Multiplayer Balancing - Will Arma3's MP be balanced?

[chortles 263]

I believe that this thread was SUPPOSED to be about what units/vehicles/equipment would be in the Editor for the mission maker to choose from in the first place (to place onto the island) WITHOUT addons...

[dmarkwick 261]

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

Exactly :) but the possibility of balanced gameplay should be possible. That is, roughly balanced assets, not precisely balanced assets. As you hinted at above, a possibility of balanced gameplay does not mean that the balanced assets will jump out of the editor and into your mission :)

[chortles 263]

Exactly :) but the possibility of balanced gameplay should be possible. That is, roughly balanced assets, not precisely balanced assets. As you hinted at above, a possibility of balanced gameplay does not mean that the balanced assets will jump out of the editor and into your mission :)

I'd add to this with three qualifiers: The possibility of 'balanced' gameplay:

#1: Without any addons required, only using "vanilla ARMA 3" (just like how ARMA 2: Free is limited).

#2: Without the mission maker having to be creative.

#3: Without the players of a faction having to be so much more tactically proficient (by a certain amount) than players of an opposing faction in order to stand a chance.

Example: Don't throw a T-72 against a M1A2, throw a Merkava against a M1A2! :D

EDIT: I just saw a screenshot of an ARMA 3 Iranian marksman from earlier this month, using an EBR with the "ARCO" optic from the E3 2011 version of ARMA 3... no idea what that means for "ARMA 3 game balance," but here it is.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Chortles
Found the ARMA 3 screenshot of an Iranian with an EBR

[Timnos 1]

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

Put it this way, most players on both opposing teams will want to use weapons that they consider are the best for gaining an advantage in combat. Now if for arguments sake BLUFOR's' arsenal is ridiculously superior to OPFOR's arsenal, then most people will play as BLUFOR, but for MP to thrive we also need lot's of people to play as OPFOR.

For the people who disfavour the idea of weapons balancing because they prefer to play as the "underdog", the logical solution is to not select the best weapons available to your force.

[liquidpinky 11]

Put it this way, most players on both opposing teams will want to use weapons that they consider are the best for gaining an advantage in combat. Now if for arguments sake BLUFOR's' arsenal is ridiculously superior to OPFOR's arsenal, then most people will play as BLUFOR, but for MP to thrive we also need lot's of people to play as OPFOR.

For the people who disfavour the idea of weapons balancing because they prefer to play as the "underdog", the logical solution is to not select the best weapons available to your force.

Which I already do, I hope A3 has an Enfield available. ;)

[celery 8]

Which I already do, I hope A3 has an Enfield available. ;)

The Lee-Enfield is accurate, very powerful and has a reasonably flat trajectory over distance, justifiably making it the most feared rifle that Takistan has. If you want an actually inferior weapon, try Saiga-12K with slugs.

[metalcraze 290]

Lee Enfield? Meh.

You should bring back Kozlice.

[NoRailgunner 0]

So at the end of the day it doesn't matter if the game is balanced or not - as long as the mission makers are able to create balanced or/and unbalanced missions. :)

[Timnos 1]

Something relevant to this discussion that really deserves careful consideration is Arma3's introduction of remotely controlled weapons systems and automated defense systems. This new equipment will allow your opponent to put direct fire on you whilst they enjoy virtual impunity.

[liquidpinky 11]

My only concern is, what will be in place to counteract Thermal, other than sitting in a dead tank for half an hour waiting for some M1A1 with a Thermal overreliant noob gunner coming into firing line.

And what options are available for infantry, although I suspect the OPFOR have some form of cooling in thier suit going by appearance.

@Celery: Are you going to continue picking all my posts to peices now that I have dragged your Troll ass out from under the bridge using one of it's own posts? :P

[x3kj 1247]

Something relevant to this discussion that really deserves careful consideration is Arma3's introduction of remotely controlled weapons systems and automated defense systems.

I don't think there will be alot of remote guided weaponsystems that you can just "throw at the enemy" in normal MP non-coop missions. Because of that reason. Sure, the controller has an advantage over Mr. Footslogger. But so does a tank-commander. If somebody controls the weapon he is also completely vulnerable to attack if there is no one there to protect him -> additional forces required to secure the controllers location as well.

In terms of multiplayer it doesn't count to kill the player controlling the vehicle that much anyway. You would get money for the shot down drone like any other vehicle. Or a vehicle killpoint or whatever score system you have (i sense a "oh noez, killcount/score!" rage coming in). Automated defences can be spotted from distance and destroyed like anything else.

Last but not least - both sides can have them. I don't see a balance issue there.

My only concern is, what will be in place to counteract Thermal

That is only an issue between vehicles and infantry, since both sides will surely have it. I don't see a reason against smaller hand-held devices for infantry in this setting. AT guided weapons surely have thermal sights too.

It's true that thermal gives you a huge advantage over anything without it. Day and Night. But oh-well, you wanted something realistic =P I have the feeling that it is a bit too effective though, the landscape background is too "cool" at day imo. That way every moving/living thing just pops right into your eye and says "shoot me". At daytime it should be harder to make out smaller targets by making the environment hotter (especially with that climate)- thats the biggest problem with thermal vision atm imo.

I also hope that they make the vehicle textures for FLIR a bit better this time. It doesn't seem right that a tank or car is completely hot the same all around, making it so much easier to spot.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Fennek

[chortles 263]

So at the end of the day it doesn't matter if the game is balanced or not - as long as the mission makers are able to create balanced or/and unbalanced missions. :)

I think you missed the point again... that mission makers can ONLY create balanced or/and unbalanced missions IF "the game" is balanced TO BEGIN WITH!

[Cpl Hunter 10]

I'm sure the game will have the usual realistic guns stats. but when you talk about balancing do you mean the both sides have similar equipment capabilities. because there is always going to be a difference in what the countries have and what is provided in game. i.e no logistical support but infantry some CAS and Artillery. but it's daft to give both side AH 64's just to balance the sides though the new opfor heli and American Comanche that'll never see combat action are a strange choice.

[chortles 263]

"Similar equipment capabilities" is generally what's meant by balance, not IDENTICAL, which is probably why you've got the Comanche on the BLUFOR side and the new helicopter on the OPFOR side, instead of trying to work out some sort of "asymmetrical balance"...

[pathetic_berserker 4]

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...

+many. OGN ran a ladder for a few years when there were multiple clans under its baner and if I remember correctly there were even some OGN v OCB battles back in the day. Crap tins of fun.

And I hope to see something like it again.

[NoRailgunner 0]

@Chortles - the AH-64 Apache is not similar to the Mi-24 Hind aswell as the RAH-66 Comanche is not similar to the Mi-48 "Hamok" just get some facts/infos about their deployment/usage. Don't compare only the numbers of guns/missiles/.... If players and BIS want a authentic (or somewhat realistic) A3 mostly all will have fun with some different (/unique) assets on BLUFOR/OPFOR/(INDFOR?) side. Of course its still the mission maker who selects the combat area, time, gear/equipment, support etc for each side. You can't blame the whole game just because of poor mission design of some missions.

[chortles 263]

the RAH-66 Comanche is not similar to the Mi-48 "Hamok"

You can't prove this, because so far as anyone knows the Mi-48 is fictional! Well done BI, you've given yourselves maximum leeway on its stats and those of the Armaversum's production version of the Comanche!

[NoRailgunner 0]

I didn't say:

"Similar equipment capabilities" is generally what's meant by balance, not IDENTICAL, which is probably why you've got the Comanche on the BLUFOR side and the new helicopter on the OPFOR side, instead of trying to work out some sort of "asymmetrical balance"...

Maybe just have a look at the pictures of those helicopters before making an assumption?

[liquidpinky 11]

I didn't say: Maybe just have a look at the pictures of those helicopters before making an assumption?

Indeed, can't see the Commanche carrying many passengers.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

Maybe we should move this discuson to what we would like to see as balanced counterparts.

ie. The Mi-48 could be oposed by a next gen, armed to the teeth blackhawk, maybe drawing 'inspiration' from the stealth version they used to get Bin Laden.....etc

The only issue I see is that BIS would have to throw in some extra resources to produce assets it's probably not going to use in its main story/campaign to ensure that counterparts are available to mission makers. Depends on how much value they see in providing that kind of support for PvP battles.

[chortles 263]

The only issue I see is that BIS would have to throw in some extra resources to produce assets it's probably not going to use in its main story/campaign to ensure that counterparts are available to mission makers. Depends on how much value they see in providing that kind of support for PvP battles.

And therein lies the biggest problem, doesn't it?

[Smurf 12]

Make BLUFOR blue. Then copy'n'past'em mirrored and coloured as red; that should be called REDFOR. Done, balanced.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

And there in lies the biggest problem, doesn't it?

Yep, and even if it appears to be just a handfull of vehicles and a few weapon attachments to fix the problem, the amount of work that goes into a single vehicle can be huge.

I think that the important thing here is that there is at least enough balanced, countered equipment out of the box to allow for PvP to establish itself on day one. This shouldn't be left up to the community to establish/fix.

---------- Post added at 09:28 ---------- Previous post was at 09:26 ----------

Make BLUFOR blue. Then copy'n'past'em mirrored and coloured as red; that should be called REDFOR. Done, balanced.

Quick and dirty fix, but emersion is still applicable in PvP battles.

[chortles 263]

I think that the important thing here is that there is at least enough balanced, countered equipment out of the box to allow for PvP to establish itself on day one. This shouldn't be left up to the community to establish/fix.

Shouldn't be, but "unfortunately" for us who want BI to "have to" get it right out of the box and give more attention to competitive TvT, they've got a community already waiting to cushion them. ;)

(Mind you, I'm an occasional Star Trek Online player where I'm very, VERY used to devs "abandoning duty to players and essentially having the players do some of the work for them"... BI has been far better than Cryptic in this respect.)

[-=Grunt=- 10]

How about something like... "Mi-48B" which doesn't have troop transport capabilities and is only an attack/CAS chopper.