Multiplayer Balancing - Will Arma3's MP be balanced?

[froggyluv 2130]

"If you let gays marry, whats next? Animal marriage?"

That would be hilarious and I would do everthing in my power to attend every single wildlife wedding! Just imagine the possible wedding bands... Since I have nothing further to contribute - good luck BI pleasing all the people for all the things!

[jblackrupert 14]

PvP players don't want mods. They expect a balanced game right out of the box.

Thats not true.

The song and dance required to identify and then install addons/mods to join servers that are populated by people not a part of Clan or groups are to blame for that.

Even when you know how to install addons and mods it's still a problem just trying to figure out what addon/Version a server is running because the kick message tells you nothing of any use much of the time.

The Advance and Secure crowd put together a nice easy to install Missions, addons and islands pack a couple years ago or so but the arrival of Operation Arrowhead killed it.

[rye1 21]

So how do you make a balanced mission? Enlighten me.

[Timnos 1]

So how do you make a balanced mission? Enlighten me.

A quick example - if one side has vastly superior tanks and AFV's, focus the mission objectives on terrain that is favourable for infantry anti-tank teams. This creates military balance in a realistic manner.

[CameronMcDonald 146]

So how do you make a balanced mission? Enlighten me.

For example, in an attackers/defenders type mission - less available slots for the defending team (or a ratio system for more organised events). Also, you might consider giving one team an MMG team and the opposing side a HMG team depending on the scenario or terrain.

The mission editor is where balance should be considered, and it is good to see that the MP scenarios out of the box in A3 will have balance as a primary focus.

[zukov 483]

i think that Arma 3 is the most balanced game in the whole arma series, (the future settings helps a lot)

maybe the possibility to load the new map/island not in a mod, but like a level, will improve the MP part especially for the casual gamer

[BLSmith2112 0]

The problem is: Out of the box unless you equip east soldiers with west weapons/vehicles, it is impossible. Even if West had 10 slots and east had 15 player slots, if 10 players joined - it would be 8 on west vs. 2 on east. People prefer to play on the team with the better technology. It ruins countless potentially good games. I was in a Warfare today, starting out with a 1v1. I was on East. Not 30 minutes later, it was 5 on 1 against me. I lost everything I worked so hard by myself to take solo. That would not have happened if the 5 that joined had a practical reason to join east other than the feeling of "the underdog."

You claim the mission makers are the ones that should be responsible for balancing, but 99.99% don't. I'm not a mission designer, (I've tried over the past 10 years), and never will be. The 0.01% of mission makers that actually consider this problem don't make missions popular enough to be casually played without the need for "planned gaming events." Giving East 1-2 new scopes, 1 new tank, and 1 jet would be all I ask. If mission makers have a fit, all they have to do is not insert those types of units into their mission(s). Simple as that.

It's better to have the units/armaments available than not have them available and then for mission makers to give East units West weapons.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Victor

[antoineflemming 14]

The problem is: Out of the box unless you equip east soldiers with west weapons/vehicles, it is impossible. Even if West had 10 slots and east had 15 player slots, if 10 players joined - it would be 8 on west vs. 2 on east. People prefer to play on the team with the better technology. It ruins countless potentially good games. I was in a Warfare today, starting out with a 1v1. I was on East. Not 30 minutes later, it was 5 on 1 against me. I lost everything I worked so hard by myself to take solo. That would not have happened if the 5 that joined had a practical reason to join east other than the feeling of "the underdog."

You claim the mission makers are the ones that should be responsible for balancing, but 99.99% don't. I'm not a mission designer, (I've tried over the past 10 years), and never will be. The 0.01% of mission makers that actually consider this problem don't make missions popular enough to be casually played without the need for "planned gaming events." Giving East 1-2 new scopes, 1 new tank, and 1 jet would be all I ask. If mission makers have a fit, all they have to do is not insert those types of units into their mission(s). Simple as that.

It's better to have the units/armaments available than not have them available and then for mission makers to give East units West weapons.

There's a simple solution to this problem (well, simple in concept). Add in a feature where servers can enable an autobalance system, kinda like in standard FPS games... Then, it would automatically balance the teams. It'd mean you wouldn't get to choose whether you are East or West, but you'd have the balance you seek.

[nkenny 1051]

I think multiplayer game balance is a bit of a dirty word. Weapon systems should be modeled to be within the performance characteristics expected of them-- within abstractions necessary for the engine and functional UI. If both sides have a reasonable selection of gear, mission designers should be able to sort out the kinks.

Of greater concern, and a major failing of Arma2, is BIS lack of commitment to providing config level fixes to sort out inconsistencies. Get that? CONFIG LEVEL FIXES to sort out inconsistencies.

Can you name any other strategy game of ANY relevance that did not provide game, ugh, balance fixes in patches?

-k

[-Coulum- 35]

I say that Bi should try to make weapon systems and what not as realistic as possible with absolutely no MP balance. To get balance the mission and objectives of the mission must be changed. If that's not enough, then simply make your mission so that everyone is equipped with the same weapons. I would personally find this very boring, but this is the "balance" that you ask for.

Another possibility of course would be to do what americas army does and have everyone on the team they want to be on.

I do not at all think that weapons should be nerfed or made more powerful to balance things. Change mission objectives, terrain, team ratios, loadouts, etc. etc. but don't change the actual weapons and technologies.

[batto 17]

@NkEnNy, @-Coulum-: I think you're missing the point. OP just wants good equipment and vehicles for east too. Such equipment comparable to west counterparts exist IRL but it's not present in ArmA2 hence west seems overpowered in MP. I think that no one here wants to mess with weapon/vehcile parameters to balance the game.

[zukov 483]

guys i repeat, the factions in Arma 3 seem more balanced, and the future scenario makes the MP part, more enjoyable. (to be honest warfare mode isn't in my taste)

[NoRailgunner 0]

AFAIK BIS devs said that OPFOR will have some badass stuff. Question is do mission makers and players care about military doctrines or how military works? Most casual players are just happy with (instant) action gameplay, to shoot something and leave with a highest killcount/rank. If they have to think too much about the pros & cons of weapons/vehicles/support/logistics etc they maybe move to another server or simply cry + moan about the shitty imbalance of the game and mission.... War is not a fair game where all sides have the same or similar assets. If players don't like to use their given gear/equipment/ressources in a proper way they have the choice to learn it or to leave it. Why should BIS take care that everyone is feeling treated well "balanced" with candies and sweets like in the land of fluffy bunnies and unicorns? Or is it just a request to babysit most of these players via gamey balance, restrictions and limits? :rolleyes:

[batto 17]

Blah blah ... I'm elite milsimer ... blah blah ... go back to CoD ... Why should BIS take care that everyone is feeling treated well "balanced" with candies and sweets like in the land of fluffy bunnies and unicorns?

Why should BIS listen to you?

[metalcraze 290]

Even if West had 10 slots and east had 15 player slots, if 10 players joined - it would be 8 on west vs. 2 on east. People prefer to play on the team with the better technology. It ruins countless potentially good games.

Then maybe the problem isn't with the game but with the people?

Play with the people who want to play the game, not be Speshul Squad.

I also don't understand how AK is worse than M16. RPG-7 sends any LAV or Stryker packing (and even Abrams if fired from behind). What's the problem?

Edited July 3, 2012 by metalcraze

[zukov 483]

Why should BIS take care that everyone is feeling treated well "balanced" with candies and sweets like in the land of fluffy bunnies and unicorns? Or is it just a request to babysit most of these players via gamey balance, restrictions and limits? :rolleyes:

Because all months has to pay the salaries to his employees :-)

[NoRailgunner 0]

batto why can't you quote correctly? Feeling imba butthurt again? Sorry but in general I've nothing against casual players - just something against those crybabies who can't enjoy a different kind of gameplay. Its like they preach that all games should work like the one or two they have played + liked before.... For example why should the ingame factions be equal? Why should everything have a comparable counterpart? Kinda silly to balance all of the game just for the sake of this crowd. Where is the fun and challenge/surprise? What about this nice feeling to beat a opponent with different or advanced "superior" assets? Or do you only like to play a game/mission if you know that all is well balanced and neatly arranged?

[batto 17]

batto why can't you quote correctly?

I've just summarized your post.

Sorry but in general I've nothing against casual players - just something against those crybabies who can't enjoy a different kind of gameplay. Its like they preach that all games should work like the one or two they have played + liked before....

This isn't about gameplay.

For example why should the ingame factions be equal? Why should everything have a comparable counterpart>

Because it's PvP and not every mode can have imba sides.

Kinda silly to balance all of the game just for the sake of this crowd.

No. It's silly to leave PvP imba just to make some ppl feel more milsim.

Where is the fun and challenge/surprise? What about this nice feeling to beat a opponent with different or advanced "superior" assets? Or do you only like to play a game/mission if you know that all is well balanced and neatly arranged?

Blah blah blah... You can play whatever you like. I'm more e-sport ya know :cool:

Basically you are arguing just for the sake of looking like hardocre milsimer because adding better equipment to east has nothing to do with CoD/BF3 gameplay.

Edited July 3, 2012 by batto

[Timnos 1]

I also don't understand how AK is worse than M16. RPG-7 sends any LAV or Stryker packing (and even Abrams if fired from behind).

This is true, even fighters armed with improvised incendiary weapons are capable of destroying abrams tanks.

**Explicit video removed by Moderator**

There was a incident in An-Najaf in 2004 where a insurgent fighter casually climbed atop a abrams tank during a intense battle and shot the tank commander in the head through the hatch at point blank range with a pistol. The official report can be found here -

http://www.marines.mil/news/publications/Pages/USMARINESINBATTLEAN-NAJAF.aspx

Edited July 3, 2012 by [FRL]Myke

[[frl]myke 14]

@batto & NoRailgunner

calm down and watch your language. Don't really want to pass out infractions. Just saying before it get out of hands.

:EDITH:

@Timnos

§19) Videos/Movies

No Video/movies, either posted or linked to shall contain any of the following.

Porn, real killing, mutilations, wounds, carnage, and other disgusting/explicit footage. If something offensive is being shown in cartoon form it shall be treated as if the imagery were real and not simply cartoon. This also includes team killing or anything glorifying deliberate and or anti-social behaviour on any Public or Private server.

Edited July 3, 2012 by [FRL]Myke

[Timnos 1]

Myke just for the record the crew of that particular abrams escaped unharmed...

[NoRailgunner 0]

batto you failed to read/summarized once again. If BIS would want A3 more gamey they would equalize all the things until there is no difference at all. For example every Blufor vehicle = OPFOR vehicle or something like Blue/white = Red/black. Thats a bit too far from 'authentic' and much more from 'milsim'. Imo BIS should leave it to mission makers to balance mission for players. Of course some mission will be pure 'fun mission' and others will be 'hardcore' and perhaps have some 'unfair' challenges. Its survive/adapt/win and not kill/respawn/kill (rank-up)... ;)

[giorgygr 61]

People here who desperately doesn't want MP balancing due to milSim reasons and saying stuff like: "Hey!!.. OPFOR must adapt and outsmart the opponent"..(*if not always..) those guys sadly joins BLUFOR

Anyways i m not entering any argument here (i have headache)..but i don't like hypocritical claims.

Edited July 3, 2012 by GiorgyGR

[celery 8]

Imo BIS should leave it to mission makers to balance mission for players.

And is there a better way to achieve that than implementing comparable assets (and I'm still not talking about making them unrealistic) for the main sides in the game? After all, you could still make your mission as imbalanced as you could possibly want, with none of that OFP/whatever arcade nonsense about actual technological counterparts.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Celery

[Tom1 10]

The game is already well balanced if the missions are made well. Balancing equipment and fluffing up authenticty isn't what OFP/ArmA has been about for the past 11/12 years, it has always been about realism, authenticity and making the best out of what you are given.

There are plenty of other games where equipment is all balanced with their own counter parts for the sake of fairness over realism, but you have to understand that the majority of the ofp/arma community have been playing this series because it puts authenticity and realism above standard fair balancing to create a truely unique experience and the community who will still be playing/modding arma 3 3months after release when the next big fps comes out are the people who enjoy the series for its authenticity and realism over balance.

Authenticity and realism over balance does not equal poorer gameplay, even in the PvP department. If the mission is well designed it offers an assymetrically balanced mission in which one team is 'overpowered' and technologically superior whilst the other has another advantage, i.e. surprise, great defensive position, numbers and/or mobility.

Technology is usually somewhat 'balanced' during war times as each and every side is constantly workign to outdo the other. If you get sides like USA up against China or Russia the equipment is all modern and 'balanced enough' to give mission makers the oppertunity to make 'balanced' conventional style missions. But then again war isn't fair most of the time, if not all of the time. Arma stands out because it is the one and only infantry fps that offers such a degree of authenticty and realism and allows players to experience the true brutality of conflict, or atleast the closest thing to it in video games.

Speaking of assymetrical balance, with the new 'enemy uniform' feature where the uniform determains which side the unit is identified to belong to, it would be sick to see insurgents wearing civilian clothes and hiding their weapons in their cars and the AI will not engage. If rules of engagement are set to return fire only, retreating militia who hide/ditch their weapons can blend back into civilian population if the situation permits. Would add a couple layers of awesomesauce to the game :)