Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BLSmith2112

Multiplayer Balancing - Will Arma3's MP be balanced?

Recommended Posts

You're just in denial.

Pretty hard to be in denial about something that hasn't actually happened yet. Your pessimistic speculation has yet to be proven correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as BLUFOR and OPFOR helicopters both use the same flight model, whether ARMA 2 or TOH, then they're balanced :lol:

Seriously though, I see no proof on rufor's claim simply because we won't have that proof until the community alpha. I expect that if the flight model is anything like the PhysX implementation (to paraphrase Jay Crowe, "Why put it out for public playtest if we already know that we're not using it in the release build") then I expect that whatever's in the ARMA 3 community alpha will be the flight model used in the release build of ARMA 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add my two cents, I am very concerned with this "balancing" talk as well.

Being that this is a SIM, balancing should only be done at the mission/scenario level NOT at the physics/characteristics level.

Vehicles and and weapons should act as close to real life as reasonably possible end of story.

Adjust the story and or the scenario/circumstance of the map by using creativity but for goodness sakes don't compromise physics/characteristics!

Lets face it, it's cheaper and faster to minimize and/or neglect research and implementation of hardcore simulation aspects of any game.

So many times I have read about X company deciding to make games more "accessible" to the public by softening the harsh realism.

Why not simply add it as an option/setting? answer= more time and money (I suspect)

Am I accusing BI of this? Certainly not, but I am sure the pressure is there and one way of justifying it is the term, "balancing"............................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The devs have said that "balance" is done through natural balance by simulating things as realistic as is practical. As for PvP balance, that is up to the mission maker, and will never be part of what the devs do ever!

---------- Post added at 18:46 ---------- Previous post was at 18:41 ----------

I would also think Blufor would be the under dogs because in the campaign, Iran has beaten back western and NATO forces causing NATO to use gorilla tactics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The devs have said that "balance" is done through natural balance by simulating things as realistic as is practical.

Source?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Source?

I started the original balance thread of Arma 3 and the devs replied to it. I was concerned the devs were going to balance the game artificially but they assured us the person hired for balance works with AI and that regular game balance is achieved through natural balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once a thread gets past 5 pages it really should be closed because at 51 no one is going to bother reading the first 50 pages.

Why does the game have to be balanced? why does every weapon need a counter weapon? simply put do people in iran have full 100% access to Us weapons today?

If Hawaii succeeded from the US and we decided to attack them would it be balanced?

Honestly i want BI to focus on core gameplay aspects like how the server performance is, people here are complaining about colors and what things are called. once the devs wrap up beta thats it, theres going to be a maintenance team that comes along to make sure arma 3 gets its patches until the nex DLC comes out.

Too many people hear are complaining that the game isn't realistic enough, but they also whine for balance but the fact is that real life is not fair, nor is it fun or balanced.

To many people seem to think that arma 3 is a simulator. The players that want a mil sim need to go out and buy VBS because arma 3 is not a military simulator, its not billed as one either, arma 2 was but 3 is a military sandbox.

the problem is that realisim is just that, its real life, its slow and boring. Just because you didn't join the military doesn't mean you should live it vicariously though a video game.

As tough as a pill to swallow, arma is a video game, if you want real life military go play americas army because thats about as real as its going to get for most of us gamers.

If we really wanted this game to be "realistic" then fine, I vote that everyone that dies gets a global hardware ban the second they die in game.... to promote team play...

How about a set of USB bullets that go in your ears that fire off when your hit in game?

at what point is realistic stop being fun.....

Edited by xyberviri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Once a thread gets past 5 pages it really should be closed because at 51 no one is going to bother reading the first 50 pages.

Why does the game have to be balanced? why does every weapon need a counter weapon? simply put do people in iran have full 100% access to Us weapons today?

If Hawaii succeeded from the US and we decided to attack them would it be balanced?

Honestly i want BI to focus on core gameplay aspects like how the server performance is, people here are complaining about colors and what things are called. once the devs wrap up beta thats it, theres going to be a maintenance team that comes along to make sure arma 3 gets its patches until the nex DLC comes out.

Too many people hear are complaining that the game isn't realistic enough, but they also whine for balance but the fact is that real life is not fair, nor is it fun or balanced.

To many people seem to think that arma 3 is a simulator. The players that want a mil sim need to go out and buy VBS because arma 3 is not a military simulator, its not billed as one either, arma 2 was but 3 is a military sandbox.

the problem is that realisim is just that, its real life, its slow and boring. Just because you didn't join the military doesn't mean you should live it vicariously though a video game.

As tough as a pill to swallow, arma is a video game, if you want real life military go play americas army because thats about as real as its going to get for most of us gamers.

If we really wanted this game to be "realistic" then fine, I vote that everyone that dies gets a global hardware ban the second they die in game.... to promote team play...

How about a set of USB bullets that go in your ears that fire off when your hit in game?

at what point is realistic stop being fun.....

1. VBS2 costs over 3000 dollars. And is not easy to get for some people because it is sold to NATO countries for Militery training, and you would have non of your freinds ever get it because of cost.

2. Slow and boring? Really, then why are you playing Arma? Realism is better than artificial balance any day.

3. A large majority of people do not want artificial balance ever in this game, they left other games because things were balanced and unrealistic.

4. A global ban for dieing? How would the developers get paid if all the customers were dead?

5. When things work like real life it's fun, because rather than doing them in real life and dieing or getting seriously hurt, you can do them in a controlled environment were no one is harmed.

6. Launch a kickstarter for it! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's more about the perception of fairness really. That players who are pit against each other feel like they can win with the tools they've been given.

To me in previous arma games, blufor has always had more attention to detail and had got more and generally better equipment to fight opfor. Opfor always felt like a challenge to me in most cases I've been in pvp scenarios.

In any case, I have never even played a pvp scenario done by BIS themselves (do they make them?), nor can I recall any times a public (pvp) mission that stood out positively on stock Arma since most of the time they devolve into retards crashing choppers into tanks and other lowbrow shenanigans that take me out of immersion that I like arma for so much. It was only on a closed community server that I have had fun pvp experiences since the scenarios were created specifically to make sure each side had a shot at winning. I've even had a lot of fun in asymmetric scenarios as insurgents protecting a cache with nothing but an ak and two grenades while blufor had all the stuff they wanted (tanks/cas/fancy scopes) and still lost. It's about the teamwork as well.

Mods have some great pvp potential and I was sad to see that PR:ARMA2 was rather short-lived as that was geared towards "balanced" sides in a more classic design way. I'm sure there'll be other mods that have the same goal in mind. Stock arma3 is looking good as well since fictional weapons can be made to behave in any way BIS feels like and gives more freedom to alter properties to fit the game and give player a sense of fairness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And therein lies the direction you see with Arma 3 -- this way it's not "OPFOR as low-tech insurgents vs. BLUFOR as high-tech conventional force", it's "EITHER force as high or low tech depending on how mission maker omits assets for one or the other."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To me in previous arma games, blufor has always had more attention to detail and had got more and generally better equipment to fight opfor. Opfor always felt like a challenge to me in most cases I've been in pvp scenarios.

I would have to disagree. Both sides were very well balanced you just had to know the strengths and weaknesses of both factions, especially if you're playing PVP in BE CTI Warfare.

Example: The M1A1 TUSK was a force to be reckoned with, in a T90 (opfors best tank) vs TUSK (blufors best) situation the TUSK would generally win. Shoulder fired weapons would damage the TUSK but if you didn't have a good coordinated attack and the TUSK knew your location they were very difficult to defeat. However, the TUSK was no match for a KA52 Alligator (Opfors best attack heli). In fact if you put a KA52 (opfors best heli) VS an Apache (Blufors best heli) the KA52 would win the majority of the time. The KA52 was a menace to deal with, until BLUFOR could afford to buy a fighter jet. For ruling the skies, there was no better jet then the F35. A good F35 pilot could stay airborne for an entire CTI round and dominate the skies, causing hell to all OPFOR airborne assets, that is until OPFOR could afford to buy a mando controlled Tunguska (OPFORS best ground to air vehicle). A good tunguska operator could easily take out any aircraft that came within range, thus trumping BLUFORs wildcard in the air game. However, the Tunguska has weak armor, so a set of sneaky players (or any BLUFOR armed vehicle) with AT capabilities could easily take out OPFORS greatest threat against its best air asset, bringing the whole thing full circle.

Arma 2 was VERY well balanced, you just had to know the strengths and weaknesses of every single vehicle. At its peak one of Arma 2's best (& most populated) PUBLIC servers was one I routinely played on and acted as admin. Before every round, I always had to evenly spread out the good players among both teams. Failure to evenly sort out the players would always result in a win for that team, regardless if they were on OPFOR or BLUFOR, the experienced players would just know how to counter a threat.

So in short, it wasn't that the game was unbalanced...it's just that the game is so complex that you probably didn't know as much as you thought (no offense intended).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At its peak one of Arma 2's best (& most populated) PUBLIC servers was one I routinely played on and acted as admin. Before every round, I always had to evenly spread out the good players among both teams. Failure to evenly sort out the players would always result in a win for that team, regardless if they were on OPFOR or BLUFOR, the experienced players would just know how to counter a threat.
I would not be surprised if Arma 3's "balance" was designed with the assumption that the average server admin would not be on your level. ;) As much as that is a credit to you...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would have to disagree. Both sides were very well balanced you just had to know the strengths and weaknesses of both factions, especially if you're playing PVP in BE CTI Warfare.

Example: The M1A1 TUSK was a force to be reckoned with, in a T90 (opfors best tank) vs TUSK (blufors best) situation the TUSK would generally win. Shoulder fired weapons would damage the TUSK but if you didn't have a good coordinated attack and the TUSK knew your location they were very difficult to defeat. However, the TUSK was no match for a KA52 Alligator (Opfors best attack heli). In fact if you put a KA52 (opfors best heli) VS an Apache (Blufors best heli) the KA52 would win the majority of the time. The KA52 was a menace to deal with, until BLUFOR could afford to buy a fighter jet. For ruling the skies, there was no better jet then the F35. A good F35 pilot could stay airborne for an entire CTI round and dominate the skies, causing hell to all OPFOR airborne assets, that is until OPFOR could afford to buy a mando controlled Tunguska (OPFORS best ground to air vehicle). A good tunguska operator could easily take out any aircraft that came within range, thus trumping BLUFORs wildcard in the air game. However, the Tunguska has weak armor, so a set of sneaky players (or any BLUFOR armed vehicle) with AT capabilities could easily take out OPFORS greatest threat against its best air asset, bringing the whole thing full circle.

Arma 2 was VERY well balanced, you just had to know the strengths and weaknesses of every single vehicle. At its peak one of Arma 2's best (& most populated) PUBLIC servers was one I routinely played on and acted as admin. Before every round, I always had to evenly spread out the good players among both teams. Failure to evenly sort out the players would always result in a win for that team, regardless if they were on OPFOR or BLUFOR, the experienced players would just know how to counter a threat.

So in short, it wasn't that the game was unbalanced...it's just that the game is so complex that you probably didn't know as much as you thought (no offense intended).

You are correct, a lot comes down to teamwork and proper usage of tools. But once AO was released new mechanics were introduced the A2 M1a2 received TI vision, while the T90 (or any of the opfor vehicles) never did. Thermal imaging makes scanning for targets super easy. This makes it harder it harder for the opfor to destroy the tank by conventional means (rpg/satchel/AT). I don't know if the t90 ever had TI, and I don't particularly care if it did or not, but on a whole it does give an impression of unfairness in a pvp game.

There's lots of options available to level the playing field as it were, but none that were easy to attain for the casual player or admin. I believe the OP mostly wants a fair base game to start off from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its already not balanced from what i seen, one sides chopper has AA missiles while the other side's chopper doesn't

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mission balancing will come with proper mission design. It is not the job of developers to tweak RL characteristics of a weapon/vehicle/etc especially in a mil-sim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
its already not balanced from what i seen, one sides chopper has AA missiles while the other side's chopper doesn't

But one side's attack helicopter can also transport a squad of soldiers. Balancing doesn't necessarily mean "All must be exactly the same", especially as that's not really how reality works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
its already not balanced from what i seen, one sides chopper has AA missiles while the other side's chopper doesn't

Not balanced? Explain this then:

- guns of both sides mirror each other, 6.5 mm caseless, same recoil

- MX SW has semi-auto firing mode disabled and also can accept 100 bullet mags while other MXs can't.

- launchers of both sides mirror each other 1:1

- cars of both sides mirror each other - weapons on both are exactly the same

- APCs mirror each other. Patria has 3 hatches, but commander's is welded shut because Marid has only 2 seats for crew

- squad compositions and loadouts mirror each other

And of course the thing of the past but nonetheless to note:

BIS tried to mirror sniper rifles but people whined too much and so BIS had to take a step back and make them at least somewhat represent their real counterparts... and yet still 50 cal sniper rifles have less recoil than an assault rifle.

But one side's attack helicopter can also transport a squad of soldiers.

So can Ghosthawk. Which is armed too. I guess choppers show the most difference nonetheless because their mirroring is not as important in a deathmatch game.

Edited by metalcraze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of whining for a balance of everything why don't you utilize the assets available in a smart way. If the enemy has superior armor then ambush them. If the enemy outnumbers you then silently take them out. Adapt your tactics to complete the mission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So can Ghosthawk. Which is armed too. I guess choppers show the most difference nonetheless because their mirroring is not as important in a deathmatch game.
Wrong comparison, it's "two door gunners" vs. "chaingun, AGMs and rockets".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mission balancing will come with proper mission design. It is not the job of developers to tweak RL characteristics of a weapon/vehicle/etc especially in a mil-sim.

We have a winner. Arma is not a game where two factions spawn on opposite sides of the map with equal means at their disposal and duke it out, balancing of every weapon and vehicle is not required, in fact the imbalance and differences between factions is what makes the game fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's say you want to make a respawn-enabled tank-only pvp mission in Arma 2. How would you make it balanced?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's say you want to make a respawn-enabled tank-only pvp mission in Arma 2. How would you make it balanced?

Depends on the objective.

Using the terrain or by giving the team with the so called better tanks a higher number of players on their team. That's assuming players are interested in working together and playing it smart, however I'm told assumptions are the mother of all fuck ups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We have a winner. Arma is not a game where two factions spawn on opposite sides of the map with equal means at their disposal and duke it out, balancing of every weapon and vehicle is not required, in fact the imbalance and differences between factions is what makes the game fun.

Agreed. That's the point I was trying to convey in my previous post. Balance can mean more than "Given an Equal Number of Men and Armaments, fighting with equal skill, there is no winner." Capabilities and equipment can be balanced by more than being identical with side specific skin changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×