Multiplayer Balancing - Will Arma3's MP be balanced?

[chortles 263]

This makes perfect sense, mission success should be attained by 'tactical proficiency', not by superior weaponry.

I hope you didn't miss Celery's point that the question of "balance" takes as its premise that NEITHER team has superior tactical proficiency, and that "neither team has superior tactical proficiency" is the baseline for deciding 'balance'...

[Timnos 1]

I hope you didn't miss Celery's point that the question of "balance" takes as its premise that NEITHER team has superior tactical proficiency, and that "neither team has superior tactical proficiency" is the baseline for deciding 'balance'...

Clearly you don't understand the meaning of tactical proficiency. In a nutshell what it means is that the side that uses the best tactics will win.

[chortles 263]

Clearly you don't understand the meaning of tactical proficiency. In a nutshell what it means is that the side that uses the best tactics will win.

Sounds like goalpost moving, but even if your claim is that "the best tactics will win"... Celery's own statement implies that "NEITHER SIDE is going to end up using better tactics than the other" is the baseline on which 'balance' should be calculated; I'm comfortable with said premise.

[Timnos 1]

Celery's own statement implies that "NEITHER SIDE is going to end up using better tactics than the other"

That's the exact opposite of what he said, read his post properly, I think you are a little confused because he quoted Igneous01 in his reply. What he is saying is that the intention of balance is to create two evenly matched sides so that tactics will decide the outcome, not weapons.

[chortles 263]

Looks like we took two completely opposite readings out of his statement then, I focused on "the teams don't have a noticeable difference in skill" and what seemed to be a sarcastic knock against those who were against 'balancing'.

[Timnos 1]

Looks like we took two completely opposite readings out of his statement then, I focused on "the teams don't have a noticeable difference in skill" and what seemed to be a sarcastic knock against those who were against 'balancing'.

This is the point Celery is trying to make -

Let's say for example that there was a multiplayer match between Team Chortles and Team Timnos, and all the players in both our teams were equally skilled in the art and science of military tactics. Which team would have an advantage? Obviously the team with the best weapons.

We already know that we can defeat noobs even when we are armed with inferior weapons by simply using sound military tactics, but it's when we play against teams that don't have a noticeable difference in tactical skill that weapons balance is important

Edited July 28, 2012 by Timnos

[liquidpinky 11]

This is the point Celery is trying to make -

Let's say for example that there was a multiplayer match between Team Chortles and Team Timnos, and all the players in both our teams were equally skilled in the art and science of military tactics. Which team would have an advantage? Obviously the team with the best weapons.

We already know that we can defeat noobs even when we are armed with inferior weapons by simply using sound military tactics, but it's when we play against teams that don't have a noticeable difference in tactical skill that weapons balance is important

But further balance can be achieved by clever mission creation, you could put the side with superior armament in a less advantageous part of the terrain and make things more difficult for them that way.

Or you could have them with higher respawn times, less tickets, more expensive gear, lower permitted player controlled AI etc.

It isn't always about gimping the guns, that is the way for no brainers.

Clever mission making is what it is about.

[rye1 21]

Yeah and allow the guys with the advanced weapons either:

1) Better terrain; to out position

2) Strength in numbers; more slots

3) Better positioning; off-the-mark go at the start, closer to the objective

Lot's of stuff as mentioned above.

[Timnos 1]

Clever mission making is what it is about.

Clever planning, maneuvre, weapon deployment and teamwork is what it's about. In other words clever tactics.

[celery 8]

But further balance can be achieved by clever mission creation, you could put the side with superior armament in a less advantageous part of the terrain and make things more difficult for them that way.

Or you could have them with higher respawn times, less tickets, more expensive gear, lower permitted player controlled AI etc.

It isn't always about gimping the guns, that is the way for no brainers.

Clever mission making is what it is about.

Another lap in the discussion has been completed, it seems, as you're offering the symptoms of the problem as the remedy. One of the biggest advantages of proper asset balancing would be that mission makers wouldn't have to resort to fancy, impossible-to-measure missionside balancing tricks that in the long run limit what kinds of scenarios you can make.

[NoRailgunner 0]

The mission creator is always + fully responsible for his mission design/setup - not the whole game incl. assets. If there are no equal/similar counterparts of certain weapons, systems, vehicles, aircrafts etc the mission maker can use other means to balance his missions so no side/faction is "superior" to the other at mission start. Think that Limnos will be great and big enough to make many "balanced" and "imbalanced" scenarious. Its up to the mission maker to show some creativity.... :)

[Tonci87 163]

@Celery 30 guys armed with AKs and RPGs against 15 US guys in an outpost armed with MGs and stuff. Is that balanced? I say yes.

In the end everything comes down to strategy and skill. Look up MCC Realscene Terrorist sniper on YT. Us 4 with inferior weapons against 30 guys with armor and CAS and we still make their virtual life hell. Balanced? Hell no. Fun? Hell yes!

[dmarkwick 261]

And if that creativity requires balanced assets...? :)

[SASrecon 0]

30 guys armed with AKs and RPGs against 15 US guys in an outpost armed with MGs and stuff. Is that balanced? I say yes.

Hell you say that, but have you seen this?

MZuvRiyIh6c

One Dslyecxi with an ak takes down about 20 fortified 'US guys'.

In the end everything comes down to strategy and skill.

[celery 8]

@Celery 30 guys armed with AKs and RPGs against 15 US guys in an outpost armed with MGs and stuff. Is that balanced? I say yes.

I'm all for scenarios like that, but I'd like mission makers to be able to make scenarios where 30 guys face 30 guys on equal terms and nobody can blame their loss on anything but themselves. Is that something that you don't want to happen at all?

In the end everything comes down to strategy and skill.

Which is the whole point of balancing in the first place. Suppose a team with 78 strategy and skill points faced a team with 75 such points and lost, being on the side with the vehicles and weapons that didn't quite cut it against the opposition. Would you say that the victorious team with 75 strategy and skill points was the one with better strategy and skill?

Exceptions where an underequipped party beats a stronger force have nothing to do with the matter at hand, because most of the time the underdog side would just get their asses handed over to them. That's why those "few guys beat a hundred" scenarios are special in the first place and wouldn't even be remembered otherwise.

[Tonci87 163]

No I also think that assets sgould be balanced, I just wanted to point ozt that balanced assets aren't always realistic or even required. Another thing you have to keep an eye on is the faction. In Oa the Takistani Army has really bad equipment compared to the US Army. It just has to be like that because people would have complained otherwise. The Story of A3 gives BIS the chance to introduce balanced factions.

[Timnos 1]

Exceptions where an underequipped party beats a stronger force have nothing to do with the matter at hand, because most of the time the underdog side would just get their asses handed over to them.

Exactly! A tactically competent team with superior weapons would dominate with brutal force, and this is the point that some people don't seem to understand.

[Shagulon 1]

New to arma series, and I have to say I am a little surprised by the lack of PvP. Where are the clan v clan games, why isn't there some kind of ladder? I'm guessing it may have something to do with uneven nature of Blufor and Opfor? It may be beacuse I came to arma 2 so late that many have stopped playing it so much?

It's a shame as I think clan v clan in large scale matches would be awesome!

Vs the AI really just doesn't cut it. The best I have found so far is project reality, but there is only ever one server running it with more than 20 players, so I guess I am alone in wanting this type of gameplay? Or as this thread states, arma 2 just isn't balanced enough for good PvP competitive play.

[rye1 21]

There are PVP ladders but rare. OCB has made a few PVP ladders in and around the Australian communities.

They would be awesome, but convincing them is another matter.

They are too super 'tacticool' to realize the tactics of training are not the techniques of reality.

I'd love to see a huge clan versus clan battle because clans tend to be a place that hones their own individual style and way to play, it's interesting to see one pitted against another. I think we need a gladiator ring...

[liquidpinky 11]

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

Another lap in the discussion has been completed, it seems, as you're offering the symptoms of the problem as the remedy. One of the biggest advantages of proper asset balancing would be that mission makers wouldn't have to resort to fancy, impossible-to-measure missionside balancing tricks that in the long run limit what kinds of scenarios you can make.

A lap I believe you started yourself way back at the start. :p

Don't turn this game/sim into some COD reskinned M4 fest please, let the balancing be done intelligently and not using the book "Balancing for Dummies".

If you don't like your sides odds, why not do the ultimate balancing and swap sides after a match. Then you get to try out both sides, you might even find you enjoy being the underdog.

[celery 8]

Don't turn this game/sim into some COD reskinned M4 fest please, let the balancing be done intelligently and not using the book "Balancing for Dummies".

What gives you the idea that putting the right kind of selection of comparably performing, realistically portrayed vehicles and weapons into the game to create plausible balance is unintelligent? Is Operation Flashpoint's weapon and vehicle balance (refer to post #60) stupid?

If you don't like your sides odds, why not do the ultimate balancing and swap sides after a match. Then you get to try out both sides, you might even find you enjoy being the underdog.

A side switcheroo is a clan war thing for 20-30 minute rounds, something that hasn't exactly been popular in the franchise for the past four or five years, and even when it was, it was done purely to negate possible terrain advantages that one side may have had; both sides were usually given the same array of weapons because the OPFOR selection frankly sucked in Arma 1 and because everyone was so in love with the G36 in OFP. It doesn't quite work in bigger one-off battles or large-scale pvp campaigns, not to mention public games. An underdog scenario shouldn't be impossible to make even if both sides had balanced assets: you just give one side less or inferior assets.

[liquidpinky 11]

What gives you the idea that putting the right kind of selection of comparably performing, realistically portrayed vehicles and weapons into the game to create plausible balance is unintelligent? Is Operation Flashpoint's weapon and vehicle balance (refer to post #60) stupid?

That would be more of the intelligent balancing. I am not against units opposing units with similar performance, but when they become a copy paste of stats for each other it gets silly.

All I ask is for a little diversity.

A side switcheroo is a clan war thing for 20-30 minute rounds, something that hasn't exactly been popular in the franchise for the past four or five years, and even when it was, it was done purely to negate possible terrain advantages that one side may have had; both sides were usually given the same array of weapons because the OPFOR selection frankly sucked in Arma 1 and because everyone was so in love with the G36 in OFP. It doesn't quite work in bigger one-off battles or large-scale pvp campaigns, not to mention public games. An underdog scenario shouldn't be impossible to make even if both sides had balanced assets: you just give one side less or inferior assets.

I understand that some matches can even go on for days in realtime, but in the end they can still swap sides to give it a shot the next time the decide to play.

The more diversity, the more tactics you will need to learn and can learn. Same versus same will teach you a thing or two, but mixing it up will teach you more.

Personally I would like to see both symmetrical and asymmetrical scenarios, then you get the best of both worlds.

[crazyjake56 10]

That would be more of the intelligent balancing...

All I ask is for a little diversity.

That's what everyone was asking for the whole time.

[Timnos 1]

I am not against units opposing units with similar performance, but when they become a copy paste of stats for each other it gets silly.

I don't think anyone here would argue with that. Ideally each forces weapons should have their own distinct qualities, but neither force should have an arsenal that is superior to the others. We need an effective OPFOR with teeth.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Its the game who decides to place units on the map/island or the mission maker?