Multiplayer Balancing - Will Arma3's MP be balanced?

[hellfire257 3]

I can tell, that you haven't played a single PvP mission involving a Tunguska. Good luck catching a Tung on foot, or even finding it when it sits with engine off in some bush. Unlike grounds targets, aircraft are fish in a barrel: the skies are clear, birds and other UFOs don't show up on Tung's radar, your jet DOES, thus TAB+click.

If I had designed that mission and found that was true, I would attach a marker to the Tunguska permanently or only when firing. I understand DMarkwick's approach, but this seems to be a mission design issue.

[celery 8]

Myke;2222249']...which assumes that wisdom and skills is absolutely equal on both sides' date=' which is simply impossible. I had several occasions where i was on a team with by far inferior equipment compared to our opponents, yet we still managed to win. Sometimes our opponents won but all in all it was...guess what: balanced.[/quote']

Assuming that both sides have an equally good skill level (i.e. taking it out of the equation) is at the core of the whole balance discussion because balance in a gameplay context means that the better team usually wins thanks to the assets being comparable, not that both teams are equally likely to win thanks to one of them being more skilled than the other. You can't predict how good a given side's players will be in a given scenario, so speculating that is completely senseless.

Edited September 11, 2012 by Celery

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

No, just a selection of assets available for both sides, not absolutely balanced or anything ridiculous, just... comparable.

These people hardly play online, I can tell.

Tunguska is a problem, if we remove the Tunguska from the mission, then Blufor jets dominate ground targets, since there's no alternative to Tunguska, with the closest downgrade being the Shilka, while Blufor sports Avengers and M6 Linebackers.

Tung + jets = Blufor ragequits; No tung + jets = opfor ragequits, no tung + no jets = What's the point of ArmA then?

---------- Post added at 13:48 ---------- Previous post was at 13:47 ----------

If I had designed that mission and found that was true, I would attach a marker to the Tunguska permanently or only when firing. I understand DMarkwick's approach, but this seems to be a mission design issue.

Wow, mission design issue, then good luck cultivating an online community with such attitude and concepts.

---------- Post added at 13:55 ---------- Previous post was at 13:48 ----------

I mean, how thick can people be? We're discussing MULTIPLAYER, if you want an S-300, or 400, or a tunguska, or an ICBM in your fetish single player missions or closed 10 player communities, then by all means, mod your vanilla game!

But to appease the fetishists at the expense of the rest is financial ruin.

[dmarkwick 261]

These people hardly play online, I can tell.

Tunguska is a problem, if we remove the Tunguska from the mission, then Blufor jets dominate ground targets, since there's no alternative to Tunguska, with the closest downgrade being the Shilka, while Blufor sports Avengers and M6 Linebackers.

Tung + jets = Blufor ragequits; No tung + jets = opfor ragequits, no tung + no jets = What's the point of ArmA then?

---------- Post added at 13:48 ---------- Previous post was at 13:47 ----------

Wow, mission design issue, then good luck cultivating an online community with such attitude and concepts.

---------- Post added at 13:55 ---------- Previous post was at 13:48 ----------

I mean, how thick can people be? We're discussing MULTIPLAYER, if you want an S-300, or 400, or a tunguska, or an ICBM in your fetish single player missions or closed 10 player communities, then by all means, mod your vanilla game!

Um, right, so you're just going to continuously bleat about your least favourite ArmA2 assets when discussing the possibility of comparable ArmA3 assets.

But to appease the fetishists at the expense of the rest is financial ruin.

Another proclaimed ArmA3 ruination device, penned by yourself? Good job. Also, that comment just reveals the huge misconception at work here on this topic.

[Tonci87 163]

This Thread sucks so much....

[hellfire257 3]

These people hardly play online, I can tell.

Tunguska is a problem, if we remove the Tunguska from the mission, then Blufor jets dominate ground targets, since there's no alternative to Tunguska, with the closest downgrade being the Shilka, while Blufor sports Avengers and M6 Linebackers.

Tung + jets = Blufor ragequits; No tung + jets = opfor ragequits, no tung + no jets = What's the point of ArmA then?

---------- Post added at 13:48 ---------- Previous post was at 13:47 ----------

Wow, mission design issue, then good luck cultivating an online community with such attitude and concepts.

---------- Post added at 13:55 ---------- Previous post was at 13:48 ----------

I mean, how thick can people be? We're discussing MULTIPLAYER, if you want an S-300, or 400, or a tunguska, or an ICBM in your fetish single player missions or closed 10 player communities, then by all means, mod your vanilla game!

But to appease the fetishists at the expense of the rest is financial ruin.

So damn if you do and damned if you don't, right? And now you're just being rude about it. That was a rather disproportionate response.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Issue is only to find and select the significant comparable assets and the authentic "imba!!" stuff for A3 factions which aren't made-up just for the sake of balanced gameplay or having balanced assets. ;) Now lets look at A3 in 2035 and have a brainstorm about which stuff could be possibly "fully comparable" and which should have some different/special features. For example BIS revealed the Merkava - assuming its also equipped with APS (Trophy) - should the MBT of the opponent be fully comparable or should he have some other features/extras?

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

So damn if you do and damned if you don't, right? And now you're just being rude about it. That was a rather disproportionate response.

It think it was measured well: clueless people posting on such topics regarding a very specific issue shall receive no mercy.

---------- Post added at 14:25 ---------- Previous post was at 14:23 ----------

Um, right, so you're just going to continuously bleat about your least favourite ArmA2 assets when discussing the possibility of comparable ArmA3 assets.

Oh, don't be silly, I adore the Tunguska: TAB+click, TAB+click, TAB+click; oh, and if an M1A2 TUSK tank comes into view, 600 rounds make good job of it.

Another proclaimed ArmA3 ruination device, penned by yourself? Good job. Also, that comment just reveals the huge misconception at work here on this topic.

That's rather obvious, how's that ArmA II multiplayer playin' out fer ye? Can you even find 10 full PvP servers, which are not DayZ? Rhetorical question, don't go lookin'!

[hellfire257 3]

It think it was measured well: clueless people posting on such topics regarding a very specific issue shall receive no mercy.

And you know this how, exactly? Do not presume anything about me. Just because people do not agree with what you have to say doesn't mean you have to belittle and insult them, especially when you know nothing about them. Your presumptions are incorrect, by the way.

[dmarkwick 261]

It think it was measured well: clueless people posting on such topics regarding a very specific issue shall receive no mercy.

Why not? No-ones been rude to you yet.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Why not? No-ones been rude to you yet.

Ignorance is the ultimate form of disrespect, this thread has been going on in circular logic, LOGIC which is very apparent in this case. Even a BI Dev tried his best to get through thick skulls.

[-Coulum- 35]

It think it was measured well: clueless people posting on such topics regarding a very specific issue shall receive no mercy.

Ignorance is the ultimate form of disrespect

For some reason I find these funny...

Maybe a bit ironic, ignorant and dare I say hypocritical?

This Thread sucks so much....

Yes indeed. I personally think that balance issues will be for the most part fixed in A3. Celery seems to see the problem and I am sure he will make sure its dealt with. especially considering the fact that A3 is in a futuristic environment, I don't think making balanced assets should be that hard. I personally don't mind if sides are "balanced", as long as it is still reasonably realistic and most importantly, that it results in realistic gameplay... that means tab click should ideally be replaced by something a bit more demanding. There is very little that can go wrong with adding balanced assets. People still have the option of simply not using certain things. inversely, if people don't think things are balanced enough, they still have the option of just equipping both sides with the same equipment.

But it is worth remembering that aside from having perfectly symmetrical maps, identical gear and weapons for each side and zero lag, Arma will never be perfectly balanced. So although having balanced assets and what not will help, it is in now way the end all be all.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

For some reason I find these funny...

Maybe a bit ironic, ignorant and dare I say hypocritical?

I know the Tung intimately, so there's no irony here.

Yes indeed. I personally think that balance issues will be for the most part fixed in A3. Celery seems to see the problem and I am sure he will make sure its dealt with. especially considering the fact that A3 is in a futuristic environment, I don't think making balanced assets should be that hard. I personally don't mind if sides are "balanced", as long as it is still reasonably realistic and most importantly, that it results in realistic gameplay... that means tab click should ideally be replaced by something a bit more demanding. There is very little that can go wrong with adding balanced assets. People still have the option of simply not using certain things. inversely, if people don't think things are balanced enough, they still have the option of just equipping both sides with the same equipment.

But it is worth remembering that aside from having perfectly symmetrical maps, identical gear and weapons for each side and zero lag, Arma will never be perfectly balanced. So although having balanced assets and what not will help, it is in now way the end all be all.

There needs to be a dynamic range of counters for sustained, FUN gameplay. Everybody should take a peek at this list http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?132745-Is-Arma-3-authentic Seems very balanced, though they haven't revealed AA platforms yet. An L-159 will be a joy to fly, if it's an Opfor jet, and I bet it can outmaneuver, or at least match the Blufor's F-35.

http://www.abload.de/img/arma3_screenshot_1202sp5of.jpg vs http://www.abload.de/img/330569_23071696697504i8u5i.jpg

Ka-60 will become the new UH-1Y Venom with its 14 FFAR rockets,

http://www.abload.de/img/arma3_screenshot_11051sv0o.jpg

This Hamok beast seems a bit suspicious, http://www.abload.de/img/258018_19664964371510dje3e.jpg

Let's hope those aren't 12 Vikhr missiles; I counted 44 rockets in both pods.

Comanche - a new favourite, http://www.abload.de/img/242521_19664963371510zci75.jpg

4 ATGMs, 24 FFAR, assuming one rocket pod can be replaced with 2 more ATGMs or AA missiles, it's going to be versatile.

Edited September 11, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin

[pathetic_berserker 4]

I know the Tung intimately, so there's no irony here..

There is no Tung in A3 as far as we know so how is it relevant?

Yet you talk of ignorance being insulting.....

And DM was right, it should be about comparable assets.

Edited September 11, 2012 by Pathetic_Berserker

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

There is no Tung in A3 as far as we know so how is it relevant?

Precedent.

And DM was right, it should be about comparable assets.

That's the whole premise of this thread, yet you see people deny it for the last 20 pages.

[jumpartist 0]

An L-159 will be a joy to fly, if it's an Opfor jet, and I bet it can outmaneuver, or at least match the Blufor's F-35.

LOL WHAT????? The L-159 is a Russian Trainer.......the F-35 is..............Well Ill let you put 2 and 100,867 together.

But yeah this thread is played out. those stuck in their ways are still stuck in their ways.

[-Coulum- 35]

I know the Tung intimately, so there's no irony here.

No you are misunderstanding. You are telling others that they are clueless because they don't play PVP, yet you are the one who is ignorant because you dont actually know anything about what others do and don't play. I have no doubt that you "know the Tunguska Intamately" but please don't call others ignorant, because they disagree. Its not going to help you convince them. Thats all.

There needs to be a dynamic range of counters for sustained, FUN gameplay.

Yes indeed, more counters for more situations would make the game more interesting. But at the same time, it also leads for more possibility for imbalance.

[Haystack15 10]

This Hamok beast seems a bit suspicious, http://www.abload.de/img/258018_19664964371510dje3e.jpg

Let's hope those aren't 12 Vikhr missiles; I counted 44 rockets in both pods.

Comanche - a new favourite, http://www.abload.de/img/242521_19664963371510zci75.jpg

4 ATGMs, 24 FFAR, assuming one rocket pod can be replaced with 2 more ATGMs or AA missiles, it's going to be versatile.

44 rockets and 12 ATGM vs 24 rockets and 4 ATGM (8 ATGM's Max, But with some items removed?) That's seem extremely unbalanced.

BIS should make a few of those rockets on the Hamok "confetti launchers" They will be very useful for surprise attacks!

:yay:Who agrees?:yay:

[dmarkwick 261]

Ignorance is the ultimate form of disrespect

Huge facapalm. I should say disrespect is the ultimate form of disrespect, your comment is about as meaningless a soundbite as I've ever heard from any self-congratulatory talking head. Taking a topic and concentrating your responses to one asset, and pronouncing others ignorant based on that, seems a little odd to me. Perhaps you might like to start a new topic where the Tungsta actually IS the topic.

[chortles 263]

:

All of this, of all we can see now in single player, is available in multiplayer as well. Both factions I mentioned Iran vs. NATO, as opposed to ARMA 2 when there was really high-equipped NATO and more guerrilla forces, locals, now both factions will have similar equipment, similar technical level, so the combat will be more balanced.

[dmarkwick 261]

:

Nice quote :)

I should say that this part:

now both factions will have similar equipment, similar technical level, so the combat will be more balanced.

should read more like this:

now both factions will have similar equipment, similar technical level, so the combat can be more balanced.

to appease the poor readers :)

[Haystack15 10]

Nice quote :)

I should say that this part:

now both factions will have similar equipment, similar technical level, so the combat will be more balanced.

should read more like this:

now both factions will have similar equipment, similar technical level, so the combat can be more balanced.

to appease the poor readers :)

It's funny, Just adding an apostrophe followed by a "T" will create 10 more pages of people complaining and fighting.

[chortles 263]

to appease the poor readers :)

Nope, I definitely heard "will". :)

If what he says at eight minutes into that video about the campaign is indicative of "balance design", that there will be times when the player character is not with (cut off from?) 7th Infantry Division and will be more "guerrilla" with scavenging weapons from the battlefield, then that implies that "comparable assets" balance will be the default model for ARMA 3, so that the mission maker has to actively create imbalance instead of having to actively create balance. I'm preferring this model because if "comparable assets"/"symmetrical balance" are default, with imbalance and asymmetrical balance are the two possible deviations, then it seems easier under such a model to create imbalance (simply by not including a faction's "comparable asset") than to try to successfully create asymmetrical balance.

As for what I mean by comparable assets balance: For an ARMA 2 example, imagine a campaign that's less US Army vs. Takistan Army and more US Army vs. British Army. :p

[On_Sabbatical 11]

Can we please close this thread ?!

We have clueless players,Ragequitters, people who have never quit the editor and its scientifically perfect environement,and people who are stuck in "freedom fighters" talking about tunguska,MP players,closed 8 firends community players ... talking about a very important matter which balance in multiplayer !

[chortles 263]

Can we please close this thread ?!

We have clueless players,Ragequitters, people who have never quit the editor and its scientifically perfect environement,and people who are stuck in "freedom fighters" talking about tunguska,MP players,closed 8 firends community players ... talking about a very important matter which balance in multiplayer !

Err, I posted that simply because it's an actual BI dev talking outside-of-this-thread about balance... about as authoritative a source as I could find. You are right though about how skewed people's ideas are of the idea of "balance" as to make so many of them unfit to talk about balance, much less decide on the matter for ARMA 3. I of course consider myself exempt from that rule. :D