Multiplayer Balancing - Will Arma3's MP be balanced?

[chortles 263]

If A3 is about options - why so much fuss about 'balanced assets' if the mission maker is to cheer/blame for his mission design? Or are some mission designers + players getting lazy and just want to place XX vs XX units on the map/island without thinking about how stuff works?? Imo A3 should have balanced and unbalanced assets - no need to limit this game to some people who only want to have or play with equal/similar stuff. Let the mission makers do their job and let them be creative!

Then in return, let ARMA 3 serve the creative designers AND the lazy designers alike. :p

[celery 8]

If A3 is about options - why so much fuss about 'balanced assets' if the mission maker is to cheer/blame for his mission design? Or are some mission designers + players getting lazy and just want to place XX vs XX units on the map/island without thinking about how stuff works?? Imo A3 should have balanced and unbalanced assets - no need to limit this game to some people who only want to have or play with equal/similar stuff. Let the mission makers do their job and let them be creative!

How many missions have you made and released to know what kind of process it is to make a balanced pvp mission with imbalanced assets? Do you have hands-on experience with the "solutions" with which you have saturated this thread to know what is lazy or bad mission design and what is an inevitable outcome of the game's distribution of assets?

[Minoza 11]

Isn't it balanced if you have two rounds with team swapping and then comparing scores? ;)

[NoRailgunner 0]

2 Celery: What do you know about military and their "fair" and "balanced" assets + R&D's? Or is it just you who want to bring CS/BF like maps/gameplay into Armaverse?? Again:

Again - name the A3 assets which could be balanced and name those which should stay somewhat typical for every faction/side!! What do you think what kind of "assets"/technology Blufor + OPFOR should have by 2035?? (What kind of strategies they will use to attack/defend/secure...?)

Is it still so hard and difficult to write down some clear suggestions/examples of "balanced assets" for an authentic + awesome A3? Or is it better to stay in the nebulous circle of "balanced assets" ?? Edited August 6, 2012 by NoRailgunner
2 Celery added :)

[batto 17]

Or is it just you who want to bring CS/BF like maps/gameplay into Armaverse??

Me too. And there's nothing you can do about it. Hell, I'll learn modding just for sake of pissing you off. Seriously. I'll try to do as much as I can to bring CS, BF and CoD kiddies to those potential fun ArmA mods (imagine how many of them will contribute to this forum, yay!). The more you'll cry about it, more happy I will be.

Is it still so hard and difficult to write down some clear suggestions/examples of "balanced assets" for an authentic + awesome A3? Or is it better to stay in the nebulous circle of "balanced assets" ??

Thermal optics and mobile AT launchers come to my mind.

Sorry for replying to post not dedicated to me.

[NoRailgunner 0]

batto - looking forward to be pissed off by your own addon/mods!! :) As for your examples - thermal/portable launchers are already ingame. Or do you mean that only certain Blufor/OPFOR AT launchers should have the same weight, same max effective weapon range, same armour penetration and the same thermal viewing range limits? Something veryvery simple like Blufor light AT = OPFOR light AT and Blufor heavy AT = OPFOR heavy AT....

[pathetic_berserker 4]

2 Celery: What do you know about military and their "fair" and "balanced" assets + R&D's? Or is it just you who want to bring CS/BF like maps/gameplay into Armaverse??

Well if by 'fair' and 'balanced' you mean tit for tit. We know thats quite probable. Military development usually works on the philosophy of countering or equaling the opponent. Those areas where Western arms seem further advanced ie, robotics and unmanned vehicles and smarter stuff that goes bang, tend to be counter to the idea of creating tension and having fun in game so would probably be avoided in the type of mission wich hasn't gone all tacticool and spazed out on asymetrical coop leetism. ie whats so wrong with folks wanting some gladitorial TvT on your precious A3.

Again: Is it still so hard and difficult to write down some clear suggestions/examples of "balanced assets" for an authentic + awesome A3? Or is it better to stay in the nebulous circle of "balanced assets" ??

I'll agree there and after raising this point my self (post #345) I went back and took a look at the confirmed features thread and realised I wasn't even sure what side BIS had intendend the assets for! Also clearly a lack of counter assets for the vehicles listed.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Woah, is this thread still going?

Through the prism of ArmA II: remove bullshit assets like the Tunguska, replace it with something comparable M6 Linebacker; F35 / A-10 vs Su-34 / Su-25 LULWUT? If people really wanted to have the latest NATO toys, then Su-34 should've been replaced with Su-27 superiority fighter and Su-25 -> Su-30 for multi-role bomber, add some decent scopes for OPFOR and voila.

And I don't think people would be objecting to the above. Nobody wants to mirror one side's technology, just use the appropriate unit classes (Tunguska vs. HMV Avenger in vanilla ArmA II back in 2009 was a major clusterfvck) for fuck's sake!

End of rine.

[On_Sabbatical 11]

They really have a lot of possibilities with ArmA 3 knowing the contest and the era in which is t's taking place ! unless they have some licensing problems .

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

They really have a lot of possibilities with ArmA 3 knowing the contest and the era in which is t's taking place ! unless they have some licensing problems .

KA-MI-69 HAMOK Helicopters suffer of no such problem. ;)

P.S. Although Israel might send in the Mossad to *patch* the game and remove Merkava from Iran's hands. ;)

[chortles 263]

Woah, is this thread still going?

It's the (terrible) gift that keeps on giving, thanks to zingers like this:

Or is it just you who want to bring CS/BF like maps/gameplay into Armaverse??

Does he know that we can already do this in ARMA 2 and even moreso (Celery, please pass my compliments to whoever implemented tactical pace*) in ARMA 3?

Seriously though Iroquois, I think what a bunch of people were trying to say is that if there's a real-world counterpart in roles and similar capabilities, then both BLUFOR and OPFOR (should) get one, even if their stats aren't identical... but close enough.

For example, if there's a real-world MBT with TI whose overall capabilities are similar to those of the BLUFOR MBT, then throw it in on the OPFOR side and make up some story about why Iran has them in 2035... oh wait, that sounds like the Merkava! :p (Since the Mark IIB variant, but then BI can just state that the Iranian OPFOR has Mark IIB or later variants.) Ditto for the Mk 20 (F2000) as a counterpart to the CTAR-21 as 5.56 x 45 mm bullpup rifles with similar barrel lengths, which both support on-the-fly swapping of the optics (collimator, 4x/reflex, NV and "sniper"), flash suppressors and sound suppressors, plus mounting weaponlights or aiming lasers. (Of course, how the MX 6.5 mm will perform in-game is unknown.)

This isn't exactly rocket science people! :eek:

* If it was you, high five to you Celery.

Me too. And there's nothing you can do about it. Hell, I'll learn modding just for sake of pissing you off. Seriously. I'll try to do as much as I can to bring CS, BF and CoD kiddies to those potential fun ArmA mods (imagine how many of them will contribute to this forum, yay!).

I wish to be your Internet friend, may I PM you about the subject? (Or alternately, PM with what you have in mind for "those potential fun ArmA mods" along "CS, BF and CoD kiddies" lines)

The more you'll cry about it, more happy I will be.

Insufficient, we need MORE reactionaries' tears.

[VampyricTyrant 10]

If combat turns out fair, you did it wrong.

Balance is something for boardgames and competition, E-Sport type titles. This is a milsim. Combat is unfair. Deal with it. Or as they teach the people in the military: Assess, Adapt, Overcome.

yeah comeptition, thats whay we need the game to get E-Sport.

the basic problem with people is that they feel this way:

[Kristian 47]

Why is this thread still here? D:

This is pretty much a worthless discussion, ArmA cannot ever be balanced, its up to those who make missions. Even if every side in the game had exactly same equipment, with

same stats, the mission maker can make the Blue side have 100 tanks and red 10 tanks, and again, the mission is out of balance. Besides, balance is boring, being on the red side

in my example would be exiting, having to use some tactics to win the battle, and after the smoke settles, see who is alive, where they are, or if anyone is alive at all.

But, balance is in ArmA in its own way, once again, up to the mission editor.

PvP missions can have just infantry, everyone with same weapon, in a symmetric map, and it'd be just as balanced as any other game (lol, how about some Team Fortress?)

My explanation here is very unclear and confusing, but I hope that those who bothered to read it really understood what I meant.

[Cookie114 1]

It would be nice to see some balance..

[celery 8]

This is pretty much a worthless discussion, ArmA cannot ever be balanced, its up to those who make missions. Even if every side in the game had exactly same equipment, with same stats, the mission maker can make the Blue side have 100 tanks and red 10 tanks, and again, the mission is out of balance.

Let me get this straight.

What you don't want:

10 tanks vs. 10 tanks = balanced

100 tanks vs. 10 tanks = imbalanced

What you want:

10 tanks vs. 10 tanks = imbalanced

100 tanks vs. 10 tanks = imbalanced

Did I get it right? Or was your point that even when given a foolproof solution, those incompetent pvp mission makers would still derp out and put 100 tanks against 10 when trying to make a balanced mission?

PvP missions can have just infantry, everyone with same weapon, in a symmetric map, and it'd be just as balanced as any other game (lol, how about some Team Fortress?)

What do you think most pvp missions in the Arma series already are, thanks to the current state of things? Why do you suggest measures that are among the reasons why people have been asking for a balanced array of assets in the first place?

Edited August 9, 2012 by Celery

[pathetic_berserker 4]

But, balance is in ArmA in its own way, once again, up to the mission editor.

PvP missions can have just infantry, everyone with same weapon, in a symmetric map, and it'd be just as balanced as any other game (lol, how about some Team Fortress?).

Interesting how you empower the mission maker then force him/her to use only infantry to achieve balance.

My explanation here is very unclear and confusing, but I hope that those who bothered to read it really understood what I meant.

Got it, mission makers are to blame and shouldn't need to request a balanced range of assets to use in either a symetrical or asymetrical scenario.

[chortles 263]

Berserker, this thread feels like we and Celery are trapped all alone (okay maybe Cookie114's with us) in a barn in Chernarus...

EDIT: Iroquois can be in the barn with us. :)

Edited August 9, 2012 by Chortles

[pathetic_berserker 4]

Yeah and walkers EVERYWHERE.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Why is this thread still here? D:

This is pretty much a worthless discussion, ArmA cannot ever be balanced, its up to those who make missions. Even if every side in the game had exactly same equipment

Dolan pls.

Well, those who make missions don't have access to certain assets, because they are... Not in the game in the first place! Example: If Opfor has Tunguska, Blufor has HMV Avenger; if you downgrade Tunguska, Opfor has only a Shilka. Catch-22.

Second point: Nobody is advocating mirrored equipment, but rather same class of equipment: why should Su-25 go against an A-10? You have a medium dual-seal bomber Su-34 facing an AV-8B S/VTOL multi-role attack jet and fully VTOL stealth multi-purpose fighter - the F-35. Both are single-seat with open 360 canopy/cockpit. WTF?

Regards,

Edited August 9, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin

[NoRailgunner 0]

Well some things simply don't have and don't need a equal/balanced counterpart in realworld and in a game! If A3 is about authentic combat/war all factions and sides could have their own strategy/doctrine = their very own stuff + some unique/typical assets. Seems that the problem is that some people don't like or can't get their head around to tryout something new/different. Imo a good thing would be if BIS implements different selectable modes that do switch the gameplay at A3 start eg "balanced" - "default" - "simulation". Or is this idea too pragmatic and useful? Of course this would be a little bit more pain for BIS devs (and later for community projects). The gain is that people can select from the start of A3 how they want to play and don't have to like or be forced to like certain things. Hmm.... any other ideas/suggestions to solve the issue between different tastes/likes/styles ?? :)

[chortles 263]

... problem is dude, what we've seen of the ARMA 3 story implies that OPFOR *is* the "equal/balanced counterpart" to BLUFOR... so ARMA 3 is already a long, long way from authentic. ;) Your idea of "selectable modes" was neither pragmatic nor useful, since we're talking about the base content that mission makers would have to work with. :D

Therefore, I'll provide my "other ideas/suggestions": instead of "letting" mission makers create balance, make it the other way around... let BI make the opposing BLUFOR and OPFOR rosters as close to parity/"balance" as possible, and then it's up to the mission makers to create imbalance. ;)

Iroquois Pliskin gets it right -- "Nobody is advocating mirrored equipment, but rather same class of equipment".

Edited August 9, 2012 by Chortles

[Madeon 6]

Hmm.... any other ideas/suggestions to solve the issue between different tastes/likes/styles ?? :)

I have a suggestion. Instead of wasting your time on constant nit-picking, fault finding and criticism why don't you invest your time in something constructive, like developing mods.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Sorry, I just thought that those those "dumb kindergarten comparison vs possible authentic ingame assets" don't lead to a solution that makes most players happy. Really sorry to have made a post with an idea/suggestion that could ease or cool down the "casual dude's vs sim fans" fight.

[dmarkwick 261]

Sorry, I just thought that those those "dumb kindergarten comparison vs possible authentic ingame assets" don't lead to a solution that makes most players happy. Really sorry to have made a post with an idea/suggestion that could ease or cool down the "casual dude's vs sim fans" fight.

Well, I think the idea that most makes sense, and that for some reason is not taking root, is that equipments on either side have an *approximate* analog, not a precise balanced counterpart, just an approximate, and from there the mission whether official or user-made can either use or not use them. So no game is ruined, but the possibility of an equal (within reason) force versus force makes sense. So to say that balancing is unneccasary is negating the possibility that some equipments are there JUST for balance, but certainly don't need to be included in any mission. This would include equipments that the campaign would not ever use, simply for the reasons you laid out.

So for PvP/TvT etc, I would expect that equipments on one side that have thermal imaging for example, is reflected on the other side, even if the stats don't exactly match up, there is at least something to enable a flat force vs force scenario. Which is a perfectly valid game mode IMO.

[chortles 263]

I was also advocating the approximate analogue idea... what I can't get is why NoRailgunner and every "oh the mission maker will make balance" poster doesn't seem to get that this thread all along was about what would be included among the unit/vehicle lists in ARMA 3's Editor; at this point it really feels like the two sides talking past each other, not to each other.