Multiplayer Balancing - Will Arma3's MP be balanced?

[chortles 263]

At which point we may approaching the limits of BI's ability to simulate accurately? :p

Clearly we've opposite ideas of the responsibilities of a mission maker.

EDIT: \/ And boom goes the dynamite, re: land-and-air-space sizes.

Edited August 12, 2012 by Chortles

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

No! The Tunguska is fine, the jets are nerfed too much. Read the Tunguska Thread in Arma 2 & OA General.

There's always a compromise... The Tunguska is the EXTREME. On a 15 x 15 km map like Cherno supersonic speeds would be another extreme - I'd love to see that, but we'd have to scale the map to 150 x 150 km - I'd love to see that also, is BIS going to populate 1000% more land-space? No! :icon_twisted:

[On_Sabbatical 11]

There's always a compromise... The Tunguska is the EXTREME. On a 15 x 15 km map like Cherno supersonic speeds would be another extreme - I'd love to see that, but we'd have to scale the map to 150 x 150 km - I'd love to see that also, is BIS going to populate 1000% more land-space? No! :icon_twisted:

BIS strategy is (and saldy most of mission makers) : when you can't do it , remove it :D

In my opinion,they should just remove jets and heavy AA until they come up with a 200 x 200 map which is unlikely to happen next year :D,for now they need to start working on what could make ground experience realistic and it starts by removing TAB and "SACLOS for all " thing and make some realistic alternatives !

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

BIS strategy is (and saldy most of mission makers) : when you can't do it , remove it :D

In my opinion,they should just remove jets and heavy AA until they come up with a 200 x 200 map which is unlikely to happen next year :D,for now they need to start working on what could make ground experience realistic and it starts by removing TAB and "SACLOS for all " thing and make some realistic alternatives !

But, but, but jets are cool. I love my F-35: nothing like VTOL'ing from the middle of a forest and then proceeding to melt face. :icon_twisted: I think planes should have limited ground attack capability, but still pose a threat. What was done with the Tung is unplayable, Benny even had to port Tung's missiles to M6 Linebacker, and then nobody had jets. ;););)

P.S. The F-35 in ArmA is a VERY balanced platform: I used its cannon more than trying to bomb run with GBUs, because no spotters were present most of the time, which presented the enemy ample opportunity to take me down. I think that should be their role model for airplanes - maneuverable, limited arsenal, but versatile at the same time.

Edited August 13, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin

[chortles 263]

BIS strategy is (and saldy most of mission makers) : when you can't do it , remove it :D

In my opinion,they should just remove jets and heavy AA until they come up with a 200 x 200 map which is unlikely to happen next year :D

Actually, Limnos is supposed to be "an area of almost 300 square kilometers"... so I guess it's our jets/heavy AA map! We just forgot all about it because of Stratis, Stratis, Stratis...

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Actually, Limnos is supposed to be "an area of almost 300 square kilometers"... so I guess it's our jets/heavy AA map! We just forgot all about it because of Stratis, Stratis, Stratis...

300 km^2 is still 17 x 17 km, traveling at Mach 1 you'd cross it from tip to tip in 50 seconds.

[liquidpinky 11]

300 km^2 is still 17 x 17 km, traveling at Mach 1 you'd cross it from tip to tip in 50 seconds.

That is just the map terrain though, the sea surrounding will be infinate as well as being able to go to over 40,000 feet altitude.

There is no reason not to make aircraft at least mach 1 capable, maybe add in airframe stress damage to make things amusing for us on the ground to watch.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

That is just the map terrain though, the sea surrounding will be infinate as well as being able to go to over 40,000 feet altitude.

There is no reason not to make aircraft at least mach 1 capable, maybe add in airframe stress damage to make things amusing for us on the ground to watch.

I suppose, if one places carriers offshore at 10-15 mile mark, then you could have some sexy sorties going on in a mission like Warfare. :icon_twisted:

[pathetic_berserker 4]

I suppose, if one places carriers offshore at 10-15 mile mark, then you could have some sexy sorties going on in a mission like Warfare. :icon_twisted:

Good solution, but I don't think mission editor will allow maker to place a unit 10-15mile offshore on a 17X17km map.

[Tonci87 163]

Now we have that realism vs. gameplay discussion going on. The Tunguska is quite accurate but some of you want it nerfed (=made unrealistic). That is the wrong way! Either improve Jets or give Blufor comparable vehicels. Everything else is pretty much BS.

[chortles 263]

Truthbetold "give BLUFOR / OPFOR comparable vehicles" is the only viable option that respects both balance potential (thus gameplay) AND authenticity (NOT realism, some of the previous posters seem to have a frankly-terrible-for-game-design idea of what that word means).

[BasileyOne 10]

Now we have that realism vs. gameplay discussion going on. The Tunguska is quite accurate but some of you want it nerfed (=made unrealistic). That is the wrong way! Either improve Jets or give Blufor comparable vehicels. Everything else is pretty much BS.

yeah. AH-64 with HF2 ATGM's[range up 2 12km]can make 2S6 defenseless against it, alone without morpheus or Tor [high-performance and high-capacity]point-defense systems.

for example.

as well as other things are.

brimstones2, trigat mk3. new cluser systems, new hornet mine replacement... anything else, make making AA a LOT more difficult, every day we're talking about here.

[On_Sabbatical 11]

I suppose, if one places carriers offshore at 10-15 mile mark, then you could have some sexy sorties going on in a mission like Warfare. :icon_twisted:

Now this is a good idea Lalelulilo :D

[nodunit 397]

From what we've seen in screenshots so far both primary forces are looking fairly balanced, a bit more like US and Russia in Arma 2 as opposed to OA. If helicopters have a flight model similar to TKOH (IE no being rough on the airframe and things of that nature), along with needing a laser painted on the target as opposed to TAB than I think the heli's will be less overpowered in general since it would require more teamwork and understanding to make them lethal.

Edited August 16, 2012 by NodUnit

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

From what we've seen in screenshots so far both primary forces are looking fairly balanced, a bit more like US and Russia in Arma 2 as opposed to OA. If helicopters have a flight model similar to TKOH (IE no being rough on the airframe and things of that nature), along with needing a laser painted on the target as opposed to TAB than I think the heli's will be less overpowered in general since it would require more teamwork and understanding to make them lethal.

The trend is good: Comanche obviously has limited arsenal due to its hull, and I doubt they will stick 128 rockets on the KA-MI-69 Hamok hybrid for the OPFOR, like they have done in ArmA 2's Mi-8.

Armament:

1× 20 mm XM301 three-barrel cannon mounted in a Turreted Gun System (500 round capacity)

Internal bays: 6× AGM-114 Hellfire air-to-ground missiles, or 6× AIM-92 Stinger air-to-air missiles, or 24× Hydra 70 2.75 in (70 mm) air-to-ground rockets

Optional stub wings: 8× Hellfires, 16× Stingers, or 56× Hydra 70 rockets

[chortles 263]

So a 20 mm chain gun (lower caliber than the 30 mm M230 on the Apache) and six internal AAMs or AGMs or twenty-four 70 mm rockets... but how do we account for the stub wings being optional, unless the ARMA III vanilla version just lacks the stub wings altogether and only has the internal-but-swinging-out-when-firing weapon bays?

As I'm guessing that for simplicity's sake vanilla may use 'magic' rearming, refueling and repair like in ARMA 2 (park your vehicle nearby the resupply vehicle), the stub wings option sounds like "an ACE thing" or at least only makes sense if radar cross section (in trading off stealth for "ammo capacity") is simulated; otherwise if we're stuck with Tab targeting again then yeah, I can see "no stub wings, stealth only" making sense (as without RCS simulation I can't think of any reason NOT to throw on the stub wings).

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

So a 20 mm chain gun (lower caliber than the 30 mm M230 on the Apache) and six internal AAMs or AGMs or twenty-four 70 mm rockets... but how do we account for the stub wings being optional, unless the ARMA III vanilla version just lacks the stub wings altogether and only has the internal-but-swinging-out-when-firing weapon bays?

If they want the heavy-hitter to be in-game, you'd have two versions of the RAH-66 Comanche: 1) Vanilla with internal bays; 2) Internal bays + "winglets".

Options 1 provides great balance: either 6 Hellfires, 0 AA, or 4 HF, 2 AIM/Stinger missiles, or 2 Hellfires, 8 FFAR rockets, 2 AA. Compared to AH-1Zs in ArmA 2 with 8 HF, 2 AIM AA, 40 (48?) FFAR - this alone lower TAB+click spam against ground vehicles.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Some new thoughts on the Comanche: the screenshots show internal bay armaments, which carry 12 FFAR rockets, 2 missiles (hellfires?) on each side - a total of 24 FFAR, 4 missiles. The ATGM can be swapped* to AA missiles 1 to 1 as they currently are, and one rocket pod for 2 additional missiles, so 12 FFAR, 4 ATGM, 2 AA is a viable configuration. That's still way, way below the AH-1Z capabilities, which is great!

http://deltagamer.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/scr04.jpg

I hope they keep the same trend for other air vehicles, like the F-35 and Iranian equivalents.

*Mission specific, already in-game.

Edited September 7, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin

[NoRailgunner 0]

...waiting for OPFOR pvp player crying "This is imbaaaa!!" + if BIS implements somekind of superior Blufor "stealth" technology. :D

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

...waiting for OPFOR pvp player crying "This is imbaaaa!!" + if BIS implements somekind of superior Blufor "stealth" technology. :D

You know, they could replace the triangle Comanche radar icon to a square one - the enemy would be expecting a ground vehicle and then... ASSUPRISE!

[chortles 263]

...waiting for OPFOR pvp player crying "This is imbaaaa!!" + if BIS implements somekind of superior Blufor "stealth" technology. :D

There's an easy answer for this: give the OPFOR equivalent stealth technology and BI can just excuse it by saying that the Iranians were developing stealth technology for the past quarter-century while the BLUFOR were busy in Takistan. :D

I was wondering if there might be a vehicular modularity system in the game akin to that for small arms accessories, i.e. removing a vehicle's .50-cal HMG and replacing it with a 40 mm GMG, or if we'll be having to use different variants just like in ARMA 2?

[Haystack15 10]

Games can only be unbalanced if you have all the good players on one team, and the newbies on the other.

Don't be silly!

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Games can only be unbalanced if you have all the good players on one team, and the newbies on the other.

Don't be silly!

Where's the logic in that? What if both teams have "good players"? Obviously, assets decide the game then.

[NoRailgunner 0]

@Chortles so you mean its basically ok to paint the Blufor RAH-66 Comanche just in OPFOR camo.... guess BIS could have an easy job and sell an "A3 pvp only" game for the casual pvp crowd. Who needs authentic or realistic games/simulations if some people just like to play with balanced assets that aren't different or just by the look/style? :p

[Tonci87 163]

Oh no not this shit again....