

[rye1 21]

It's all about philosophy and tactics, should see what I can do with 300 men...

Oh wait they already made that movie.

[zimms 22]

Multiplayer is supposed to be based around skill not equipment, anything else isn't fair/not worth playing.

Wow, seems like you totally don't get this game. Sounds like you are looking for CoD/BF-like games.

With the power of ArmA's editor it's completely in the mission creator's hands to make good scenarios. "Unbalanced" or asymmetric settings can be very interesting and fun to play.

If all you want to play is CtI or Deathmatch, simply give everyone the same weapons. Since realism obviously isn't important then, I don't see why each faction needs an own skin for weapons that all behave exactly the same.

Edited July 13, 2012 by zimms

[-Coulum- 35]

If all you want to play is CtI or Deathmatch, simply give everyone the same weapons. Since realism obviously isn't important then, I don't see why each faction needs an own skin for weapons that all behave exactly the same.

That's kind of what I was thinking. I don't see why it would be that hard to make a mission absolutey balanced (and IMO absoloutey boring), even in arma2. but I don't create PVP missions so I am probably missing something.

That being said, I think that if all weapons were 100% realistic (I know an impossible feat) that the game would balance itself out relatively well, especially with the conventional armies involved. IMO unfair advantages are often gained, in arma, from technology due to inaccurate representation of that tech rather than the tech itself - ie. tab locking, clear night vision, clutter not being drawn when looking at targets through scopes at far ranges, lack of drop concerning rockets, lack of realistic armour simulation etc. etc. I think fixing these problems would be the best way to improve "MP balance".

Just my opinion though.

[zamani532 1]

And that is the crux of the problem. Imbalanced assets limit the variety of scenarios you can make.

One team has shit tank, give them a tank and some APC.

[celery 8]

One team has shit tank, give them a tank and some APC.

And here we complete the circle by resorting to the tedious and concept-breaking workarounds that wouldn't be an issue with a properly balanced selection of assets in the game itself. This is what I've been talking about: you can't have a simple non-asymmetric scenario with a limited variety of assets for a limited number of players, because either it will become imbalanced or bloated. Do you see the problem already, or do we have to make one more lap to the same end result?

[[frl]myke 14]

Reading the posts from a official BI Developer gives me a idea what we can expect from ArmA 3. If the assets will be imbalanced, there would be no point to jump into the discussion as the way is already given. Arguing only makes sense to prepare the audience for a balanced setup. If this is good or bad, we will see.

Personally i think it is simple. Weapons and ammo consist of mechanical an chemical elements. Bullets have a specific size and weight and are accelerated through a barrel with a specific length and physical properties. At the end, laws of physics are given and wont probably change in the near future. ArmA 3 assets simply have to follow these rules.

[Echo38 1]

I like a good balance, but, if BIS is marketing A3 as a "simulation" (and they are--in fact, the most realistic infantry simulator, they called A2), then deliberately modelling something incorrectly for reasons of balance isn't right.

[ricnunes 0]

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.

Probably the word "immediatly" wasn't the best word to use.

What I mean is that Potentially (and please note that I use the word "potentialy") the "guerrila" side (Taliban in Afghan war for example) could be able to bring reinforcements much faster than the "conventional" side (NATO in Afghan war for example) since the "guerrila side" are usually fighting "at home" while the "conventional side" mus usuallyt fly the reinforcements from a very long distance (from the conventional forces native countries which are often located very far from the warzone). Also due to its simplier nature the guerrila forces are also able to get new recruits into "combat shape" much faster since these kind of forces give much more basic and less intensive training (this of course also have "costs" such as soldiers with simplier training aren't as effective as the ones with much better and more intensive training).

I think this is logic and IMO makes sense. Many games usually models this by making a "guerrila soldier" much cheaper to 'purchase' than a "conventional soldier".

Anyway, my main point is that the "guerrila force" (Taliban for example) is usually able to sustain very heavy loses and still not losing it's "will to fight" and neither the ability to recuit new soldiers/combatants while if the "conventional force" (NATO for example) starts taking very heavy loses the public opinion on the origin countries of these forces will start be against their own military intervention and demand that their forces be pulled out from combat - which effectivelly means DEFEAT for the much more powerfull "conventional force". This is what happened in Vietnam and to some extend in Somalia (1993) as well.

So in the end what I mean with this is that if this kind of situation could be modeled in the game (and I gave an idea in my previous post how this could be modeled) both sides ("conventional" and "guerrila" forces) would be more "balanced" without resorting to UNREALISTIC weaponry balancing -> With this the "conventional force" would still be much more powerfull and be able to win any or most "head to head" combat but if the "guerrila forces" manages to inflict heavy loses on the enemy this side would in the end be able to win against "much superior forces".

Again, this is what happens for in Combat Mission Shock Force -> In this game it's "rather easy" to win all or most mission objectives, but the hard part (and sometimes very hard) is to do it without sufering heavy loses. The devs or some players want to "balance gamaplay" than take a look at this instead of using "artificial" and therefore unrealistic weaponry balancing!

Well, my 2 cents....

[celery 8]

The devs or some players want to "balance gamaplay" than take a look at this instead of using "artificial" and therefore unrealistic weaponry balancing!

I will give you a cookie if you can find sufficient proof to back up your statement. FYI, I just ate that cookie because I know you can't.

This whole thread has been just going in circles because

1) party A wants a balanced selection of assets in the game

2) party B misinterprets (or assumes without reading) it as a demand for unrealistic simulation of said assets and goes into rant mode

3) party A tries to correct party B's false assumptions

4) goto 1 or 2 :banghead:

Consult message #60 to enlighten yourselves to the issue at hand:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?136343-Multiplayer-Balancing-Will-Arma3-s-MP-be-balanced&p=2178210&viewfull=1#post2178210

Edited July 14, 2012 by Celery

[crazyjake56 10]

5) Party C is mad that Celery ate a perfectly good cookie.

Anyway, thank you for posting that.

[On_Sabbatical 11]

@Celery

You're completely right,and what i will never stop crying about is the fact that BIs could achieve balance in A2 but for some reason it was not the case (having in the same game F35 and T34 doesn't make any sense) ... we have the high end USMC and the Soviet army ...

Maybe,it's the "old" opinion of BIS on OPFOR.

According to your post #60,you can say that BLUFOR's equipement is far better than opfor's one (AA problem can be solved by adding tunguska to linebacker and replacing that buggy Vikhr by attaka,but you can't do something for vehicles like tanks or UAZs :S)

There is one thing that makes imbalance in ArmA not a so serious problem is the fact that the game is not realistic enough to exploit all vehicles features. for example people will prefer Mi24V to apache because it has 80 S8 rockets that requires just aiming and shooting process while apaches which has a huge amount of technology and is a tool of massive destruction in real life is bottlenecked due to lack of what the heli can really do.

This is one of the main reasons for BIS to remove TAB locking system and replace it with something that represents the vehicle ... and not stupid TAB for everything :S

Edited July 14, 2012 by On_Sabbatical

[Timnos 1]

Epic MP system, these guys are BOSS players -

rCe04y1KnOo

[Snowden 1]

having in the same game F35 and T34 doesn't make any sense

The Iraq army was still using the T-34 in the Gulf War, and there were T-34's being used in the Bosnian War as well. It's not as crazy as you might think. While they may be outdated, they can be restored, even when kept in awful conditions, such as the bottom of a lake in Estonia.

http://www.mil.hiiumaa.ee/2000_09_14_kurtna_T-34-36/

Edited July 14, 2012 by Snowden

[NoRailgunner 0]

Funny thing is that military research and developments aswell as strategies/tactics are not about balanced combat/warfare.... If one side has something more advanced than the other surely they will use it. Guess if BIS would make much larger islands/maps and implement more realistic features + functions for all vehicles and assets - many (if not all) casual players would not go + buy A3. It's always good for simple gameplay/missions to have balanced assets (or exact counterparts of everything) - in that way one can avoid the outcry and rambling from players who just want to have their fun shoot'n'kill around (incl. increase of their killcount/medal/rank/achievement/whatever stats). Now:

• 
  
• Should A3 have all the things 100% balanced?
  
• Should each side/faction have the same or equal assets like the other/opponent?
  
• Should Blufor and OPFOR have the same military doctrines and R&D?
  
• Or would it be better if each side/faction has their very own assets - where some of them can be comparable and some just don't have a counterpart at all.
  

Thought, one main thing is that many do forget is selection of the mission area, mission time and amount of (re-)supply aswell as use of respawn/revive. Its not all about balanced assets. Guess if some mission makers and players are just too comfy they simply compare the assets between sides/factions and make their assumptions about a balanced + fair war .... :D

[Timnos 1]

[*] Should A3 have all the things 100% balanced?

What weapons do you mean exactly, could you give an example of a particular weapon.

[batto 17]

Funny thing is that military research and developments aswell as strategies/tactics are not about balanced combat/warfare.... If one side has something more advanced than the other surely they will use it. Guess if BIS would make much larger islands/maps and implement more realistic features + functions for all vehicles and assets - many (if not all) casual players would not go + buy A3.

Are we going another circle again?

What exactly is realistic about "Warfare" anyway? Two teams with $0 dollars take control of towns controlled by brainless AI to somehow find money within those towns to build a state of the art army that pops out from (literally) thin air.

I will add... What is realistic about PvP with respawns anyway?

It's always good for simple gameplay/missions to have balanced assets (or exact counterparts of everything) - in that way one can avoid the outcry and rambling from players who just want to have their fun shoot'n'kill around (incl. increase of their killcount/medal/rank/achievement/whatever stats).

By repeating this crap you just show that you have absolutely no idea what is good PvP about and what sane PvP players want (yes, I'm talking about us). Ever played anything else than deathmatch outside ArmA?

• 
  
• Should A3 have all the things 100% balanced?
  
• Should each side/faction have the same or equal assets like the other/opponent?
  
• Should Blufor and OPFOR have the same military doctrines and R&D?
  
• Or would it be better if each side/faction has their very own assets - where some of them can be comparable and some just don't have a counterpart at all.
  

You forgot one possibility:

• 
  
• Or would it be better if NoRailgunner started using brain and finally realized that with MORE and comparable assets (= existing or potentially existing in future) he could create missions that simulates sides without balanced assets?
  

Edited July 14, 2012 by batto